The three common barriers found in this study were lack of time to accomplish school improvement tasks, implementation of procedures to address changing state mandates, and development of staff ownership for the school improvement process. In the following sections, each implication is presented and is accompanied by supporting evidence from the findings found in the data collected and from the review of literature.

The School Improvement Team's Role

The school improvement team's role is to identify and assign the tasks that need to be implemented by the faculty as a whole to improve student achievement. Most of the 90 participants interviewed reported that they expected their school improvement team to "just tell us what to do." The review of literature suggested that the leadership provided by the school improvement team is critical to improving the quality of children's education (Darling-Hammond, 1996; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995). The findings clearly indicated that school improvement teams included administrators and teachers who planned and implemented school improvement together.

The Principal's Role

The responsibility of the principal was to build leadership capacity of teachers in order to develop and maintain team success. Principals were expected to support teachers and to create opportunities for them to grow and develop. Several authors in the review of the literature reported that strong principals are crucial to the success of school improvement (Butler, 1995; Darling-Hammond, 1997; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996; Glickman, 1994; Lambert et al., 1996; Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbach, 1999; Lieberman, 1986; Lieberman, 1995; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995; Tyack & Cuban, 1995; Wilson & Corbett, 1991).

Principals were instrumental in clarifying the role of the team, identifying and assigning tasks, and being the organizers and keepers of the data. The researcher observed that principals assigned roles and responsibilities to key teacher leaders. Teachers expected the principal to monitor the completion of the assigned tasks. The principal was key to getting teachers involved and working together. Teachers depended on the principal to "get us going." Authors in the review of literature supported this conclusion with the belief that development of collaborative schools, where everyone is involved, depended heavily on the actions of the principals in those schools (DuFour, 1997; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Fullan, 1993; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996; Leithwood et al., 1999; Lieberman, 1995; Marshall, 1995; Wellins, Byham, & Dixon, 1996).

Clearly Defined Goals

School improvement teams must have clearly defined and well understood goals. The ultimate goal of the team is to improve student achievement. The school improvement team's biggest role was facilitating the planning and assignment of tasks to accomplish this goal.

Several authors cited in the literature review believed that the team must have clear expectations with performance tasks and goals identified (Campion, Papper, & Medsker, 1996; Crawford, Kydd, & Riches, 1998; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Hirsh & Moffet, 1994; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Watkins & Marsick, 1993). Katzenbach and Smith (1993) stated that all teams must have urgent and worthwhile purposes. Campion et al. (1996) reported that, in their research of teams, the strongest findings suggested that designing a purpose for the team should be first in the development of the team.

Teachers frequently mentioned the school improvement plan. School profiles from all three schools presented student demographics and student achievement data. Teachers reported they understood the data that were collected, presented, and interpreted. They were proud of the effort they put forth and used the profile of student data to identify strengths and needs of their student population. These data were important in developing their school improvement goals and in keeping them focused on improving student achievement.

The teams used these data to measure their success and to know when they had achieved their goals. Respondents from all three schools reported that they relied on the data they collected to know if they had been successful. Possessing the knowledge to interpret the data and report it was important to the team. Marshall (1995) and others believed that measurement is essential to documenting success (Campion et al., 1996; Moran, Musselwhite, & Zenger, 1996). Successful teams have clearly defined goals and goals that are understood by all involved.

Process Model

The process models used by all three schools required each of the staffs to collaborate as a team. The researcher concluded from the data that all three schools followed a model to implement school improvement and that this model included a team to lead the school improvement process. Six school reform initiatives were presented in the literature review (a) Effective Schools, (b) North Central Association-Outcomes Accreditation (NCA), (c) Onward to Excellence (OTE), (d) Total Quality, (e) Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) A+, and (f) Institute for Development of Educational Ideas-School Improvement Process (IDEA-SIP).

Dukewits and Gowin (1996) found that teaming is an effective strategy that can produce effective, positive, and long-lasting changes in schools. The implementation of school improvement teams is one important component of the school reform process supported by the Kansas State Board of Education. As one visiting team member stated, "The law said you had to have a team and the district took this seriously."

Participants reported that the process was frustrating to get started. All respondents stressed the need for ongoing training for all staff. Several authors reported that little is usually done to support teachers in the teaming process (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Fullan, 1993; Glickman, 1993; Lambert et al., 1996; Zederayko, 1999).

