School Innovation: Pathway to the Knowledge Society - Chapter 8 - Managing Innovation

In this chapter four issues associated with the management of innovation are examined. The first is the degree of autonomy and management flexibility that schools have to innovate; the second is the extent to which innovations are a response to market pressures; the third is the process of innovation, and the last is the extent to which research and evaluation data played a part in the design or implementation of school innovations.

In sociological terms, the capacity of an actor to act is referred to as `agency' and the enabling and limiting conditions that shape the actions are referred to as `structures'. Thus, autonomy and flexibility can be conceptualised in terms of the relationship between agency and structure.

According to Giddens (1984), social structures consist of rules and the capacity of individuals to apply those rules. Some rules are codified in regulations and policies and carry formal sanctions; others are informal and tacit and deviations are unofficially sanctioned. The capacity of individuals to apply or reformulate rules depends to a large extent upon their power in the organisation.

Rules may permit agency in several different ways. General rules or principles usually provide more scope for discretion than narrow specifications of acceptable practice. Rules about how to interpret and use rules (meta-rules) can also enhance autonomy. However, autonomy also requires the capacity to act on the rule so that unless there is a matching of rule and resource (power) changing official rules will not lead to a change in practice.

IBPP schools were asked to rate the extent to which increased autonomy to make decisions facilitated or hindered the implementation of the innovation. The overall average rating was 4.10 out a possible rating of 5.00. There were differences between government and non-government sectors in regard to the importance attached to autonomy, as shown in Table 8.1 below.

The higher rating by government school respondents may be due to a greater awareness of autonomy as an issue in the government sector rather than any difference in the actual capacity of schools to act independently of funding agencies.

Table 8.1: The importance of increased autonomy to make decisions for schools in the government and non-government sectors. (N=100)

Sector	Mean	Std Dev	Cases
Government	4.21	0.58	61
Catholic	3.92	0.76	18
Independent	3.91	0.73	21

Generally, the innovations in the IBPP were conducted independently of system authorities. In three-quarters of the final reports there was no evidence that system authorities played a role in the innovation. Of the reports that made reference to a systemic role in the innovation, there were equal proportions of government and Catholic schools though a much smaller proportion of independent schools. One item in the survey asked respondents to indicate the extent to which acquiring special approval from system authorities was a special feature of the school's innovation. Only 5 per cent rated this a strong feature- three government schools and two Catholic schools. Twenty-two per cent of schools made some reference to government policy in their final reports and 17 per cent made reference to bureaucratic obstacles.

Some structures enabled schools to develop distinctive responses to their environment while remaining part of the larger system. Other structures inhibited such variability. Control over the allocation of resources was a key flexibility. In centralised school systems, where there is tight central control of resources and where uniformity of provision of education services is a primary factor in controlling schools themselves, schools have little flexibility.

In the survey, schools were asked to indicate the extent to which flexibility in the school's capacity to deploy available resources to new priorities hindered or facilitated the implementation of the school's innovation. Eighty-five per cent rated it 4 or higher on a 5-point scale. The responses were consistent across school systems and across school sectors, as shown in Table 8.2 below.

Table 8.2: Ratings by sectors of the importance of flexibility for the school's capacity to deploy resources to new priorities (N=100).

Sector	Mean	Std Dev	Cases
Government	4.36	0.62	61
Catholic	4.41	0.52	18
Independent	4.18	0.76	21

These results correspond closely with the responses to another item in the survey. Slightly more than half the schools indicated that being able to reallocate school funds was a feature of their innovation. The results were consistent across sectors.

The staff members of a school are its key resource. Procedures relating to staff appointments, transfers and replacements can limit flexibility and impede innovation. Several items in the survey addressed staffing issues. Twenty-six per cent of respondents indicated that changes in staffing hindered the implementation. In this regard there were notable differences between sectors. Catholic schools were less likely than government schools to report that changes in staffing hindered the innovation. The mean ratings are shown in Table 8.3 below. A mean rating of less than 3.0 indicates changes in staffing had a negative influence on the innovation.

Table 8.3: Ratings by sectors of the extent to which changes in staffing limited the innovation (N=100).

