# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Driving Question: How did an exemplar school create a culture for transformational change? Daphne (center) and the rest of sixth grade complete a project to revitalize an unused and run down part of the campus. The Night It Began.
It was no typical night at Katherine Smith School. It was our first ever school-wide exhibition. Unlike an Open House or display of student work, on this night every kindergarten to sixth grade student was going to present and demonstrate the final products from a project. The moments leading up our Exhibition Night were intense.

This was a real deadline. Every project across the campus had to be completed at the same time. Everyone scrambled to finish final details of the project deliverables and rehearsed the oral presentations. Ready or not, work on this night was going to be public. And, we were ready. More than 1,500 visitors crammed in the classrooms and saw firsthand the transformative change that had begun at the beginning of this same school year.

Our School
Katherine Smith School (www.ksmithschool.org) is a kindergarten to sixth grade public, neighborhood, elementary in the Evergreen School District on the east side of San Jose, CA. The urban neighborhood surrounding Katherine Smith faces many challenges with household incomes well below the poverty level and crime rates that are the highest in the county.

Years of "back to basics" strategies led to minimal academic gains, and the culture of the school was suffering. Much of the staff turned over each year as teachers were transferring out due to "burn out." Many parents were disconnected from the work on the campus and lined up at the superintendent's office to share those concerns. And, the students were disengaged as discipline referrals and suspensions were the most solid data on the rise.

A Time to Change
It was time to make a change - a real transformative change to reinvent this school with a 21st century vision where each student was being prepared to think, learn, work, collaborate, communicate, and contribute now and throughout his or her life. The reinvention brought changes in the curriculum using project-based learning to engage students in hands-on authentic learning experiences, access to cutting edge technology and necessary tools to do this work, and a school culture that empowered every person on the campus. The changes began with the adults and the professional culture.
Mr. Armstrong, 4th grade, working with 5th grade student, Tatiana, during a professional development opportunity.

A Culture of Universal Achievement To do transformative work, we needed to build a culture of universal achievement. The adults had to believe, "All students can achieve at high levels regardless of race, socio-economic background, language, or family situation." These kinds of statements are thrown around so often in schools, that they've become cliché. But, it was still true. Without a belief that our students could be successful, no change was going to occur.

So we recruited a staff that that not only shared these common beliefs, but was committed to putting theses beliefs into action. First we presented the reinvention plan to the current staff at Katherine Smith, and then to the rest of interested teachers throughout the district. Interested staff from across the school district wrote letters articulating their passion for this work and the commitment to the belief.

While more than 75% of the staff transferred out of the school, we assembled a completely self-selected crew of teachers who wanted to do this work and would hold each other accountable to the beliefs that brought them or kept them here.

A Culture of Collaboration. Collaboration is an essential skill that must be authentically embedded in the design of projects and tasks to achieve the college and career goals we have for our students. Again, this starts with the adults. How can we expect our students to work together if we are not doing so ourselves? A key aspect of the professional culture at K. Smith School is the expectation and authentic need to work in teams. Nothing is done in isolation. Teachers design, implement, and revise projects together. They are not modeling collaboration in an inauthentic way - they really need one another. They provide each other feedback using critical friends and other protocols, engage in inquiry to solve problems and design innovative learning experiences, and take ownership in our shared success.

A Culture of Risk Taking. It was time to jump off the cliff. Risk taking is an important aspect of our culture. I've heard it said, "To ask is to seek denial." Time is precious and there is urgency to this work - we cannot wait for approval and permission for what we know our students need. We drive innovation and encourage creative solutions to the academic and social challenges that students are facing today. Risk taking is a lot easier for the students, but the adults first and foremost need to be pushed. With solid beliefs in place and systems to encourage collaboration, the safety nets are removed; however, it feels safer because we have one another.

Much of this aspect of the culture is cultivated with "defined autonomy" from the leadership. It's important to define the space and limitations, so the creative work can happen within this space. For example, teachers at K. Smith School are not accountable to strict pacing guides. They are accountable to the learning outcomes and high standards and are given the creative freedom to collectively design solutions to meet those needs.
K. Smith School Habits- think, learn, work communicate, collaborate, and contribute- are aligned to our mission.
Moving Forward

K. Smith School is now into the third year of its reinvention. While we are eager to push further to achieving our 21st century vision, we have seen transformative change. Our students are engaged in projects that connect them to the essential skills they will need to be successful in this ever changing world. Those suspension numbers mentioned, have dropped from seventy in 2011 to just seven in our first year. And they continue to stay low.

Our parents are connected to our school and participate actively on campus. Now instead of complaining at the superintendent's office, they are filling district meeting office with ideas and support. Parents are showing up in record numbers and not just on Exhibition Night. They are getting involved and are empowered to offer solutions to needs of the community.

Most importantly, our professional culture is thriving. There are no easy days, but the staff has the belief that all of our students can and will achieve at high levels. The collaborative systems in place help us create solutions to any problem, and the trust we have built with each other enables us to be creative and take risks, which is leading to something incredible.

@brengard) is the principal of Katherine Smith School[ in the Evergreen School District in San Jose, California. Brengard led the implementation of Project-Based Learning to reinvent this traditional, public, neighborhood school into an innovative 21st Century learning environment. Katherine Smith is a New Tech Network School, a No Excuses University School, and a partner with Buck Institute for Education.

Follow K. Smith School on Facebook (facebook.com/ksmithschool), twitter (@ksmithschool), Instagram (intragram.com/ksmithschool)and YouTube (youtube.com/ksmithschool).

Tomorrow's Post: Beyond A Vision for 21st Century Teaching and Learning. Why Mess With What Works?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Creating A Culture for Deep Change: It's the Team that Counts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Driving Question: How did an exemplar school create a culture for transformational change? Daphne (center) and the rest of sixth grade complete a project to revitalize an unused and run down part of the campus. The Night It Began. It was no typical night at Katherine Smith School.

# data[].attributes.body
Kotter's 8 step change model

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Read in 16 minutes

In 1996 John Kotter wrote Leading Change* which looked at what people did to transform their organisations. Kotter introduced an 8-step change model for helping managers deal with transformational change. This is summarised in Kotter's 8-step change model.

For The Heart of Change* (2002) John Kotter worked with Dan Cohen to look into the core problems people face when leading change. They concluded that the central issue was changing the behaviour of people and that successful change occurs when speaking to people's feelings.