How to work as a team or to collaborate includes training in basic teaming skills. These skills include (a) developing an agenda, (b) assigning roles and responsibilities, (c) documenting the meeting, (d) use of dialogue versus discussion, (e) use of a decision-making model, (f) developing an action plan of what needs to be accomplished, (g) allotting time for reflection, and (h) celebrating successes. All staff agreed that they needed to train new staff in these basic skills. The review of literature also strongly supported the need for training in collaboration skills (Campion et al., 1996; Crawford & Riches, 1998; Dukewits & Gowin, 1996; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Hirsh & Moffet, 1994; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Marshall, 1995; Watkins & Marsick, 1993).

The school improvement team is responsible for leadership in initiating, managing, and facilitating the collaborative process of school improvement. In the review of literature, many researchers in the area of business and education supported the idea that people can come together in teams to accomplish tasks they could not accomplish as individuals (Bennis, 1999; Hackman, 1999; Hesselbein & Cohen, 1999; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Lewis, 1993; Robbins & Finley, 1995; Secretan, 1997; Wellins et al., 1996; Zenger et al., 1994).

The Team Facilitates Effective and Timely Communication

Teams must communicate. Communication is an important process for the team to implement and model. This fifth implication was overwhelmingly supported by data collected from the three sites and in the review of literature. Many authors in the review of literature strongly believed that communication helps the team development process to succeed (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Elinor & Gerard, 1998; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996; Lambert et al., 1996; Marsick, 1993; Senge et al., 1994; Wellins et al., 1996).

Staff members used their school improvement teams to share information. They depended on the flow of communication facilitated by their school improvement team members. Teachers gave team members input. Team members in turn shared information with grade level and target goal committees. As one teacher stated, "The team keeps giving us feedback."

All staff members appreciated the grade level planning times. This time allowed teachers to share information and plan for school improvement. Faculty meetings and email were also mentioned as ways to "get the information out." It was obvious to the researcher that all staff members depended on their school improvement team to communicate effectively and frequently.

Authors in the review of literature reported that school improvement is achieved when teachers engage in frequent, continuous, and precise dialogue (Darling-Hammond, 1997, Elinor & Gerard, 1998; Lambert et al., 1996). The researcher observed that team members engaged freely in dialogue by encouraging members to share their many different perspectives on school improvement issues. One team chairperson stated, "We expect open honest communication."

Common Barriers to School Improvement Teams

The researcher found three common barriers to school improvement. These three barriers were time, state mandates, and ownership of the process by all staff.

Teachers overwhelmingly reported that finding the time to get everything done was a monumental task. Authors in the review of literature believed that time could not be an excuse to not team; rather, teams need to be given the time to team (Campion et al., 1996; Crawford & Riches, 1998; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Glickman, 1993; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Louis, Kruse, & Raywid, 1996).

Teachers reported that they preferred workdays built into the school calendar throughout the school year. They felt that hiring substitutes took away from student learning. One team stressed the importance of keeping the board of education informed as to the need for and purpose of "work days." All staff appreciated the grade level common planning time that is built into the daily schedule. Glickman (1993) and Fullan and Hargreaves (1996) reinforced the need for the board of education to provide resources that support the school's ability to accomplish its goals. Time is an important resource in the school improvement process.

Teachers were frustrated with state mandates and excessive paperwork. One teacher said, "The state keeps changing things, someone tells us one way and then another person tells us a different way." Also the paperwork needed to keep up with state mandates and guidelines was a complaint the researcher often heard. Several teachers stated that they needed more information about specific guidelines. The key phrase voiced by a team facilitator was to "keep it simple." Teams should not take on more than expected.

Authors in the review of literature reported that most schools and districts are still subjected to uniform regulations. Communication among the school, the district, and the state must be kept flowing and flexible (Glickman, 1993; Lieberman, 1986; Moran et al., 1996; Rosenholtz, 1991).

Ownership of the school improvement process is an ongoing process. Staff does not always accept professional ownership for the success of the school. Respondents at one of the schools reported that some teachers find it hard to change. Principals need to be aware of the change process and where their staff is in the change process.