Sector	Mean	Std Dev	Cases
Government	2.71	0.77	61
Catholic	3.27	1.03	18
Independent	2.96	0.92	21

Often, innovations are highly dependent on a small core of staff members, sometimes an individual staff member. These members may be noted for qualities such as commitment, expertise and leadership. Schools were asked about their capacity to retain key staff. Half of them reported this to be a strong feature of their projects. This was generally the case across sectors though, as shown in Table 8.4 below, it was a stronger feature of innovations in Catholic schools.

Table 8.4: Ratings by sectors of the extent to which engaging/retaining specially qualified staff to work on the innovation was a feature of the innovation (N=100).

Sector	Mean	Std Dev	Cases
Government	3.44	1.14	61
Catholic	3.99	0.80	18
Independent	3.41	1012	21

A lack of resources was a major factor impeding change in 10 per cent of schools. This applied more in the government and Catholic sectors than in the independent school sector.

Though schools appeared to have substantial autonomy to initiate and implement reforms, every school faced some obstacles. That is the nature of innovation. In a number of cases, schools reported a constraint they were unable to resolve. These were categorised under three headings: bureaucratic, cultural and ideological (Table 8.5).

Table 8.5: Number of schools reporting an enduring constraint by school sector (N=36).

Sector	Bureaucratic	Cultural	Ideological
Government	16	9	7
Catholic	1	0	0
Independent	1	2	0

Only those bureaucratic constraints that impeded the innovation were recorded. Some schools sought and were given permission or endorsement from a system or community council. Even though they could not ignore external authorities, these schools were not constrained by them.

Most examples of obstacles were in the area of staffing. Schools identified systemic requirements such as accepting teachers on forced transfers, not being able to employ a primary trained teacher in a secondary school, and other kinds of system requirements that made it difficult to build a team of like-minded supporters for an innovation, as major impediments. Some were concerned about funding arrangements: for instance, a census held before most commencing students had enrolled, costs for TAFE being higher for non-government school students and inadequate recognition of the additional costs associated with students with special needs. Some constraints were included in the bureaucratic category but were more a result of organisational dilemmas than the use of central powers. An example of this was the school that extended the length of its day and found that bus timetables could not be changed because the service was provided to all schools in the town.

Schools often reported cultural issues as matters of concern. These, however, were usually dealt with during the implementation of an innovation. Generally, these concerns related to the implications of changes to established practice, or lack of experience relevant to proposed changes. For example, a government secondary school reported that its relatively weak ethos of pastoral care was undermining its students' academic performance so the school set about developing its own distinctive way of caring for students. Because the school succeeded, it was not identified as a constraint. An example of a cultural constraint that was not overcome occurred in a school that introduced middle- schooling strategies to socialise the younger students. Critics of the innovation, mainly senior teachers, withdrew from the process of change. The innovators felt debilitated by the lack of support and, as a consequence, found it difficult to sustain the energy required.

Ideological constraints, although less commonly reported, tended to have more serious consequences. They occurred when staff viewpoints became polarised. For example, one school introduced a vertical timetable that required students to progress in a lock-step manner. A proportion of the staff did not support the innovation at the beginning. Differences became exacerbated over time and staff opinion about the innovation became polarised on faculty lines. Several schools used their project research reports to confront divisions among staff members and sort out problems arising from conflicting belief systems.

Ideological differences have a huge potential to be disruptive since innovations depend for their success on teamwork. The innovations in the IBPP depended on the enthusiasm and initiative of staff members. However, it would be a mistake to paint too rosy a picture. Ten per cent of schools indicated that substantial resistance had to be overcome to get the innovation under way. This difficulty was shared equally by schools in the government and non-government sectors. Seventy-eight per cent of schools indicated that some key members of staff made it difficult to proceed with their school's innovation. The incidence appeared to be almost identical across government and non-government sectors. It is evident in Table 8.5 that the principal source of constraint among the 36 incidences of `constraint' was `bureaucratic' (in 50 per cent of instances). Schools from the government sector reported a disproportionately higher number of constraints in that category.

The largest source of constraint pertained to staffing policies and procedures (Table 8.6). This is consistent with the finding reported earlier where 26 per cent of respondents to the survey reported that changes in staffing hindered the innovation. The staffing function in most government school systems is still highly centralised which perpetuates tensions between systemic and local staffing needs.

Table 8.6: Type of bureaucratic constraint (N=18).