In this article Martin Webster explains how Kotter's 8-step change model gets to the heart of how successful organisational change actually happens and answers the question "how do you go beyond simply getting your message across to truly changing people's behaviour?"

You'll also learn how The Heart of Change can alter the way organisations and leaders approach change management.

Since this guide covers a lot of ground and is a long read (3,000 words) you may want to check out the table of contents below for some quick jumping around.

Want to read something shorter? Visit our related post: The Heart of Change.

Table of Contents

Successful Change Management

John Kotter's 8-step change model comprises eight overlapping steps. The first three are all about creating a climate for change. The next on engaging and enabling the organisation. And the last, implementing and sustaining change.

From experience we learn that successful change occurs when there is commitment, a sense of urgency or momentum, stakeholder engagement, openness, clear vision, good and clear communication, strong leadership, and a well executed plan. Kotter's 8-step change model recognises each of these characteristics.

Kotter's 8-Step Change Model for Leading Change

We highly recommend you read The Heart of Change* John Kotter and Dan Cohen. Whether you are a senior executive, in middle management or part of a project team the research, which is backed up with stories - mini case studies - and exercises, is invaluable.

The reading provides straightforward advice that makes much sense - undoubtedly you will have observed what is written.

Creating a Climate for Change

Many initiatives fail or at best fall short of their original aim because the organisation either lacks interest in the proposed change effort or spends too much energy resisting the change management process.

Increasing Urgency

We often see organisational change beginning with detailed analyses, the preparation of a hefty business case, and later approval by corporate management. Unfortunately this energy is often wasted and does very little to move the organisation toward transformational change.

The assumption is that information and analysis followed by executive management approval is enough to change behaviour. It is not! Whilst these may be necessary organisational steps they are not needed ... right now.

Getting the bosses' approval and presenting new ideas to disinterested business units rarely secures agreement and inevitably results in resistance.

For instance, complacency, immobilisation, self-protection, deviance, pessimism, and holding back. The change effort doesn't start well.

Urgency sustains change

Rather than shoving a project down the throats of operational managers change leaders need to generate a sense of urgency about the task in-hand and get the right team together to deliver transformational change. Change comes about because there is some underlying crisis: customers are unhappy, costs are rising, budgets are cut, competitors have the advantage and so on.

Analysis has the effect of putting the brakes on. Yet crisis has to be dealt with. Sorting out a problem provides the platform to get people talking about what needs to change.

The Heart of Change suggests that we need to break from tradition and start using compelling, eye-catching situations to see problems and solutions. Honest facts and dramatic evidence - customer and stakeholder testimonies - show that change is necessary. Seeing something new hits people on a deeper emotional level without the usual negative responses and resistance.

Building the Guiding Team

Creating a sense of urgency helps to bring the right people together. And getting the right people in place is about getting the right team, commitment and trust to do the job. This is what step 2 is about.

Moreover, it's about confronting issues that are traditionally avoided. It means emotionally honest and open behaviour, speaking the unspeakable, connecting to the feelings of others, and doing so without fear of reprisal. For instance, what can you do if management doesn't even admit that a problem exists?

Most likely you will skirt around the issue and continue to build on a culture of mistrust. But organisational politics doesn't have to result in ducking and dumping. Before you can begin to build a guiding team - with the right skills, leadership capacity and credibility - someone has to persuade people that something needs to happen. That is, to face the issue. This may seem counter-intuitive.

However, successful change doesn't happen unless there is open and honest dialogue. Consequently, it can be a good thing to have periods of conflict which bring out the best (and worst) in people because a change leader will almost certainly emerge; someone who feels great urgency, pulls people together, and defines the guiding team.

Unfortunately this doesn't happen very often. Usually top management approve a change project and hand over responsibility to a senior manager who then forms a pseudo-project team or task group to manage the work. Rarely are these effective structures. They are made of the wrong people and usually have complex and unworkable governance arrangements.

What's more, most team members have other jobs to do and are unlikely to be fully committed to the change project. Of course, everyone is polite. And they say the right things. But words rarely translate into concrete actions when trust is low. People rarely say what's on their mind, problems surface, and so does blame! Therefore members of guiding teams must learn how to be trusting and candid with each other.

In The Heart of Change John Kotter and Dan Cohen use a brilliant story by Roland de Vries to illustrate how hopelessly difficult teamwork problems can be overcome with courage and confidence in conviction. Only then can the guiding team set a clear sense of direction.

Getting the Right Vision

What is our vision for the future? What change is needed? What do we need to do to realise our vision? Good answers to such questions will help the organisation to make the future they want more probable.

Yet so many people create no vision or sense of direction for change. We're back to the tome of a business case with plans and budgets that do little to show the future.

If you wish to make a future you must make it more probable

We need to remember that by creating compelling, eye-catching situations it is easier for others to see problems and solutions.

Creating a vision that can be conveyed in a matter of minutes is going to move people into action much more effectively than detailed analyses ever will.

However, transformational change is difficult - it's a venture into the unknown - needs to be done correctly. We need to take an unorthodox approach and avoid over analytic, financially based visioning exercises.

Instead develop a vision that moves people and pay lots of attention to the speed in which you can introduce change.

Prepare this way: first prepare a vision that takes you to an end state, second a strategy to show you how to achieve the vision, next step-by-step plans to carry out your strategy, and finally budgets to make sure you can afford your plans.

Engaging and Enabling the Organisation

Kotter's 8-step change model is about showing people a truth that influences their feelings. We've seen how a sense of urgency moves people to action and helps us pull together a guiding team that can go on to prepare a clear and simple vision of the future.

Communicating the vision and strategy comes next.

Communicate for Buy-in

Transformational change projects tend to generate lots of information. Unfortunately the message about organisational change is often lost and people fail to see why the change is needed.

They don't buy into the idea and start resisting our efforts; we create the wrong emotional response.

Deeds speak volumes

Kotter and Cohen use stories to illustrate how communicating for buy-in can work.

Moreover, we also learn what does not work:

Under-communicating - the goal of organisational change is to get as many people as possible on-side, i.e. working toward the same goal. Information must be relevant and come with the opportunity to ask questions.

Pushing information - good communication isn't simply about data transfer. Change inevitably leads to conflict. Accordingly, open and honest dialogue is essential.

