The main variables are the opinion leadership of the advocate, norms of the district toward the program, and the resources allocated in favor of the program. In large-scale change the innovation is transmuted in the process. What results is not the same as what was intended. Ultimately the change paradigms rest on one's conception of the school as an organization. The research and development paradigm is essentially an engineering model which sees the organization as composed of standard building blocks which can be replaced with superior ones. From this engineering view there are not enough good parts around, so it is the duty of demonstration centers and regional labs to manufacture more parts that can be sold to the consumer. This view assumes that the adopting organization is an integrated problem-solving mechanism pursuing common goals. It assumes that values and goals are agreed upon and only new means are needed. Consequently, the whole change process is viewed as problem-solving in a consensus society. In fact, values and goals within schools are hazy and conflicting. They are derived from the interaction of coalitions in and around the school. Where consensus exists, little change is called for. The actual process of change necessitates conflict unless change is restricted to those tiny areas of agreement. Change requires protagonists, and large-scale change a reallocation of resources and values. Such a realocation is the aim of our endeavor to re-plan the Illinois program. The new planning project will begin in Fall, 1971, employing the results of the evaluation project to devise a new overall Illinois plan. REFERENCES 1. Brickell, Henry M. Organizing New York State for Educational Change. Albany, New York State Department of Education, 1961. 2. Clark, David L., Guba, Egon G. "An Examination of Potential Change Roles in Education." Seminar on Innovation in Planning School Curriculum, October 1965. 3. Colton, David L. State Power and Local Decision Making in Education: A Case Study. Unpublished dissertation, University of Chicago College of Education, 1968 (a). 4. Colton, David L. Politics of the Illinois Plan for Program Development for Gifted Children. St. Louis, Missouri: Center for Educational Field Studies, Washington University, August 1968 (b). 5. Dooley, Raynard, House, Ernest R., Lapan, Stephen, Kerins, Thomas. The Report on the 1968 Summer Institute on Evaluation, University of Illinois, July 29-August 9, 1968. Cooperative Educational Research Laboratory, Inc., Northfield, Ill., October 1968. 6. Eichholz, Gerhard C. "Why do Teachers Reject Change?" Theory into Practice, Vol. II, No. 5, December, 1963, pp. 264-268. 7. Erlandson, David A. An Examination of Decision Rules Within Organization Units as Responses to Government Stimuli. Unpublished thesis: College of Education, University of Illinois, 1969. 8. Guba, Egon. "The Change Continuum and its Relation to the Illinois Plan for Program Development for Gifted Children." Paper presented at a conference on Educational Change, March 1966. 9. Havelock, Ronald G. et al. Planning for Innovation through Dissemination and Utilization of Knowledge. Ann Arbor, Michi gan: Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, University of Michigan July, 1969. (Chapter 11, p. 5) 10. Horvat, John J. Content and Strategies of Communication in Current Educational Change Efforts. A presentation for the AASAEducational Press Association discussion group on "Communication Strategies of Educational Change", February, 1967. 11. House, Ernest R. An Analysis of the Role of the Demonstration Director. Unpublished thesis: College of Education, University of Illinois, 1967. 12. House, Ernest R., Lapan, Stephen, Kerins, Thomas. A Preliminary Assessment of the Illinois Gifted Program. Cooperative Educational Research Laboratory, Inc., Northfield, Ill., October 1968. 13. House, Ernest R., Kerins, Thomas, Lapan, Stephen, Steele, Joe M. The Visibility and Clarity of Demonstrations (Appendices) Northfield, Illinois: Cooperative Educational Research Laboratory Inc., June 1969. 14. House, Ernest R., Steele, Joe M., Kerins, Thomas. The Development of Educational Programs-Advocacy in a Non-Rational System. Urbana, Illinois: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois, November, 1970. 15. House, Ernest R., Kerins, Thomas, Steele, Joe M. The Demonstration Center: An Appraisal of the Illinois Experience. Urbana, Illinois: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois, December, 1970. 16. Kerins, Thomas, House, Ernest R., Lapan, Stephen, Steele, Joe M. The Illinois Demonstration Centers-The Visitors' View. Urbana, Illinois: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois, October 1969. 17. Kerins, Thomas, House, Ernest R., Lapan, Stephen, Steele, Joe M. After the Visit: The Impact of Demonstration. Urbana, Illinois, Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois, May 1970. 18. Lee, J. Murray, "Demonstration Centers for Gifted Elementary Pupils," Illinois Journal of Education (October 1965), 10–14. 19. Mumford, Lewis. "The Pentagon of Power," Horizon, XII (Autumn 1970), 4-21. 20. Report of the National Goals Research Staff, Washington, 1970. Toward Balanced Growth: Quantity with Quality. 21. Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York. The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964, pp. 81-86. 22. Rogge, William M. "The Demonstration Center as an Agent for Change," Illinois Journal of Education (October 1965) 4-9. 23. Steele, Joe M., House, Ernest R., Lapan, Stephen, Kerins, Thomas. Instructional Climate in Illinois Gifted Classes. Urbana, Illinois: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois, 1970. APPENDIX G ASSESSMENT OF PRESENT U.S. Office of EDUCATION DELIVERY SYSTEM TO GIFTED AND TALENTED CHILDREN AND YOUTH REPORT TO UNITED STATES OFFICE OF EDUCATION 73529 MAY 30, 1971 |