Nature of constraint	Number of schools
System staffing policies	7
Funding formula	3
Lack of system support	3
Curriculum framework	2
Services across schools	2
Regulation	1
Total	18

Although there is much current debate about the possibilities of school choice and school competition driving school innovation, the legitimation of market principles in education administration is contingent on demonstrating a link between market conditions and innovation.

Proponents of school markets argue that competition will lead schools to adopt new approaches to teaching and school organisation to attract discerning parents and their children. Under conditions where government tuition subsidies follow students, fully enrolled schools will prosper and under-enrolled schools will be obliged to question and address the quality of their programme.

The market paradigm has been attacked for various reasons-moral, social and educational-reasons that fall outside the scope of this paper. One straightforward basis for supporting or opposing school markets is whether, in practice, they deliver what they are supposed to deliver: innovation.

In Australia, choice and competition have historically been exercised through the maintenance by governments of dual systems of public and private schools. About 70 per cent of Australian students attend public schools and the remainder attend private schools subsidised by federal and state governments. There was a quantum injection of funding in 1973 and the market share of the private school sector has been increasing gradually since 1979. Enrolments in the private school sector have grown from 21 to 30 per cent of the total student enrolments over the two last decades. That growth is projected to continue.

The main growth area has been among low-fee denominational schools. At the same time, within a context of competitive pressure from the private sector, public education officials have enabled limited competition for students among schools in their sector, particularly at the secondary school level. Competition among schools, in public and private sectors, and between sectors, is being stimulated by recent federal government policies which have increased funding to government and non-government schools and in certain circumstances made the establishment of new private schools more viable.

While these developments offer greater parental choice they have not necessarily occurred with the primary purpose of fostering innovation. Nor do proponents of market conditions contend that Australian schools have been slow or unwilling to innovate. Nevertheless, when pushed to justify the introduction of markets in education, political leaders claim the need for greater choice in schooling and for the innovation that it will produce.

The IBPP survey results suggest that market considerations were a factor influencing the innovations. Twenty per cent of schools, when asked to rate the extent that the school's innovation was motivated by `a decision to position the school to make it more attractive to clients' on a scale of 1 to 5, rated this item as 4.0 or higher. The mean was 3.04. However, the survey results suggest the market was not the major motivator, 5th out of 11 items surveyed, but nor was it unimportant.

In the school research reports, the most common reasons for a particular innovation were educational. As the innovations varied among schools, so did the nature of the reasons given. Sixty-two per cent of school research reports gave reasons for embarking on their chosen innovations that were confined to educational theory, practice or beliefs (Table 8.7).

Table 8.7: Motivations for introducing innovations stated in IBPP school research reports (N=107).

Stated motivation	Number of schools
Solely educational rationale	66
Some reference to school's market position	28
Innovation directly influenced by market	13
Total	107

Thirty-eight per cent of schools made some form of reference in their school research report to their competitors or the effects of competitive forces on their school. Generally, these references accompanied explanations based on educational motivations. In some cases, factors such as declining enrolments or increased competition were clearly articulated as reasons for undertaking changes. In other cases, related events such as increased enrolments or an enhanced market profile were seen as outcomes of the innovation.

Public and private schools were represented in these categories at a level consistent with their representation in the IBPP. Schools from all states were represented. Anecdotal evidence based on discussions with staff members in schools during the project suggests that the significance of market factors may be under reported. This is based on issues discussed during visits to schools that were not reflected in the written reports.

In the cases where market factors were described in school research reports, they were closely tied to significant events relevant to the history of an innovation. For example, a school with declining enrolments introduces an innovation and then the enrolment trend is reversed. Such a sequence of events relates directly to the narrative that explicates the change process. The increased enrolments suggest client confidence in the innovation and provide evidence that the innovation had an impact.

Only a few schools provided detailed information about the impact of market pressure and its relationship to their innovation. The dilemma created by declining enrolments, shifting demographics or new schools opening in their area was explained sufficiently to show the strength and nature of the pressure they were exposed to. Following an account of their innovation, its implementation and evaluation, they then provided data about changes to their enrolments.