Not walking the talk - Kotter says "Deeds speak volumes." When there's a gap between words and deeds the destructive force of cynicism grows. Change is undermined. Therefore our behaviour must be consistent with the vision.

We need to keep communication simple and to the point and above all understand the mood before conveying our message and addressing people's anxieties, distrust, or anger.

And finally, we must clean up communication channels so that important messages are highly visible and understood.

Empower Action

Or rather remove barriers! One of the biggest barriers to change is the dis-empowering manager. People often get the message about change and want to do something about it.

But they can't do anything because their boss is an impossible obstacle. What do we do?

1. Send the manager on a short training course?

2. Do nothing?

3. Confront the issue?

4. Sack them?

Another cause of dis-empowerment concerns the organisation; it's structure, policies and processes.

These can bind the hands of those who want to make the vision a reality.

I recall a colleague leaving employment. In his farewell speech he said "You're a great bunch of people ... but you could do so much more." He saw the crippling effect bureaucracy had on the organisation. Unfortunately, organisational culture - especially those that are used to incremental change or failed change - leads to the greatest barrier of all: the mind.

Dis-empowered people are programmed to learn what can and can't be achieved. They internalise a belief that they are incapable of achieving change; their feelings hold them back.

Thus, we need to tackle these barriers head on! As with all aspects of Kotter's 8-step change model the answer is in showing people why change is needed. Dis-empowering bosses should be given new jobs or roles that clearly show them the need for change.

Build optimism and self-confidence using inspirational stories from the workforce. Recognise and reward achievement. Use feedback to help people make better decisions (read the story Making Movies on the Factory Floor.) And make use of people who have change experience as they will boost confidence.

However, make sure they are credible and can convey success stories. Otherwise, consultants will be ignored and new recruits squashed by your organisation's culture.

Create Short-term Wins

Large scale organisational change needs momentum, a sense of achievement, and optimism. Therefore, it is essential that results are achieved quickly.

... with so much going on at once, you run the danger of getting nothing done very fast. People wonder where you're leading them - and whether or not you're taking the right approach.

Short-term wins serve four important purposes:

1. Provide us with feedback about the validity of our vision and strategies.

2. Give those working hard to achieve the vision recognition and encouragement.

3. Build faith in the change project - attracting those who are not actively involved.

4. Take away power from cynics.

We must avoid starting too many projects at once since this ultimately leads to chaos and is unlikely to offer an early win. Instead look for the low hanging fruit - short-term wins that can be achieved cheaply and easily - and make these as visible as possible.

Somewhere in the waves of change, you will have to attack the sturdy silos and difficult politics or you won't create a twenty-first century organisation. - Kotter and Cohen

Implementing and Sustaining Change

In Engaging and Enabling Change we learned that short-term wins are critical to successful change because they offer credibility, resources and momentum.

Step 7 is about maintaining that momentum - not letting up - so the early changes are built on. Finally, we learn how to make change stick by nurturing a new culture by developing positive behaviour and shared values through a series of successful changes.

Don't Let Up

In The Heart of Change John Kotter and Dan Cohen present a number of case studies to illustrate how we can sustain change. Some are straightforward - but often overlooked - whilst others are highly creative examples that lead to a radical transformation of the business.

The idea is to continue with wave after wave of change and not to stop until the vision is a reality.

The main message from don't let up is to create structures and situations that empower people to take risks and deal with problems without fear of reprisal. Removing structural obstacles is important: giving people enough power and leeway to innovate and solve those intractable problems often found in large organisations.

Successful change confronts embedded bureaucratic and political behaviours. We need to get rid of work that wears us down and work that has no relevance today. We need to free up time.

Typically, people assigned to change projects have to continue doing their day job. This is not the best approach; we should let someone else do the day job for a while and delegate upwards as well as down.

The workforce is easily tired of change when the sense of urgency is lost. People convince themselves that the change is complete and no more needs to be done.

However, this need not happen. A recurring theme from Kotter's 8-step change model is to show 'em, show 'em, show 'em! Change efforts succeed because people connect with the vision. They see how change addresses problems.

Using visual cues - quick wins, a light-hearted video or show, whatever - gives credence to what is often a vague, visionary idea.

In successful change efforts, the vision and strategies are not locked in a room ... - Kotter and Cohen

Make it Stick

In a change effort, culture comes last, not first. This is the controversial and key point about Kotter's 8-step change model.

Change has to be embedded in the very culture of the organisation if it is to stick.

Change doesn't stop here. New ways of working must continue successfully for some time before culture truly changes. And culture cannot change until those new ways of operating are implemented. Making it stick is about:

Achieving tangible results quickly and ensuring change is embedded.

Tying results to new behaviours; showing people what the organisations really cares about.

Reinforcing the new culture through training and coaching; telling vivid stories about the organisation, what it does, and why it is successful.

Giving people who act according to new norms influential and visible positions.

Not giving up until you get the needed behaviour and results.

Example is not the main thing influencing others. It is the only thing. - Albert Schweitzer

Conclusions on Kotter's 8-Step Change Model

According to Kotter and Cohen, successful change leaders find a problem or a solution to a problem and then show people using engaging and compelling situations to change behaviour.

They recommend a people-driven approach that helps people to see the reason for change. They argue that people change when they are shown the truth because this influences their feelings.

That is, emotion is at the heart of change. We see, feel, change:

See - Compelling and eye-catching situations are created to help show people what the problems are and how to resolve them.

Feel - Visualising ideas evokes a powerful emotional response that motivates people into action.

Change - The new feelings change or reinforce behaviours that make people work harder to make a good vision reality. The change is more immediate but must be reinforced to keep up the momentum.

Kotter's 8-Step Change Model for Successful Transformational Change Source: Kotter and Cohen, The Heart of Change, p. 7.

I trust you found this article on John Kotter's 8-step change model beneficial.

Remember, it is about changing behaviour by making people feel differently about organisational change.

I wholeheartedly recommend this book to anyone leading change who wants to motivate people and overcome obstacles to achieve great results. Remember: we see, we feel, we change.

Biography

John Kotter is internationally known and widely regarded as the foremost expert on the topic of transformational leadership. His international bestseller Leading Change - which outlines an actionable 8-step change model for implementing successful transformations - has become the bible for leaders around the world who want to achieve great results.

