Change Management for School Leaders: Strategies for Implementing Change in School Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Change frequently occurs in education, creating an environment where school leaders need to be skilled in the art of change management. To many, such as Crum and Sherman (2008), "Change is . . . an innate component of education . . . and something that principals must contend with as they work with their staff" (p. 575). Alberta Education (2020) outlined criteria required for visionary and instructional leadership, including "enabling positive change and fostering commitment to continuous improvement" (p. 3) with the goal of "[ensuring] every student has access to quality teaching and optimum learning experiences" (p. 4). O'Donnell and White (2005) outlined that the primary responsibility for school leaders "[was] to facilitate effective teaching and learning with the overall mission of enhancing student achievement" (p.56). O'Donnell and White (2005) elaborated students often achieved higher grades and more academic success when the principal delivered instructional leadership. Research demonstrates that school leaders that consider the impact of a change and the reason behind the change while encouraging input from stakeholders and thinking about the well-being of stakeholders most impacted by change seem to establish a more impactful change initiative. Consequently, the process and methodology of change directly impact the well-being of both staff and students in the system. When starting the change process, school leaders, skilled in the art of change management, ask questions such as, "Why is the change necessary; How much change needs to occur; Where should the change occur; [and] Who will participate in the change process" (Frontier & Rickabaugh, 2015, p. 1). The models of change examined in this capstone study include DuFour and DuFour's (2006) Professional Learning Communities at Work, Fullan's (2006) Change Theory, Kotter's (1995) Eight-Step Change Model, Baird and Clark's (2018) Look-Ahead Professional Development Model, and Shannon and Bylsma's (2007) Nine Characteristics of High Performing Schools. Each change model provides a framework that school leaders can use in various settings to initiate change in a more organized, thoughtful, and deliberate manner. An extensive literature review outlines promising models of change and practices when implementing institutional change. To answer questions concerning which change model to choose when implementing change and how to measure its impact, Chapter 2 outlines five different change models and provides information about how leaders measure change to determine its effects. Chapter 3 includes the implications of this capstone study and three recommendations concerning how Principals and senior education administration can approach change in a meaningful, long-lasting manner, with the goals of trust, developing leadership capacity, and creating sustainable change.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".