Three case studies have been selected to illustrate the variations in school accounts of connections between market forces and innovations. A school from each of the government, Catholic and independent sectors has been selected. It is not suggested these schools represent their sectors. Rather, they have been selected because they have documented a direct relationship between market pressures and their innovations. The case study schools operate in three different states.

Case study 1: Nativity Senior Secondary School

The most direct link possible between concerns about market forces and a decision to innovate is when a school cannot expect to continue indefinitely unless it takes account of its poor standing and makes changes accordingly. Declaring that the situation is dire is often a powerful point of departure from the past.

This first case study outlines the experiences reported by Nativity (Catholic) Senior Secondary School that after a period of significant change found itself with declining student enrolments and increasingly negative community perceptions of the school.

Events precipitated `a climate of near despair' and eventually led to `an impetus for change'. Innovation became the solution to the crisis the school faced. It did not represent a compromise as much as a fundamental shift in the school's direction as an organisation. In summarising the innovation it is difficult to do justice to all its implications.

It began with a timetable mechanism that introduced a number of flexibilities for Year 11 staff and students without increasing teacher workloads. The combination of the flexible timetable, the new tutorial style sessions and the element of student choice reoriented the school's whole programme. A new understanding developed about the balance of responsibility for learning between the staff and the students.

The qualities of the staff as a group were seen as a factor in the way the changes were played out. A `keen collective memory of attempts to impose unwanted change' caused staff to focus on changes that the teachers believed would benefit the school. A key element of the staff culture of the school is an often- expressed belief that the needs of students should be the prime consideration in all planning and decision making.

Although the innovation was only a little over one year old at the time the school's research report was written, the feedback from staff and students provided as a result of the evaluation process, enabled it to form a basis for subsequent changes. For example, the innovation was extended into Year 12 the year after it had been introduced to Year 11. A significant outcome reported was the sense of hope the innovation engendered. Staff learnt that it was worthwhile to invest their energy.

A significant number of staff were convinced that the senior school setting was an ideal one for challenging long-accepted `givens' about how school education should be structured and delivered. Information about enrolments and the school's finances following the changes was not provided in the school research report except that it was reported that the system authorities were supportive of the school's new direction.

Case study 2: Welcome Hill Senior Secondary School

While there may be many reasons for making a break with an unsatisfactory past, this may introduce as many risks as opportunities. In reality, successful innovation is both fragile and demanding. While honesty may be refreshing, community support, often an important part of the change process, is linked to consumer confidence. Without consumer confidence, innovation is likely to be self-defeating. To illustrate the dilemma, the case of a school that consciously determined to link its innovation to improving its public relations is described.

Welcome Hill Senior Secondary School had once been the only government senior secondary school outside its state's capital. During its most glorious era, two hostels, one each for boys and girls, had been attached providing enrolment pressure on the senior years at a time when an academic curriculum was all that was offered to this age group.

None of the circumstances that created this situation exist any more. Senior secondary schools have been established in all regional centres, improved roads mean that students living around regional centres can more easily travel on buses to school and rural communities have suffered significant economic decline over the last thirty years. This means that a school established to play a significant role in the state's development is now one of many local secondary schools. While the school's community had changed, many of its structures and staff expectations were relics from a former era.

The situation deteriorated before any action was taken. The school found itself facing a predicament characterised by:

... declining enrolments, racial tension and a community with little respect for teachers. The school aimed to address these negative characteristics by first tackling the school's profile in the community.

The strategy was to introduce information technology and represent this as a sign that the school was `ahead of the pack'. The initiative was presented to the local community as being `big budget' even though, in reality, the funds were found by reallocating the school's existing resources. Then, the innovation was given as much public profile as possible.

Directing energy towards changing perceptions is often associated with obviating any need for actual change. In this case, however, evidence suggests that this was not the intention. Having outlined the history, the school research report focuses exclusively on the pedagogical aspects of the innovation without further reference to the root problem that it was designed to address. The evidence of change is presented in terms of classroom practices and attitudes to learning. The school passed through an initial phase in which the emphasis was on the representational aspects of the innovation. By the time of its evaluation, its focus had been redirected towards aspects relevant to the reorientation of the teachers towards their new clientele.

As the principal said about the rationale for the innovation:

The students and their needs have changed; the same could not be said of the teachers, however.