Dan S. Cohen is a Principal with Deloitte Consulting LLP, where he focuses his consulting activities on large-scale organisational transformation. Cohen led the development of the firm's Global Change Leadership Methodology, as well as Deloitte Consulting's Human Capital Energy practice. He has provided consulting support across industries to Fortune 100 companies worldwide.

Buy the Book

The Heart of Change: Real-Life Stories of How People Change Their Organizations*
[ Kindle*] [ UK Edition*][ UK Kindle Edition*]

*Affiliate links.

Creative Commons image courtesy Nancy Regan.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Successful Change Management - Kotter's 8-Step Change Model

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read in 16 minutes In 1996 John Kotter wrote Leading Change* which looked at what people did to transform their organisations. Kotter introduced an 8-step change model for helping managers deal with transformational change. This is summarised in Kotter's 8-step change model.

# data[].attributes.body
Crystal Berry

When I read the article, I had flashbacks from my student teaching days and the many sessions on teaching in the 21st Century.  San Angelo ISD has a proactive approach to curriculum and the teaching aspects of Rotherham and Willingham’s (2009) article on change.

The application of curriculum: prior to teaching a subject, we researched the TEKS then connected the requirements to the lesson plan.  Then we connected the curriculum to student learning. Every day, for each topic we posted the TEKS as a visual reminder for the students.  The plan for the student was, this is the goal of the day, and when we finish this topic, “I will be able to ___”.  The concepts instilled student confidence and accomplishment because the student had control over learning curriculum and a tool to measure the progress.

The application of teaching:  I remember a staff meeting and the principal announcing the goal for teaching was no longer to push the student through learning a subject.  The new focus was to guide them or pull from the top.  The principal performed a demonstrated with a piece of ribbon.  The 4-inch piece of ribbon lies flat on the table.  The principal took a finger and pushed the ribbon from the bottom and the ribbon bunched.  Using the same piece of ribbon, the principal took a finger and a thumb, and then pulled the ribbon from the top.  The projected educational environmental change was motivating the top students to pull the bottom students through the learning process.

Thank you for sharing.

Sandra B.

__________

References

Rotherham, A., J. & Willingham, D. (2009). 21st century skills: The challenges ahead. Educational Leadership, 67(1), 16-21. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept09/vol67/num01/21st-Century-Skills@-The-Challenges-Ahead.aspx

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
by Charlotte Danielson

School organization" refers to how schools arrange the resources of time, space, and personnel for maximum effect on student learning. The school's organizational plan addresses those issues that affect the school as a whole, such as the master schedule, the location of staff in different rooms, and the assignment of aides to teachers or teams. (Matters that affect only individual teachers or teams-how to form reading groups for all 2nd graders, for example-are addressed in Chapter 11: Team Planning.)

Relationship to the Framework

How a school is organized is a matter for the staff to determine, and a school's organization should reflect the staff's commitment to the success of all students. Every aspect of the instructional program will convey the values and goals of the staff toward students and their learning.

High-Level Learning for All Students

Through a school's organizational patterns-whether the school is divided into teams or houses, for example, or whether it adopts a traditional or a block schedule-the staff can convey to both students and their parents that learning is important, that the business of the school is learning, and that the different elements of the school's organization are structured to support that learning. The master schedule, for example, is not established merely for the convenience of the transportation department, although bus schedules are important and must be accommodated. Nor are teams established only so that members of the faculty who are friends can work together. All arrangements must reflect an unwavering focus on student learning.

A Safe and Positive Environment

The wise deployment of space can go a long way toward ensuring a physically safe environment, particularly for young children. If classrooms, the art room, restrooms, and the library are all within easy walking distance, and if the paths to each are safe, children will feel secure going alone. In addition, a school's arrangement of teachers into teams, houses, and the like can contribute to a feeling of community, and therefore emotional safety, for students; they should feel part of a group small enough that their absence or illness would be noticed.

A Culture of Hard Work and Opportunities for Success

A focus on success is not a matter of spoon-feeding. A good school organization will offer students the optimal degree of challenge, stretching them while at the same time ensuring that they can succeed if they exert the necessary effort. Students need to know (and may need to be reminded) that it is up to them to exert the effort. For example, elementary-school teachers might let their students know that they are free to go to the computer lab or learning center once they've completed their work and mastered certain tasks; similarly, students in middle or high school could be told that if they are willing to commit to a heavy workload and fill any gaps in their understanding, they can enroll in Spanish II or an advanced placement course. Such opportunities should not constitute an exclusive club, open only to a few students; they should be open to any students willing to commit to them. The master schedule must be arranged to permit students to make these commitments and demonstrate their desire to participate in the most challenging opportunities the school has to offer.

When a school adopts a success orientation, it also commits itself to a flexible deployment of resources: nothing is carved in stone, and no one adopts a "take it or leave it" attitude. Students are assumed to be capable learners, and the school accepts its obligation to ensure successful learning by all students. Students should be able to get additional help when they need it, and to challenge the curriculum when they so choose; they should not be obliged to sit through a year of algebra if they can demonstrate, through a valid assessment, that they already understand the content. On the other hand, a student struggling with how to write a clear paragraph, for example, should be able to get help as needed.

School Organization

The research on school organization is clear: in general, small schools yield better results than large ones. This suggests that educators at large schools can help more students learn by creating subunits-schools within a school. Moreover, studies on teacher collaboration and teaming have shown that students benefit when teachers work together to promote student learning. Some schools in rural areas, of course, are too small, unable to provide a reasonable range of curricular or extracurricular offerings. But while educators in large schools can generally devise ways to break up into smaller units, those in small schools can't usually do much about their limited resources (although the Internet now provides students with learning opportunities that were not previously available).

Components of School Organization

Of course, most school staffs inherit a preexisting organizational structure. For many educators, certain aspects of the school's organization-such as the number of classes in the master schedule in a high school or the houses in a middle school-are part of the school's very identity. This reality can make altering the school's organization slow and difficult. Still, educators should consider the following aspects of the school to determine which ones, if any, should be changed.

