Can Principled Adaptation to School Context Increase the Likelihood of Scale-Up?

• In Event: 66.080 - Roundtable Session 26
  In Roundtable Session: 66.080-7 - Implementation: Insights From the National Center on Scaling Up Effective Schools

Abstract

Since the 1970s, scholars have recognized that adaptation to local context is an inevitable part of implementation (Datnow & Castellano, 2000; Berman & McLaughlin, 1975). Still, fidelity of implementation continues to be equated with greater likelihood of achieving desired outcomes (O’Donnell, 2008; Blakely et al., 1987). With the recent implementation of more of ambitious school reform, scholars and policymakers continue to challenge the primacy of fidelity, instead, emphasizing the possibility of productive adaptations to school context (Datnow, Hubbard, & Mehan, 2002; Debarger et al., 2013; Kirshner & Polman, 2013; Penuel et al., 2011). With a growing emphasis on the importance of adaptation, the concept remains under-theorized. We illustrate the idea of adaptation as being principled with examples from our collaborative work with three urban high schools as part of the work of our research and development center. Without pressure for the school teams to implement the design consistently across sites, school stakeholders drew on knowledge from the design process as well as existing beliefs to decide how best to adapt design principles into actionable practices. Across these sites, schools achieved principled adaptation when implemented school practices were informed by design principles underlying the innovation design.
Methods and Data Sources
In this paper, we examine the work of three School Innovation Design Teams (SIDTs) in Fort Worth Independent School District who were tasked with engaging in small-scale cycles of piloting components of a locally developed innovation to increase Student Ownership and Responsibility (SOAR). As part of the initial implementation, schools were allowed to adapt the model to their unique context. A qualitative case study design allows us to illustrate how participants made decisions about these adaptations. Data sources include field note logs, feedback forms, and artifacts from 12 meetings with school stakeholders, a day-long field work visit to each school, and structured interviews with participants. We analyze the data using a sensemaking perspective (Coburn, 2001; Spillane, 2000) to understand how beliefs based on prior experience informed their interpretation of the SOAR innovation and adaptations they made.
Results
By jointly participating in the design of the SOAR innovation, leaders of each SIDT were able to make adaptations that were, for the most part, aligned with the design goals of the district-wide innovation. New members, often lacking a depth of knowledge of the design principles, suggested practices that were less aligned with the initial design principles. In these cases, principled adaptation was not achieved as what was implemented failed to acknowledge the innovation design.
Scholarly Significance
The center is experimenting with a collaborative, design-based approach to school reform with the goal of scaling to additional schools in participating districts. Adaptation of the innovation influences sustainability, as well as the depth with which the innovation design is implemented. In this paper, we explore both the efficacy of adaptations, which has been previously explored in the literature (Datnow et al., 2002; Debarger et al., 2013; McLaughlin, 1976) and how adaptation influences the integrity of innovation design as well as the likelihood of scale up.

Authors

• Christopher Redding, Vanderbilt University - Peabody College

• Thomas M. Smith, University of California - Riverside