The technology innovation was not just a strategy for persuading the local community that the school intended to move forward with the times. It was also a mechanism for placing an experienced and entrenched group of teachers under pressure to review their classroom strategies. This requires a longer time frame and ongoing development.

Although the school research report did not indicate whether changes in enrolments had been associated with the innovation, an internet search of its state system web-site indicated that the downward trend had been reversed a year after the innovation commenced.

Case study 3: St Cecilia's Anglican Girls School

An independent girls' school recognised waning demand from its traditional client group. The economic decline in rural communities meant that former students could no longer afford to send their daughters to a high-fee school in the city. Also, government funding policies had enabled well-equipped, low-fee independent schools to open in the same locality. The established girls' school could not attract sufficient government funding to reduce its fees to match its competitors. Its context had changed considerably. Families who could now afford high fees had very different expectations of customer service and the educational `product' they were buying.

It was recognised that new standards of responsiveness had to be met. As a result, a decision was made to restructure the school's facilities, resources and management. As a part of these broad changes, information technology was introduced as a tool for teaching and learning across the curriculum.

The introduction of information technology was intended to perform a dual function. It provided a declaration that the school had made a break from its past. This was an important signal to potential clients who may not have previously considered enrolling their daughters. The innovation provided:

... a feature the school can promote to the niche market of its clientele.

Its second function was to provide an impetus for more general changes. As stated in the school research report, it enabled:

... a mechanism for curriculum development and innovation in teaching and learning.

The second motivation required the staff and students to review their practices and develop new learning strategies. From this point onwards the school focused on the learning strategies students' demonstrated in learning supported by technology. They were particularly interested in students' learning styles and concluded that their innovation had supported the development of higher-order thinking skills among students.

Over a period of ten years, enrolments increased by 400 girls, that is, an increase of 60 per cent from the lowest enrolment levels.

Interpreting the evidence from the case study schools

The three case study schools were selected because they were open about their interpretations of the impact that changes in society had had on their viability as institutions. They were not particularly unique or different from the other schools in the project in relation to the scale of their innovation or the way they implemented it.

All three schools were forthright in declaring that they faced problems, that these problems were severe and that the viability of the school was threatened. They did not seek to obfuscate the financial crises associated with declining student enrolments or to shirk responsibility for turning the tide. This willingness to be frank about bad news and juxtapose it against their achievements made their research reports among the more interesting to read.

In these three schools, the decision to innovate was important symbolically, particularly at the early stages of implementation. The need to communicate this decision throughout the school community and to prospective students and their families was recognised. The innovations were put forward as symbols of hope for changes possible in the future. To some extent they were also an acknowledgment that practices established in earlier contexts were no longer adequate and were under review.

While there were instances in the IBPP of new schools seeking to introduce innovations from the time of their commencement, these three schools had all been established for some time. They had histories that embedded them in old pedagogies. They were not necessarily at odds with the past, though. Each gave an account of particular circumstances that they had been through. There was an acknowledgment and valuing of the past. The school's history was presented as a part of its story. The ultimate goal of these three innovating schools was to change their instructional pedagogies. Each school took a series of steps that were intended to revitalise relationships between teachers and students. The innovations were strategies to develop their students' sense of responsibility for learning and teachers' willingness to come to terms with the need for more varied forms of instruction. Although enrolments increased in at least two of the three schools, the schools' evaluations all focused on student performance and staff and student satisfaction with instruction.

Innovations can be conceptualised in various ways. One way is to view them as a trial of a particular practice. If the trial `succeeds' then the innovation should be adopted. If it fails then the school should revert to the status quo. This approach was clearly in evidence in seven per cent of schools and was an incidental aspect of the design of several others.

Another way is to view the innovation as the adoption of a set of specific new practices that have been shown to work elsewhere. The adoption may require fine-tuning but once the practices have been installed the innovation is deemed to have been a success. The next challenge is to institutionalise the practices. This can be a double-edged sword since once the innovation is institutionalised it can itself become an obstacle to further innovation. There is an apparent paradox here: flexible structures can be used to create rigidities.

A third approach is to see innovation as an incremental process characterised by continuing adaptation and adjustment as circumstances change. Hence, in describing the flexibilities employed in the IBPP innovations, it is important to note the extent to which the innovation constitutes a shift from one fixed pattern of operating to another fixed pattern, or constitutes the development of a propensity to further develop the initial idea behind the innovation.