At the elementary-school level, units are usually instructional teams or grade-level groups, in which teachers work with students from classes other than their own homerooms. For example, three 4th grade teachers might choose to work together to teach all 100 children in the grade. Many middle schools have houses in place, which might be led for instance by four teachers, each representing core curricular areas, working together with a group of 100-125 students. (When these are multi-age groups and students remain with the same teachers over several years, teachers and students grow to know one another particularly well.) Many high schools establish schools-within-a-school to create smaller and more personal learning communities. Some of these are grade-based, whereas others are organized around an instructional focus, such as technology or the arts.

Master Schedule

The influence of the master schedule is hard to overstate. The schedule structures the pace of the interactions between students and teachers, and class length affects the nature of instruction and the depth to which students are able to go at any given time. At the elementary- and middle-school levels, the master schedule conveys the relative importance of different areas of study: for example, when language arts are allocated 90 minutes a day, and science is allocated 30 minutes twice a week, students and teachers receive powerful messages about the supposed value of each subject.

Alternatives to traditional scheduling practices at the middle- and high-school levels have been widely discussed in the educational literature under the general heading of "block scheduling." Although not a panacea, block scheduling can materially affect the quality of student-teacher interactions and the nature of teacher collaboration. The main characteristic of these approaches is that they organize instructional time into longer blocks than the traditional pattern, thus allowing teachers and students greater flexibility in how they use their time. With longer blocks of time, students can embark on projects that would be difficult to complete in only 43 minutes. Teachers accustomed to relying on lecturing find that they need to vary their approach under block scheduling, enabling students to engage in deeper and more sustained exploration of content.

Deployment of Instructional Personnel

Most elementary schools assign classroom teachers groups of 20-30 students, although there are usually other teachers available as well: specialists for subjects such as art, music, and physical education; state-funded remedial reading or math teachers; Title I teachers; and teachers funded through district or external funds to serve migrant students, ESL learners, or "gifted" students. In fact, some elementary schools have more "extra" teachers than they do regular ones! The situation is different at the middle- and high-school levels, where students rotate among content specialists. In schools committed to enhancing student learning, teachers go to considerable effort to integrate "special" subjects with more "academic" disciplines. Even when the schedule demands that a class of 3rd grade students goes to art class at, say, 11:00 a.m. on Thursdays, the art teacher and the home-room teacher work to ensure that what the students are learning in the two classes is not completely separate.

Many schools-particularly at the elementary level, and sometimes motivated by state statute or by the promise of additional funds-have created more classes with fewer students in each. These efforts have had mixed results, partly because when overall class sizes are reduced, other expenses are inevitably increased-for more classroom space and for additional content specialists (and the classroom space that they need). In addition, there are frequently not enough qualified teachers to teach the new classes, especially at very large schools, resulting in at least a short-term reduction in teaching quality.

Although the research on class size has been inconclusive, studies suggest that reductions in size don't have much of an effect on student achievement unless the classes consist of 15 students or fewer. In any case, it is not the size of the homerooms that matters, but the size of instructional groups; consequently, if the entire teaching staff can be deployed in a manner that greatly reduces the size of instructional groups, results are likely to improve. A school organizational structure that supports the use of all teaching staff (including those paid for by categorical funds) to provide basic instruction can result in much smaller instructional groups than are traditionally found in schools. (For more on this subject, see Chapter 12: Learning Support.)

Grouping Strategies

A school aiming to improve student performance must develop a reasoned approach, even a philosophy, toward the grouping of students for instruction. Such an approach should not include permanent tracking. When elementary-school students are clustered as "bluebirds" or "canaries" according to their real or perceived abilities, the groups often become permanent: those who are identified early on as particularly able tend to be the ones permitted to enroll in advanced courses in high school.

Permanent tracking harms all but the highest-performing students, who themselves gain only slightly from the practice. Short-term skill grouping, however, can be highly beneficial for all students. Students who do not understand, say, subtraction with regrouping should receive targeted instruction on the concept before moving on to a skill that depends upon it (such as division). But there is no reason for students who have already grasped subtraction with regrouping to spend any more time on the topic; they should instead be more productively engaged in other topics. Hence teachers need the flexibility to create skill groups when needed, particularly for concepts that are prerequisites for later lessons.

The school's approach to scheduling and deployment of staff must support the formation of short-term skill groups when needed. In addition, the school's organization must allow for skill groups to be formed quickly and changed frequently; flexibility, in other words, is the key.

Implications for Different Levels

I have discussed the above issues separately, as though educators addressed them one at a time. In reality, of course, the various aspects of a school's organizational structure are highly intertwined and tightly related to other aspects of the school, such as curriculum, student assessment, and learning support. Still, there are important differences among schools at different levels.

Elementary Schools

Teacher teams at the elementary-school level may comprise anywhere from two to eight teachers each; more than eight, however, can become unwieldy. These teams may be organized around a single grade level (a "2nd grade team") or as "family" teams of, for example, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th grades. Each arrangement has its advantages and disadvantages. Students in single-grade teams, of course, tend to be closer to one another academically than are those in family teams. On the other hand, these same students must relearn the ropes each year with a different group of teachers, and the teachers must become acquainted with a large new group of students. Academic levels may vary in family teams, but students stay with the same group of teachers for several years, reducing the startup time required at the beginning of the school year.

Middle Schools

The "middle-school philosophy"-which recognizes that young adolescents learn best when given a fair degree of autonomy, while at the same time "belonging" to a relatively small group of teachers and other students-has become dominant in schools serving the 5th or 6th to 8th grades. Students at this period in their lives experience rapid physical, emotional, and intellectual growth, matched in scope only by the first three years of life; they are experiencing fast and sometimes confusing changes. Middle schools, therefore, must provide both stability and stimulation, respecting the students' age-related concerns.

I have already suggested the major recommendation for middle schools: teachers should work in small teams, composed typically of four teachers, representing the core subjects. Additional subjects should be offered as "exploratory" opportunities for students. In addition, time should be scheduled- and instruction provided. in long blocks, permitting teachers the maximum degree of flexibility to meet student needs (and to alter internal arrangements as these needs change). When the school organization allows for the integration of various . support. teachers. Title I, remedial, migrant, gifted, and so on. teachers within each team have the best opportunity to arrange a combination of core and supplementary instruction for each student.

High Schools

Some high schools institute schools-within-a-school (SWAS), often for their 9th grade students. This structure is designed to mirror (and hence ease the transition from) the middle-school experience. If they can be managed, SWAS are recommended, as they provide students with smaller instructional units and permit them to learn the ropes of the high school-by interacting with a greater number of students and teachers, not to mention abiding by typically more structured rules of conduct-without also having to learn how to find a classroom or juggle the multiple demands of too many different courses.