Principals stressed that training members of the staff to be experts in different areas empowers teachers to take on the responsibility for school improvement. Teachers reported that breaking the work into teams helped develop responsibility among the teachers. Authors in the review of literature believed that developing teacher leadership is an important part of school reform (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996; Glickman, 1993; Lambert et al., 1996; Leithwood et al., 1999).

Conclusion

Creating a collaborative environment has been described as the single most important factor for successful school improvement initiatives. It is the first order of business for those seeking to improve the effectiveness of their school. The school improvement process is more likely to be successful if teachers are encouraged to participate in dialogue, engage in problem solving, and do action research. The best structure for fostering collaboration is the team.

Teaming must be embedded into school life. The purpose of the team must be explicit with the structures of human and fiscal resources in place to support the team concept. Educators cannot assume that people just know how to team. Training must be a priority if the team is to be successful. The classroom is where the rubber hits the road. Teachers must be involved in the school improvement process by accepting their individual and collective responsibilities as true professional colleagues.

References

Bennis, W. (1999). The secrets of great groups. In F. Hesselbein & P. M. Cohen (Eds.), Leader to Leader (pp. 315-322). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Butler, D. E. (1995). Improving school learning environments: A resource manual of knowledge and strategies. Memphis, TN: The University of Memphis. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 386 787)

Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 46, 429-451.

Crawford, M., Kydd, L., & Riches, C. (Ed) (1998). Leadership and teams in educational management. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolution: Rethinking teacher development. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 4-10.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

DuFour, R. P. (1997). The school as a learning organization: Recommendations for school improvement. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 81(588), 81-87.

Dukewits, P., & Gowin, L. (1996). Creating successful collaborative teams. Journal of Staff Development, 17(4), 12-15.

Elinor, L., & Gerard, G. (1998). Dialogue: Rediscovering the transformation power of conversation. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Bristol, PA: Falmer.

Fullan, M. & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What's worth fighting for in your school? New York: Teachers College Press.

Glickman, C. D. (1993). Renewing America's schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Hackman, J. R. (1999). Why teams don't work. In F. Hesselbein & P. M. Cohen (Eds.), Leader to leader (pp. 335-347). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hesselbein, F. & Cohen, P. M. (Ed.). (1999). Leader to leader. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hirsh, S., & Moffett, C. (1994). A reflective dialogue about the change process. Journal of Staff Development, 15(1), 40-44.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams. New York: HarperCollins.

Lambert, L., Collay, M., Dietz, M. E., Kent, K., & Richert, A. E. (1996). Who will save our schools?: Teachers as constructivist leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinbach, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Lewis, J. P. (1993). How to build and manage a winning project team. New York: American Management Association.

Lieberman, A. (Ed.). (1986). Rethinking school improvement: Research, craft, and concept. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lieberman, A. (Ed.). (1995). The work of restructuring schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Louis, K. S., Kruse, S., & Raywid, M. A. (1996). Putting teachers at the center of reform: Learning schools and professional communities. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 80(580), 9-21.

Marshall, E. M. (1995). Transforming the way we work: The power of the collaborative workplace. Boston: American Management Association.

Moran, L., Musselwhite, E., & Zenger, J. H. (1996). Keeping teams on track: What to do when the going gets tough. Chicago: Irwin.

Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators by the center on organization and restructuring of schools (Grant No. R11700005-95). Madison, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

Robbins, H. A., & Finley, M. (1995). Why teams don't work: What went wrong and how to make it right. Princeton: Peterson's/Pacesetter Books.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teacher's workplace: The social organization of schools. New York: Longman.

Secretan, L. H. K. (1997). Reclaiming higher ground: Creating organizations that inspire the soul. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill.

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science of systemic change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wellins, R. S., Byham, W. C., & Dixon, G. R. (1996). Inside teams: How 20 world-class organizations are winning through teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wilson, B., & Corbett, D. (1991). Middle grade school state policy initiative: First steps to restructuring. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 342 129)

Zederayko, G. E. & Ward, K. (1999). Schools as learning organizations: How can the work of teachers be both teaching and learning? National Association of Secondary School Principals, 83(604), 35-45.

Zenger, J. H., Musselwhite, E., Hurson, K., & Perrin, C. (1994). Leading teams: Mastering the new role. New York: Irwin.