Table 8.8: Definitions of change sequences

Symbols	Descriptor	School states represented
A	Trigger or reference point in time	An `initial' point in time as described in a school research report. In a few cases this was ten years ago although less than five years was more common.
B	Innovation initiated	A first step taken to innovate. This change may have occurred before there was a capacity to predict its full consequences.
C	Further development of the innovation.	A subsequent change was often required. This action was generally better informed than the first step and often led to further changes.
A1	Innovation discarded	Some schools discarded their innovation. It is unlikely that a total reversion is possible so A1 is differentiated from A.

The classification of change sequences in the IBPP schools (Table 8.8) is based entirely on information provided in the school research reports. A clear statement describing a stage or transition was required for it to be considered as evident. Changes described in a school research report as being `a matter for discussion' were not coded. As a result, some schools engaged in ongoing change may not have been identified. The reality may be that schools are more adaptive than their documentation suggests. Table 8.9 classifies schools according to the change sequences they adopted.

Table 8.9: Classification of innovations according to change sequences (N= 100).

Type	Sequences	Number of Schools	Percentage
Ongoing	ABC	69	64
Single	AB	31	29
Reversion	ABA1	4	4
Static	A	3	3

An ongoing pattern of change (ABC) involved schools following an innovation with further adjustments as they became more sensitive to factors that influenced outcomes. Although not identified separately, many schools made more than two sets of readjustments.

Schools included in the single change category (AB) made a set of changes that were not subjected to a full cycle of review and adjustment. This was often because the changes had been made only a short period before the school research report was written. While it would be expected that many of these would continue to make adjustments over time and in fact stated intentions of doing so, they had not done so at the time of submitting their school research reports.

The schools in the reversion category (ABA1) were in some regards engaged in ongoing change. They made a change, reviewed it and then determined to change tack. A point of differentiation is worth making, however. The ongoing change group indicated a preference to move forward while the reversion group expressed a preference to move back to the situation that existed prior to the innovation. Two of the schools in the reversion group actively rejected their innovations after evaluations; the other two would better be described as having given up.

Schools in the static group (A) did not make changes. The three schools in this category, all non-government, analysed their current practice and how it might be improved but had not, at the time of submitting their school research reports, actually implemented any changes. All three schools were concerned that change not be allowed to impact negatively on teachers. Given the significance of context in defining what can be considered to be `new' the activities of these schools were legitimate in terms of the overall parameters of the IBPP. However, their failure to take action is significant and suggests the existence of underlying inflexibilities.

As might be expected, ongoing adaptation was the most common scenario. This is a positive result in so far as ABC is indicative of a school culture that favours the questioning of performance and a willingness to review and change practice in the light of performance data. The literature on innovation tends to be encouraging of such a continuous approach to improvement. However, the categorisations in Table 8.9 have been made primarily for descriptive purposes and valuations using the four types of change sequences should be made carefully. Schools that reverted to their pre-innovation practices should not be judged harshly. There is no point in evaluation if all innovation is by definition successful.

At various times over the past few decades the professional education community has recognised the need to equip its members with the capacity to evaluate their own practice. Self-regulation and self-evaluation are hallmarks of a profession. During the 70s and 80s high hopes were held for action research (e.g., Carr & Kemmis, 1986) and the programme that emerged from it, known as `teachers as researchers', was supported by federal funding over a number of years. Around this time, school evaluation became the catch cry and schools undertook self-evaluations following models popularised by academics from overseas (e.g., Madaus et al., 1983). More recently, self-evaluation has been incorporated into more formal school review processes (e.g., Cuttance, 1995; 1998b). Faculties of education continue to teach introductory research methods courses to undergraduates and higher level research methods courses to postgraduates, most of whom are in teaching or administrative positions in schools. Traces of these research and evaluation approaches are evident in the work of IBPP schools.

All schools provided `research data' about their innovations in their reports. The features of this information varied, as did the purposes for gathering it. Schools chose to focus on aspects of interest to their own communities. Some fixed their investigations squarely on their students' academic performance. Others surveyed attitudes of teachers, parents and students or completed narratives of their implementation experiences. Data gathered in a particular school were often (but not necessarily) compared with state or other norms if these existed. Differences in the data gathered by schools in different states and systems were evident.