Scheduling is the main aspect of school organization at the high-school level. Many high schools have by now implemented some form of block scheduling, in which students attend three to four classes on any given day rather than seven to nine. There are two basic patterns for block scheduling: four-by-four and A/B. In four-by-four schedules, students complete four "yearlong" courses each semester in periods of about 90 minutes each day. In the A/B schedule, classes are held on alternate days over the entire year; students may still be carrying six to eight courses, but they attend only half of them on any given day.

In general, block scheduling is advantageous because it provides longer instructional time and more opportunities for engaged learning. When teachers must plan for 90-minute classes, they are likely to employ different approaches than when classes are limited to 40 minutes; they can engage students more deeply in investigations, and will probably vary their instruction more. On the other hand, if teachers don't plan their time effectively, much of it may be wasted; students might devote considerable class time to independent work, for example, that might otherwise be assigned as homework. But in general, block scheduling tends to improve the school climate, with fewer discipline referrals, fewer class changes each day, greater student commitment to the work, and the potential for more engaging instruction.

The two major approaches to high-school block scheduling carry different advantages and disadvantages. Before implementing one or the other, educators are well advised to consult one of the many excellent books that have been written on the subject.

Summary

A school's organizational structures can go a long way toward promoting student learning. At all instructional levels, the school's organizational pattern can materially affect the manner in which students and teachers interact. All of these schoolwide structures should be designed to maximize teacher and student flexibility, encourage in-depth teaching and learning, and integrate as many different resources as possible.

The chart on the following page is intended to help educators examine their own school's approach to school organization and determine whether changes should be made. I have provided a similar chart at the end of each subsequent chapter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Charlotte Danielson School organization" refers to how schools arrange the resources of time, space, and personnel for maximum effect on student learning.

# data[].attributes.body
Decision Making

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thanks to its partnership with publisher Eye on Education, Education World is pleased to present this administrator tip from School Leader Internship (4th Edition): Developing, Monitoring, and Evaluating Your Leadership Experience, by Gary E. Martin, Arnold B. Danzig, William F. Wright, Richard A. Flanary, and Fred Brown. This article provides school leaders with five factors to consider when making quality decisions.

Decision making is sine qua non to education administration because a school, like all formal organizations, is basically a decision-making structure (Hoy and Miskel, 2001). Decision making is a process that guides actions. Decisions are based on the beliefs, values and previous experiences of individuals. Leaders must know themselves, know why they choose particular paths, know whom to involve, and know which particular decision-making model to use. Today, researchers and theorists know that those at the top cannot accurately gather or predict all alternatives. They know that followers deserve to be involved and that input and collaboration result in better decisions. The first decision is to decide what level of involvement is most effective.

Leaders have at least four options of involvement in decisions: deciding alone, seeking participation and input, seeking collaboration, and letting others decide. These approaches are termed autocratic, participative, collaborative, and laissez fair, respectively. A wise leader uses participative and collaborative strategies for all important decisions. However, such an approach is not always possible, nor is it preferable in all situations. The leader must assess 5 factors to decide on the level of involvement:

Time

Urgency may require the leader to make his or her own decision without consulting others. Participative decisions, especially collaborative decisions, require more time than a decision made alone. If important decisions are at stake, the leader must schedule more time for involvement.

Staff Interest in the Decision

Barnard (1938) found that individuals have a "zone of indifference" in which they simply accept the leader's decision and are apathetic toward the decision. In these cases, the leader would not benefit from trying to gain participation or collaboration. At higher levels of interest, however, more participation or collaboration is appropriate. Leaders who desire more collaboration must generate interest in the decision.

Staff Expertise

Followers who have very low levels of expertise accept the decisions of leaders. Staff members who have higher levels of expertise require either participation or collaboration to arrive at successful decisions. The leader who desires collaboration must raise levels of expertise to successfully involve subordinates.

Importance or Need For a High-Quality Decision

Some decisions are much more important and carry significant consequences. This is usually the case for instruction and learning, whether directly or indirectly. For important questions that demand high-quality decisions, collaboration is the best model. If the decision is relatively unimportant, then the leader should simply make the decision.

Degree of Need for Buy-In or Support for the Decision

Many decisions in schools need staff support for successful implementation and results. A collaborative model often increases buy-in and support.

Education World®
Copyright © 2012, 2017 Education World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Decision-Making for School Leaders: Five Tips | Education World

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thanks to its partnership with publisher Eye on Education, Education World is pleased to present this administrator tip from School Leader Internship (4th Edition): Developing, Monitoring, and Evaluating Your Leadership Experience, by Gary E. Martin , Arnold B. Danzig , William F. Wright , Richard A. Flanary, and Fred Brown .

# data[].attributes.body
Our society is changing. Educators need to embrace this change to help our students succeed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vol. 67

No. 1

Abstract

What Will It Take?

Better Curriculum

Better Teaching

Better Tests

A Better, But Harder, Way

To work, the 21st century skills movement will require keen attention to curriculum, teacher quality, and assessment.

Abstract

What Will It Take?

Better Curriculum

Better Teaching

Better Tests

A Better, But Harder, Way

A growing number of business leaders, politicians, and educators are united around the idea that students need "21st century skills" to be successful today. It's exciting to believe that we live in times that are so revolutionary that they demand new and different abilities. But in fact, the skills students need in the 21st century are not new.

Critical thinking and problem solving, for example, have been components of human progress throughout history, from the development of early tools, to agricultural advancements, to the invention of vaccines, to land and sea exploration. Such skills as information literacy and global awareness are not new, at least not among the elites in different societies. The need for mastery of different kinds of knowledge, ranging from facts to complex analysis? Not new either. In The Republic, Plato wrote about four distinct levels of intellect. Perhaps at the time, these were considered "3rd century BCE skills"?

What's actually new is the extent to which changes in our economy and the world mean that collective and individual success depends on having such skills. Many U.S. students are taught these skills-those who are fortunate enough to attend highly effective schools or at least encounter great teachers-but it's a matter of chance rather than the deliberate design of our school system. Today we cannot afford a system in which receiving a high-quality education is akin to a game of bingo. If we are to have a more equitable and effective public education system, skills that have been the province of the few must become universal.

