About the Author: Dr. Armstrong is professor emeritus of Arizona State University and research consultant for NCA Commission on Schools, Tempe, Arizona.

Halsali, R., Carter, K., Curley, M. and Perry, K. (1998). School improvement: The case for supported teacher research. Research Papers in Education Policy and Practice, 13(2), 161-182.

How many times in my professional life have I encouraged public school teachers to do research and pleaded for both internal and external support for such in-school studies? To my knowledge, the notion has not yet caught on anywhere in our region or country, but there are apparently some people in the United Kingdom who see teacher research as a key ingredient in school improvement. An article in Research Papers in Education Policy and Practice looks deeply into teacher involvement in school effectiveness and improvement research. A critical problem in using external research results is that of teacher perceptions and accessibility of improvement research findings. Teachers often have no idea how to interpret or use such research results in their own local situations. Thus teacher research, particularly in collaboration with external partners, might increase understanding and open avenues of activity as teachers replicate more general research in their own classrooms. The investigation on which this report is based involved two case studies. Several lessons were learned. For one, teacher ownership in the improvement process was extraordinarily enhanced by direct involvement in a research process. Another lesson was that to maximize the effectiveness of in-house research, it needs to be the norm within the school, rather than an occasional foray. Also, long-range research as well as short-term studies must be supported. There is much more of value in this authentic and pithy paper. Anyone interested in initiating a long-range research program within a school should go to the nearest university library and get a copy of this article.

Timperly, H. S. and Robinson, V. M. J. (1998). Collegiality in schools: Its nature and implications for problem solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34 (supplemental), 608-629.

A basic ingredient of our improvement process is shared decision-making in the schools. We have encouraged faculty leadership (steering committee) of the improvement process and joint faculty planning of improvement interventions (goal committees). Underlying our efforts to diversify decision processes and create faculty ownership of the entire improvement process has been the firm belief that shared decisions are better than unilateral decisions, that consensus solutions have both extrinsic and intrinsic advantages over centralized decisions. Is this really true? In a recent study in New Zealand two University of Auckland researchers, Helen Timperly and Viviane Robinson, questioned this assumption. The research report begins with a theoretical discussion of the nature of problem solving and current conceptions of collegiality. This portion is followed by a case study that illustrates the failures of the collegial process when critical conceptual ingredients of the process are not met. Finally, these critical ingredients are discussed. Does this all sound too sophisticated? Let me assure you, the perspectives of these two investigators are as down-to-earth as green grass. Let me try to very briefly summarize the critical points.

1. Problem-solving inhibitors include:
• Inadequate formulation of the problem; disagreement among the problem solvers on the correct formulation of the problem; what are the constraints?
• Inherent conflicts between the various constraints that the problem solvers seek to satisfy.
• Skills the solution may demand and expertise in causal reasoning that the problem solvers do not possess.
2. Problem solutions may be adequate if:
• They are effective in optimally meeting the constraints of the well-formulated problem.
• The solution is sufficiently coherent to solve most or all of the conflicts within the formulated problem.
• The solution contains traits of "improvability," flexibility that allows for detection and elimination of errors, for adjustments to bring the need and solution closer together, for evaluation proced-ures and feedback.
3. The forms of collegiality most likely to be associated with high-quality problem solving are:
• Those that firmly hold a commitment to seek valid information through openness.
• Those that sincerely respect intellectual diversity.
• Those that constantly check assumptions.

In short, shared decision-making/problem-solving is as dependent on constant reference to first principles and thorough processing as any other form of decision-making would be. Simply having a group come to a consensus does not assure adequate or effective solutions to problems.

Reavis, C. A. (1998). Are you having trouble with recurring school-improvement problems? Take this test. American Secondary Education, 27(l), 27-35.