Schools in the IBPP received funding to assist with research and evaluation. Some employed consultants who advised on the data requirements and in some cases took responsibility for the collection of data. IBPP workshops, some of which were attended by consultants, canvassed approaches that might be used to evaluate projects and the kind of instrumentation that might be used. However, as has been pointed out, the IBPP was initiated after most school innovations had begun and, in some cases, had been fully implemented. Though all the IBPP schools completed evaluations of their innovations, only a proportion appeared to have integrated the outcomes of them into the decision-making processes associated with the management of their project. As Table 8.10 below shows, nearly 40 per cent of schools appeared to have partitioned the research and evaluation activity from the innovation process.

Table 8.10: Extent of use of data in the innovation process (N=107).

Role of data	Number of schools	Percentage
Evidence that data was used to shape change	66	62
No evidence that data was used in decision making	41	38

For many of these schools, the research process was unfamiliar and so was itself an innovation. Table 8.11 shows that reliance on data to inform decision-making was much higher in schools where the innovation was part of a continuous approach to change and improvement.

Table 8.11: Extent of data use by type of innovation process (N=107)

Sequences	Evidence of data use	No evidence of data use	Total number of schools
ABC	51	18	69
Other types	15	23	38

It would be a mistake to conclude that the majority of schools were competent researchers of their innovative practices. At the IBPP workshops, schools reported that setting aside the question of research skills, they simply did not have time to engage in the kind of research that would impress academics - they were too busy managing the innovation and carrying out their more routine duties. They were grateful for the research support provided by the IBPP, recognised the benefits that came from more formal evaluation processes, but were not necessarily in a position to institutionalise these processes.

There is a second point to be made about Tables 8.10 and 8.11. They do not reveal the type of data used nor the use to which it was put. Many school representatives at the IBPP workshops indicted a reluctance to construe their innovations in terms they perceived to be instrumental `input-output' terms. Though nearly all expected their innovations to improve student learning, many resisted explicitly stating what outcomes would be improved and how and why this would occur. The research paradigm favoured by quantitative researchers, with its logic of measurement and comparative evaluation, did not comfortably fit the dynamic and often `untidy' process of school life.

The lack of capacity to evaluate innovation has not discouraged system authorities from promoting school innovation and change. The devolution programmes of state education departments are intended to provide schools with the flexibility required to launch their own innovative responses to local problems. Federal government programmes continue to allocate funds directly to schools to support locally devised school improvement initiatives with similar broad objectives as the innovation programmes of the last two decades. A critical difference, however, is that schools and school systems are now expected to demonstrate changes they effect and show how the funds they spend contribute directly to improved learning outcomes. It is clear that schools that developed the capacity for continuing innovation and improvement used data as an essential component of their development. However

Innovation and systemic constraints

The IBPP schools made reference in their reports to obstacles arising from membership of government or non-government school systems in relation to constraints attributable to central policies and regulations. The level of autonomy available to schools locally, however, was an important mediating factor.

Almost one-fifth of the schools reported bureaucratic constraints that impeded their innovations, most often related to staffing. Other schools might just have been content to limit their innovations to what was within national and state regulatory frameworks.

Only a small proportion of the innovations can be represented as attempts to break the mould of traditional schooling. Most were substantial attempts to improve schooling within the overarching structures that are presently in place. This raises the question whether these structures are sufficiently flexible and robust to form a platform for fundamentally new kinds of schooling. The schools that sought to develop innovations that were `outside the box' encountered significant bureaucratic constraints.

The role of market pressures

The survey results, school research reports and case studies all provide evidence that some of the innovations clearly were responses by schools to a need to better position themselves in the marketplace. Further, their innovations focused on complex and deep-seated changes in school practice, rather than the superficial public relations exercises that some critics fear are the consequence of market pressures.

However, market pressures alone are not the primary drivers of innovation. Schools were sites of innovation well before the incursion of market thinking into education policy making. Nevertheless, market pressures can provide a pressure to innovate.

Only schools that proclaimed their innovations to be successful were examined. There may well be schools that under intense market pressure found it too hard to launch innovations or, where they did, were unable to bring them to a successful conclusion.

