Building on an expanded concept of mutual adaptation, this article explores a distinctive and successful aspect of International Baccalaureate's (IB) effort to scale up, as they moved to expand their programs and support services in Title I schools. Based on a three-year, mixed-methods study, it offers a case where we see not only local adaptations that schools made as they implemented IB (mutual adaptation in situ), but also a second level of adaptation. This reflects what we call mutual adaptation in action—as organizational learning took place on both sides. The designers incorporated what they learned from local implementations into the next iteration of their design, potentially strengthening not only the design, but also their capacity to go to scale. On the design side, adaptations include: (1) adapting to context and conditions, (2) reinforcing weak pillars and redesigning procedures, and (3) taking local adaptations to scale.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerendsM., BodillyS., & KirbyS. N. (2002). Facing the challenges of whole-school reform: New American Schools after a decade. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
2.
BermanP., & McLaughlinM. W. (1975). Federal Programs supporting educational change, Volumes I-IV. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
3.
BodillyS. (1998). Lessons from New American Schools’ scale-up phase: Prospects for bringing designs to multiple sites. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
4.
BrykA. S., GomezL., & GrunowA. (2010). Getting ideas into action: Building Networked Improvement Communities in education. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
5.
BrykA., SebringP., AllensworthE., LuppescuS., & EastonJ. (2009). Organizing schools for improvement. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
CarnoyM., ElmoreR., & SiskinL. S. (2003). The new accountability: High schools and high-stakes testing. New York, NY: Routledge.
7.
CoburnC. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12).
8.
CoburnC. E., & SteinM. K. (Ed.). (2010). Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.
9.
ConnerJ. O. (2008). From international schools to inner-city schools: The first principles of the International Baccalaureate Diploma Program. Teachers College Record, 110(2), 322–351).
10.
DatnowA., & CastellanoM. (2000). Teachers’ responses to Success for All: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 775–799).
11.
DatnowA., HubbardL., & MehanH. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. London, England: Routledge/Falmer.
12.
DesimoneL. (2000). Making comprehensive school reform work (Urban Diversity Series No. 112). New York, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.
13.
FullanM. (2000). The return of large-scale reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1(1), 1–23).
14.
FullanM. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
HallingerP., LeeM., & WalkerA. (2011). Program transition challenges in International Baccalaureate schools. Journal of Research in International Education, 10(2), 123–136).
17.
HiebertJ., GallimoreR., & StiglerJ. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one?Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15).
18.
International Baccalaureate Organization. (2006). From growth to access: Developing an IBO access strategy. New York, NY: Author.
19.
McDonaldJ., KleinE., & RiordanM. (2009). Going to scale with new school designs: Reinventing high school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
20.
McLaughlinM. W. (1976). Implementation as mutual adaptation: Change in classroom organization. Teachers College Record, 77(3), 339–351).
21.
McLaughlinM. W. (1990). The Rand Change Agent Study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11–16).
22.
McLaughlinM. W., & MitraD. (2001). Theory-based change and change-based theory: Going deeper, going broader. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 301–323).
23.
MunceyD. E., & McQuillanP. J. (1996). Reform and resistance in schools and classrooms: An ethnographic view of the Coalition of Essential Schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
O'HarrowR. (1993, November 30). Schools enthusiastic about rigorous regimen: Goal is to provide world-class education. The Washington Post, p. B3.
25.
PattonM. Q. (2006). Evaluation for the way we work. Nonprofit Quarterly, 13(1), 28–30).
26.
PayneC. M. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Press.
27.
PeurachD., LenhoffS., & GlazerJ. (2016). Large-scale high school reform through school improvement networks: Exploring possibilities for “developmental evaluation.” Teachers College Record, 118(13). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=20622
28.
ReiserB. J., SpillaneJ. P., SteinmullerF., SorsaD., CarneyK., & KyzaE. (2000). Investigating the mutual adaptation process in teachers’ design of technology-infused curricula. In FishmanB., & O'Connor-DivelbissS. (Eds.), Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 342–349)). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
SarasonS. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before it's too late?San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
30.
SiskinL. S., & WeinsteinM. (2009a). Schools like us: Survey of International Baccalaureate education in Title I schools. New York, NY: Institute for Education & Social Policy.
31.
SiskinL. S., & WeinsteinM. (2009b). The district role in International Baccalaureate. New York, NY: Institute for Education & Social Policy.
32.
SiskinL. S., WeinsteinM., & SperlingR. (2010). To be IB: Creating support structures and services for Title I high schools implementing the International Baccalaureate Programmes. New York, NY: Institute for Education & Social Policy.
33.
SlavinR. E., & MaddenN. A. (1996). Scaling up: Lessons learned in the dissemination of Success for All (Report No. 6). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk, Johns Hopkins University.
34.
SlavinR. E., & MaddenN. A. (1998). Disseminating Success for All: Lessons for policy and practice (Report No. 30). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins University.
35.
SmithM. S., & O'DayJ. (1991). Systemic school reform. In FuhrmanS.H., & MalenB. (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing, 1990 Yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 233–267)). London, England, and Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.
36.
SpillaneJ. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63–87).
37.
StringfieldS., & DatnowA. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring designs in urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 269–276).