This distinction between "skills that are novel" and "skills that must be taught more intentionally and effectively" ought to lead policymakers to different education reforms than those they are now considering. If these skills were indeed new, then perhaps we would need a radical overhaul of how we think about content and curriculum. But if the issue is, instead, that schools must be more deliberate about teaching critical thinking, collaboration, and problem solving to all students, then the remedies are more obvious, although still intensely challenging.

What Will It Take?

The history of U.S. education reform should greatly concern everyone who wants schools to do a better job of teaching students to think. Many reform efforts, from reducing class size to improving reading instruction, have devolved into fads or been implemented with weak fidelity to their core intent. The 21st century skills movement faces the same risk.

To complicate the challenge, some of the rhetoric we have heard surrounding this movement suggests that with so much new knowledge being created, content no longer matters; that ways of knowing information are now much more important than information itself. Such notions contradict what we know about teaching and learning and raise concerns that the 21st century skills movement will end up being a weak intervention for the very students-low-income students and students of color-who most need powerful schools as a matter of social equity.

The debate is not about content versus skills. There is no responsible constituency arguing against ensuring that students learn how to think in school. Rather, the issue is how to meet the challenges of delivering content and skills in a rich way that genuinely improves outcomes for students.

What will it take to ensure that the idea of "21st century skills"-or more precisely, the effort to ensure that all students, rather than just a privileged few, have access to a rich education that intentionally helps them learn these skills-is successful in improving schools? That effort requires three primary components. First, educators and policymakers must ensure that the instructional program is complete and that content is not shortchanged for an ephemeral pursuit of skills. Second, states, school districts, and schools need to revamp how they think about human capital in education-in particular how teachers are trained. Finally, we need new assessments that can accurately measure richer learning and more complex tasks.

For the 21st century skills effort to be effective, these three elements must be implemented in concert. Otherwise, the reform will be superficial and counter-productive.

Better Curriculum

People on all sides of this debate often speak of skills and knowledge as separate. They describe skills as akin to a function on a calculator: If your calculator can compute square roots, it can do so for any number; similarly, if a student has developed the ability to "think scientifically," he or she can do so with any content. In this formulation, domain knowledge is mainly important as grist for the mill-you need something to think about.

Skills and knowledge are not separate, however, but intertwined. In some cases, knowledge helps us recognize the underlying structure of a problem. For example, even young children understand the logical implications of a rule like "If you finish your vegetables, you will get a cookie after dinner." They can draw the logical conclusion that a child who is denied a cookie after dinner must not have finished her vegetables. Without this familiar context, however, the same child will probably find it difficult to understand the logical form modus tollens, of which the cookie rule is an example. ( If P, then Q. Q is false. Therefore, P is false.) Thus, it's inaccurate to conceive of logical thinking as a separate skill that can be applied across a variety of situations. Sometimes we fail to recognize that we have a particular thinking skill (such as applying modus tollens) unless it comes in the form of known content.

At other times, we know that we have a particular thinking skill, but domain knowledge is necessary if we are to use it. For example, a student might have learned that "thinking scientifically" requires understanding the importance of anomalous results in an experiment. If you're surprised by the results of an experiment, that suggests that your hypothesis was wrong and the data are telling you something interesting. But to be surprised, you must make a prediction in the first place-and you can only generate a prediction if you understand the domain in which you are working. Thus, without content knowledge we often cannot use thinking skills properly and effectively.

Why would misunderstanding the relationship of skills and knowledge lead to trouble? If you believe that skills and knowledge are separate, you are likely to draw two incorrect conclusions. First, because content is readily available in many locations but thinking skills reside in the learner's brain, it would seem clear that if we must choose between them, skills are essential, whereas content is merely desirable. Second, if skills are independent of content, we could reasonably conclude that we can develop these skills through the use of any content. For example, if students can learn how to think critically about science in the context of any scientific material, a teacher should select content that will engage students (for instance, the chemistry of candy), even if that content is not central to the field. But all content is not equally important to mathematics, or to science, or to literature. To think critically, students need the knowledge that is central to the domain.

The importance of content in the development of thinking creates several challenges for the 21st century skills movement. The first is the temptation to emphasize advanced, conceptual thinking too early in training-an approach that has proven ineffective in numerous past reforms, such as the "New Math" of the 1960s (Loveless, 2002). Learning tends to follow a predictable path. When students first encounter new ideas, their knowledge is shallow and their understanding is bound to specific examples. They need exposure to varied examples before their understanding of a concept becomes more abstract and they can successfully apply that understanding to novel situations.

Another curricular challenge is that we don't yet know how to teach self-direction, collaboration, creativity, and innovation the way we know how to teach long division. The plan of 21st century skills proponents seems to be to give students more experiences that will presumably develop these skills-for example, having them work in groups. But experience is not the same thing as practice. Experience means only that you use a skill; practice means that you try to improve by noticing what you are doing wrong and formulating strategies to do better. Practice also requires feedback, usually from someone more skilled than you are.

Because of these challenges, devising a 21st century skills curriculum requires more than paying lip service to content knowledge. Outlining the skills in detail and merely urging that content be taught, too, is a recipe for failure. We must plan to teach skills in the context of particular content knowledge and to treat both as equally important.

In addition, education leaders must be realistic about which skills are teachable. If we deem that such skills as collaboration and self-direction are essential, we should launch a concerted effort to study how they can be taught effectively rather than blithely assume that mandating their teaching will result in students learning them.

Better Teaching

Greater emphasis on skills also has important implications for teacher training. Our resolve to teach these skills to all students will not be enough. We must have a plan by which teachers can succeed where previous generations have failed.

Advocates of 21st century skills favor student-centered methods-for example, problem-based learning and project-based learning-that allow students to collaborate, work on authentic problems, and engage with the community. These approaches are widely acclaimed and can be found in any pedagogical methods textbook; teachers know about them and believe they're effective. And yet, teachers don't use them. Recent data show that most instructional time is composed of seatwork and whole-class instruction led by the teacher (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network, 2005). Even when class sizes are reduced, teachers do not change their teaching strategies or use these student-centered methods (Shapson, Wright, Eason, &amp; Fitzgerald, 1980). Again, these are not new issues. John Goodlad (1984) reported the same finding in his landmark study published more than 20 years ago.