Editor's Note: Reavis treats concepts developed in three primary sources in this article. The sources include:

• Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
• Fullan, M. (1991) The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Sergiovanni, T. (1990). Value added leadership. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

Most schools entering into our endorsement process do quite well, generally completing an improvement cycle with meaningful gains in student achievement. However, in even the best of situations, problems do arise--problems that range from the status of mere aggravations all the way to progress-blocking obstacles that seem to halt the school in its tracks. What are some of the more common impediments that appear in the process of trying to develop plans for the school's improvement? Charles A. Reavis of Texas Tech University, Lubbock, has identified some answers, based on leadership activities, from the works of Burns, Fullan, and Sergiovanni. In his article Reavis begins by exhibiting nine statements about leadership behavior, to which the respondent must answer 1 -strongly disagree to 4-strongly agree. This is followed by a list of 14 school improvement problems, each of which the respondent is to check if it has been a recurring problem in the school improvement process Each of these 14 problems is referred to one of the leadership questions. For example, "Low teacher morale" in the second list is referred to "A leader must exercise control over those in his/her organization." (The correct answer to this statement, by the way, is "strongly disagree" or "disagree."). As another example, "Try as you will, your school is not goal-driven" is referred to "Good leaders realize that goals are always surrounded by a thick, sticky coating of ambiguity" (the correct answer is "agree" or "strongly agree"). Any school that is experiencing unexplainable difficulties in initiating an improvement process would do well to obtain a copy of this article and use it as a guide to identify and solve the problems.

Miles, K. H. and Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Rethinking the allocation of teaching resources: Some lessons from high-performing schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20 (1), 9-29.

As our schools move increasingly into the improvement mode, they are continually in the process of trying to identify or develop alternative teaching or management methods that can improve student learning. However, one management area that has not seen much utilization is that of the reallocation of resources to achieve some advantage, be it greater ef-ficiency, higher quality of staff/student interaction, or greater staff/student contact time. Such a study was recently conducted by Karen Miles, of Education Resource Management Strategies, and Linda Darling-Hammond, of Teachers College, Columbia University. Their investigation utilized the case-study approach, involving five high performing schools, a Cincinnati elementary school, a Memphis elementary school, a Boston elementary school, a New York City alternative high school for recent immigrants, and a New York City 7-12 school of 25% special education and 60% free or reduced-price lunch students. Of six pre-selected principles of resource allocation, the elementary schools were found to be practicing four and the high schools five. The four practiced by both the elementary schools and the high schools are 1) reduction of specialized programs, 2) more flexible student grouping, 3) structures to support more personal relationships, and 4) more common planning time for teachers. The one additional principle being practiced by the high schools is that of longer and more varied blocks of instructional time. As our own schools search for other means of improving student achievement, these management and resource allocation principles may be worth considering.

Archibald, D. A. (1999). Principals' control over school policy: Results of a statewide survey. Educational Research Quarterly, 22(3), 25-45.

In our accrediting region we have begun to put great emphasis on faculty ownership of school improvement. Increased responsibility is being placed on faculty steering committees, responsibility for a variety of meaningful and far-reaching decisions and activities that determine the philosophy, policies, and direction of the school. For this sort of thing to happen the principal, the traditional school leader, must be willing not only to share decision-making authority, but in some cases yield the authority entirely. Is this the direction most principals want to go, or are some principals feeling embattled and under siege as more and more authority and responsibility become the purview of faculty and faculty committees? A study that may hold some clues to these questions was conducted by Doug Archibald of the University of Delaware. He surveyed all the principals in that state on 21 decision areas in four major decision categories of budget, curriculum, personnel, and other school policies/activities. How did it all turn out? Well, on the 21 decision areas (e.g., budgeting for curricular materials, determining learning goals in the curricular areas, deciding inservice training needs and goals, and deciding on student discipline policies) the principals do not have as much authority as they want in a single category. The smallest gap between the authority they want and the authority that they perceive they have is in the areas of scheduling school-wide events and parent involvement in policies and programs. The greatest gaps, where principals feel most out of the loop, are budgeting for education technology equipment, dismissing teachers from the school staff, and dismissing teacher's aides. Are Delaware principals typical? I don't know why they wouldn't be. Human nature is too consistent across all boundaries to seriously take exception to any of these findings.

Cash, J. (1997). What good leaders do. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 27(3), 22-25.