Clearly, the ways in which market exchanges are regulated will mediate the effects of choice and competition on school innovation. Further, as Angus (1998) has shown, schools operate in highly regulated environments; market rules constitute only a small proportion of rules that make up the totality of rules in the regulatory framework for schools. Infused within the formal regulatory framework are some of the most powerful forms of regulation_tacit understandings among the actors about what is desirable and achievable. What appears to be the result of market regulation may also be linked to complex interactions of rules of various kinds.

Proponents of market conditions in school education, such as Chubb and Moe (1990), argue that the success or failure of markets is a matter of design. If this is true, and if innovation is highly valued by policy makers, then more attention needs to be focused on regulatory design. We know that markets can prompt innovation but we do not know yet which regulatory conditions enhance and support market responses.

The process of innovation

It was evident from the research reports of most schools that innovating is more complex than implementing a planned change. Schools instead got an innovation off the ground and then finetuned, modified and refocused it during the implementation phase in response to feedback. It was a matter in some cases of accommodating the innovation to the circumstances, and in others of biting off so much, and then some more because schools can manage only so much change at once. It was likely from the evidence available that data played a role in determining the nature of changes made subsequent to the initial implementation of an innovation.

Innovation and evaluation

If flexibility is an enhancement of the power to act, then it is teachers and students who most need it. Such power is of little use, however, unless teachers are able to ascertain which actions can reasonably be expected to improve student learning. This has been a weak link in the school improvement chain. Good ideas about how best to manage teaching and learning have not been matched with the means of determining whether the good idea works in practice. Innovation has been too much a `hit or miss' affair.

This observation should not be taken to mean that the IBPP schools were disinterested in demonstrating that their innovations improved student learning, either directly or indirectly. The facts were quite to the contrary. Most found the research and evaluation processes to be worthwhile. Nor should the schools be criticised for not having initiated such evaluations of their own volition and with their own resources. The culture of schooling does not support this kind of research and the expertise is not usually available among staff to conduct it. Schools tend to use less rigorous methods than would normally satisfy professional research standards to conclude whether an innovation works or does not. Slightly more than 70 per cent of schools reported that it was their perception that the achievement levels of targeted students had improved as a result of their innovation. Without external support, provided on this occasion through the IBPP, many would have been hard pressed to demonstrate that this was the case.

This is a matter that should be noted by system authorities. It is incumbent on them, especially those promoting devolution (the adoption of flexible systems of school management) to ensure that schools have the means of evaluating change. Most IBPP school teams found the experience of evaluation demanding, having had little prior experience or training. Evaluation is something that has been done to them rather than by them. In some cases in the IBPP, however, evaluation had been built into the design of the projects and such schools tended to exhibit a stronger sense of control over the whole innovation process. With respect to flexibility, they exercised informed discretion.

The onus on system authorities to act has been heightened by the increasing demands on schools to account publicly for their performance, particularly in terms of evidence relating to student learning outcomes. Members of the profession who fear that such information is liable to be misused have resisted this pressure. The question of what outcomes evidence should appropriately be placed in the public arena is yet to be resolved. This issue should not be confused with the community expectation that schools, in adopting one programme rather than another, are doing so in the light of evidence that could withstand external scrutiny.

Schools need to be provided with access to expertise and resources. There needs to be an emphasis on research and evaluation skills in pre-service training and in professional development programmes. The research community itself needs to be clearer about which evaluation and research strategies support school innovation. The models that academic researchers use in their academic work are seldom practicable in school situations. On the other hand, watered down versions are unlikely to produce evidence of a quality that make the endeavour worthwhile. Some researchers in the past, recognising this impasse, have recommended evaluation models that do not require outcome data; they emphasise discussion and reflection based on shared impressions. In the busy world of schools this is an attractive option but not one suited to the outcome- oriented world of today.

A more direct approach is to involve universities more actively in the school research and evaluation process. The IBPP provided schools with the capacity to employ external consultants and many did so. The IBPP innovations are the tip of an iceberg of innovation.

A third approach might be for schools to collaborate on a common innovation and work in partnership with universities and other external consultants. The evaluation requirements could be built into the design of the innovation and in this way impose a much lesser cost and burden of work than if they were added at the end of the implementation phase of the innovation. The early literacy innovation at East Park Primary School was of this kind.