Why don't teachers use the methods that they believe are most effective? Even advocates of student-centered methods acknowledge that these methods pose classroom management problems for teachers. When students collaborate, one expects a certain amount of hubbub in the room, which could devolve into chaos in less-than-expert hands. These methods also demand that teachers be knowledgeable about a broad range of topics and are prepared to make in-the-moment decisions as the lesson plan progresses. Anyone who has watched a highly effective teacher lead a class by simultaneously engaging with content, classroom management, and the ongoing monitoring of student progress knows how intense and demanding this work is. It's a constant juggling act that involves keeping many balls in the air.

Part of the 21st century skills movement's plan is the call for greater collaboration among teachers. Indeed, this is one of the plan's greatest strengths; we waste a valuable resource when we don't give teachers time to share their expertise. But where will schools find the release time for such collaboration? Will they hire more teachers or increase class size? How will they provide the technology infrastructure that will enable teachers to collaborate with more than just the teacher down the hall? Who will build and maintain and edit the Web sites, wikis, and so forth? These challenges raise thorny questions about whether the design of today's schools is compatible with the goals of the 21st century skills movement.

For change to move beyond administrators' offices and penetrate classrooms, we must understand that professional development is a massive undertaking. Most teachers don't need to be persuaded that project-based learning is a good idea-they already believe that. What teachers need is much more robust training and support than they receive today, including specific lesson plans that deal with the high cognitive demands and potential classroom management problems of using student-centered methods.

Unfortunately, there is a widespread belief that teachers already know how to do this if only we could unleash them from today's stifling standards and accountability metrics. This notion romanticizes student-centered methods, underestimates the challenge of implementing such methods, and ignores the lack of capacity in the field today.

Instead, staff development planners would do well to engage the best teachers available in an iterative process of planning, execution, feedback, and continued planning. This process, along with additional teacher training, will require significant time. And of course none of this will be successful without broader reforms in how teachers are recruited, selected, and deselected in an effort to address the whole picture of education's human capital challenge.

Better Tests

There is little point in investing heavily in curriculum and human capital without also investing in assessments to evaluate what is or is not being accomplished in the classroom. Fortunately, as Elena Silva (2008) noted in a recent report for Education Sector, the potential exists today to produce assessments that measure thinking skills and are also reliable and comparable between students and schools-elements integral to efforts to ensure accountability and equity. But efforts to assess these skills are still in their infancy; education faces enormous challenges in developing the ability to deliver these assessments at scale.

The first challenge is the cost. Although higher-level skills like critical thinking and analysis can be assessed with well-designed multiple-choice tests, a truly rich assessment system would go beyond multiple-choice testing and include measures that encourage greater creativity, show how students arrived at answers, and even allow for collaboration. Such measures, however, cost more money than policymakers have traditionally been willing to commit to assessment. And, at a time when complaining about testing is a national pastime and cynicism about assessment, albeit often uninformed, is on the rise, getting policymakers to commit substantially more resources to it is a difficult political challenge.

Producing enough high-quality assessments to meet the needs of a system as large and diverse as U.S. public schools would stretch the capacity of the assessment industry, and incentives do not exist today for many new entrants to become major players in that field. We would need a coordinated public, private, and philanthropic strategy-including an intensive research and development effort-to foster genuine change.

Substantial delivery challenges also remain. Delivering these assessments in a few settings, as is the case today, is hardly the same as delivering them at scale across a state-especially the larger states. Because most of these assessments will be technology-based, most schools' information technology systems will require a substantial upgrade.

None of these assessment challenges are insurmountable, but addressing them will require deliberate attention from policymakers and 21st century skills proponents, as well as a deviation from the path that policymaking is on today. Such an effort is essential. Why mount a national effort to change education if you have no way of knowing whether the change has been effective?

A Better, But Harder, Way

The point of our argument is not to say that teaching students how to think, work together better, or use new information more rigorously is not a worthy and attainable goal. Rather, we seek to call attention to the magnitude of the challenge and to sound a note of caution amidst the sirens calling our political leaders once again to the rocky shoals of past education reform failures. Without better curriculum, better teaching, and better tests, the emphasis on "21st century skills" will be a superficial one that will sacrifice long-term gains for the appearance of short-term progress.

Curriculum, teacher expertise, and assessment have all been weak links in past education reform efforts-a fact that should sober today's skills proponents as they survey the task of dramatically improving all three. Efforts to create more formalized common standards would help address some of the challenges by focusing efforts in a common direction. But common standards will not, by themselves, be enough.

The past few decades have seen great progress in education reform in the United States-progress that has especially benefited less-advantaged students. Today's reformers can build on that progress only if they pay keen attention to the challenges associated with genuinely improving teaching and learning. If we ignore these challenges, the 21st century skills movement risks becoming another fad that ultimately changes little-or even worse, sets back the cause of creating dramatically more powerful schools for U.S. students, especially those who are underserved today.

References

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Loveless, T. (2002). A tale of two math reforms: The politics of the new math and NCTM standards. In T. Loveless (Ed.), The great curriculum debate (pp. 184-209). Washington, DC: Brookings.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). A day in the third grade: A large-scale study of classroom quality and teacher and student behavior. Elementary School Journal, 105, 305-323.

Shapson, S. M., Wright, E. N., Eason, G., &amp; Fitzgerald, J. (1980). An experimental study of the effects of class size. American Educational Research Journal, 17, 141-152.

ASCD is a community dedicated to educators' professional growth and well-being.

Let us help you put your vision into action.

ASCD empowers educators to achieve excellence in learning, teaching, and leading so that every child is healthy, safe, engaged, supported, and challenged.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
21st Century Skills: The Challenges Ahead

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vol. 67 No. 1 Abstract What Will It Take? Better Curriculum Better Teaching Better Tests A Better, But Harder, Way To work, the 21st century skills movement will require keen attention to curriculum, teacher quality, and assessment. Abstract What Will It Take?

# data[].attributes.headline
Effective Leadership is all About Communicating Effectively: Connecting Leadership and Communication 

# data[].attributes.subject
Effective Leadership is all About Communicating Effectively: Connecting Leadership and Communication 

# data[].attributes.body
Communication

# data[].attributes.body
Theories of Leadership

# data[].attributes.body
Theories of Leadership