No matter how much responsibility we assign to steering committees and the faculty in the improvement process, good leadership at the administrative level is still a critical factor. In a 1997 article in TFEL, National Distinguished Principal for California Jeannie Cash talked about what good leaders do. Her suggestions are simple, pithy, and eminently sensible. In a nutshell, they are as follows: Good leaders are always optimistic and create an atmosphere of hope, celebrate creativity and capitalize on the creativity of others, and set a positive tone on all that they do. Good leaders also ignite passion; create an environment of trust, commitment, and fun; and reward innovation. They tolerate failure and know when to let go.

This short article is so packed with examples that create the "aura" of the lesson that it would be impossible to re-create it here without reproducing the entire article. I suggest you find this article for yourself and read it. It is well worth the time it will take.

Hope, W. C. (1997). Why technology has not realized its potential in schools: A perspective. American Secondary Education, 25(4), 2-9.

It seems painfully apparent that, in spite of the widespread view that modem electronic technology is indispensable in schools, most schools are still far from maximizing the many acknowledged advantages of the technology that is available. Why is this so? Teacher unfamiliarity was the popularly accepted response a decade ago. Is this reason still viable? Are there other reasons? Warren C. Hope of Georgia Southwestern State University has offered a comprehensive perspective that seems to shed some light on this apparent conundrum. As a matter of fact, Hope has offered 10 reasons why educational technology has not realized its potential:

1. Organizational factors: A different kind of support system is required for technology to take hold in schools.
2. Lack of leadership and vision of what technology can accomplish.
3. Culture as an obstacle (If it ain't broke, don't fix it.).
4. Limited technology resources: Cost is a serious factor.
5. Confusion in selecting and configuring technology: This may be a direct result of the first two reasons above.
6. Confusion in selecting appropriate software: This could result both from the third reason, above, and from simple lack of exposure to software resources.
7. Failure to provide staff development: No doubt, this may be one of the key problems. No teachers are going to utilize a tool with which they have no expertise.
8. Failure to provide incentives: Faced with the extra demands on their time to master new techniques and equipment, teachers inevitably ask, "What's in it for me?"
9. Teacher lack of confidence: A result of reason seven, above.
10. Faculty preparation and teacher time constraints.

School improvement teams developing target area goals in technology might want to consider whether these obstacles exist in their schools. Identifying the impediments to change provides opportunity to develop stronger interventions. Much progress might be made by noting these listed obstacles and attempting open-heartedly to address those pertinent to any given school.

Brand, G. A. (1998). What research says: Training teachers for using technology. Journal of Staff Development, (190), 10-13.

Brand summarizes key elements in teacher technology training that are identified in the research:

Take into account varying needs: Teachers with different interests, differing styles, and differing subject matters do not necessarily need the same technology skills. Staff development plans must be tailored to the various needs.

Flexibility of professional development opportunities: Just as students do not all learn the same way, neither do teachers. A variety of learning opportunities should be offered, with the teacher given some latitude in choice of learning experiences.

Provisional support: Try to employ a trainer who is both technology-competent and curriculum-knowledgeable, so that teachers' curriculum needs can be acknowledged and met during the learning process.

Collaborative development: Even teachers who do not feel competent in technology may offer differing levels of expertise when the training begins. Thus, collaborative learning, for example peer coaching and modeling, offers a rich learning environment.

Remuneration and teacher recognition: Incentives that authentically recognize the value of what is being learned are a necessity for motivation and ultimate satisfaction.

Sustained staff development: Continuing training is needed in order for the teacher to broaden his/her field of expertise and to master new developments.

Link technology and educational objectives: Technology training will only have real value for teachers if it is linked to their own curricular goals about student learning. Without this alignment, technology training is merely an irritating add-on.

Intellectual and professional stimulation: Technology education for teachers must include the time and setting for serious reflection on the values and on the limitations of technology as a teaching/learning tool.

Clear administrative message: The administrative leaders in the school must believe in the need and value of technology education. Becoming ongoing participants is one way to show this. Allocating free and unencumbered time for learning is another.

To involve students in meaningful technologically-based education, teachers must possess the confidence, knowledge and skills to integrate technology techniques into their classrooms.