Case Study 4 Paper

Case Study 4 Paper

Case Study 4 Paper

Case Study 4
The abrupt demand for policy changes in education institutions exposes change agents to multiple challenges that compromise the effectiveness of the change process. Change resistance, multiple stakeholders’ perspectives, and time constraints are common themes in organizational policy change processes. In a case scenario of a mid-sized university in the United States, the institution contemplates the change process emanating from the state’s demand for institutions to address new legislation that changes teacher licensure for the Inclusive Early Childhood (IEC) program. According to Mrachko et al. (2020), the current changes in the state law increase the licensure band for Early Childhood and Early Childhood Special Education from Pre-K through fifth grade following concerns from superintendents and principals regarding the lack of flexibility in the staffing of elementary school classrooms. Amidst the demand to ensure flexibility in elementary school classrooms’ staffing, universities and colleges face an uphill task of creating new IEC programs that align with the new law and licensure. The challenges accompanying the implementation of updated IEC programs are evident in the case study of a mid-sized university, especially in the College of Education. As a result, this paper focuses on issues, perspectives, knowledge, actions, and consequences/risks evident in the case study.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Issues
The state’s pressure on universities and colleges to modify Inclusive Early Childhood (IEC) programs consistent with the new law and licensure expose organizational leaders and change agents to multiple challenges associated with an abrupt need for organizational and policy change. In a mid-sized university in the United States, the Dean forms a committee between the Special Education and the Curriculum and Instruction departments to address new legislation gat changes teacher licensure for the Inclusive Early Childhood (IEC) program. The committee encompasses stakeholders from the two departments with different roles and positions, including six IEC faculty members. The fundamental focus of forming an ad hoc committee was to recreate the IEC program and develop a 4-year coursework plan (Mrachko et al., 2020). Although developing a multidisciplinary committee to initiate the change process is the most appropriate strategy, there are primary and secondary issues that emanate from this approach.
The primary concerns are stakeholder perspectives and different standpoints regarding the plausibility of recreating the IEC program and designing a 4-year degree program. The Special Education and the Curriculum and Instruction department’s stakeholders highlight various concerns about the new policy demands. These concerns include the need to balance student needs with faculty resources, the potential problem of limited field placements, the long-term feasibility of the large program size, the potential removal of the infant/toddler certificate, and the lack of faculty ownership in the original IEC program creation (Mrachko et al., 2020). These issues are central to policy change since they reflect stakeholders’ initial perspectives of the organizational change process. Secondary to these issues is the high number of credit hours required to complete the 4-year degree, the program size, staffing needs, and resource priorities.
Perspectives
Differing stakeholder perspectives and opinions regarding the move to recreate the IEC program and develop a 4-year coursework plan consistent with the state’s law are evident in the case study. Stakeholders from various departments highlighted genuine concerns about the institutional plan despite the urgent call to realize a consensus, considering the short deadline required to align programs with the state law and licensure requirements. Dr. Griffith, the committee chairperson, and a Special Education Department for Inclusive Early Childhood (IEC) member, is worried about successfully leading the committee to create a workable plan and IEC program. From Dr. Griffith’s perspective, creating an IEC program and a 4-year coursework plan may affect highly diverse students’ learning activities and knowledge acquisition. Therefore, she perceives the need to ensure that future IEC students have enough knowledge of special education principles and strategies to work in a highly-diverse classroom (Mrachko et al., 2020, p. 63). Dr. Griffith shares similar concerns with Dr. Jones, a Curriculum and Instruction Department committee member.
Dr. Jones teaches Mathematics Education courses, and his primary concerns for the new IEC program and a 4-year coursework plan align with his specialization. According to Mrachko et al. (2020), Dr. Jones is concerned with ensuring that the proposed IEC program equips Inclusive Early Childhood (IEC) students with adequate mathematics courses to develop the content knowledge necessary to teach grades Pre-K-5. He highlights that IEC students dislike mathematics and require enough mathematics courses and knowledge to teach advanced-level learners.
Unlike Dr. Griffiths and Dr. Jones, who focus on the “content” aspects of the proposed IEC program and the 4-year coursework plan, Dr. Craft exhibits different perspectives. As a Director of the Field Office and the coordinator of accreditation processes for colleges, her concerns for the program include ensuring enough field placements, engaging field stakeholders in developing the new program, and aligning the degree plan with accreditation requirements. Other notable stakeholder perspectives in the case study include Dr. Nishiyama’s concerns about balancing student needs with faculty resources and clearly defining administrative responsibilities for the IEC programs across multiple departments. Dr. McGilley agrees with Dr. Nishiyama’s concerns and states the need to avoid a negative emotional climate when engaging all stakeholders.
Knowledge
The case study provides insights into the complexities of initiating and implementing change interventions in organizations with multiple stakeholder perspectives. Also, the case study strengthens the role of effective, distributed leadership in addressing stakeholder stalemate and creating value in organizational change. Distributed leadership emerges as an effective leadership style amidst heterogeneous knowledge and skills. According to Xu et al. (2021), this leadership style entails “actively brokering, facilitating, and supporting the leadership of others.” As a result, it is profound in enabling the achievement of idiosyncratic ideals by allowing leaders and employees to share leadership knowledge and skills. The central tenets of distributed leadership include mutual commitment, loyalty, and interpersonal trust.
In the case scenario, stakeholders exhibit an understanding of departmental issues that emanate from implementing the proposed change. Also, they are professionally and academically qualified to make genuine and informed concerns. Therefore, change agents must recognize stakeholders’ inputs and ideas. From personal experience, leaders may compromise change when they apply autocratic leadership styles that ignore the inputs from employees and other relevant stakeholders. Consequently, distributed leadership emerges as a profound style for accommodating views, addressing stalemate, and establishing stakeholder commitment to achieve the desired outcomes of the change process. Dampson, Havor & Laryea (2018) link distributed leadership with collaborative, collective, and coordinated leadership activities that enable leaders to perform interdependently and collaborate with other employees. This leadership approach can effectively guarantee effective addressing of the stakeholders’ concerns about the proposed program.
Actions
Although the multi-actor discussions about the IEC program and the 4-year degree program resulted in a relative level of consensus, unaddressed stakeholder concerns and unresolved issues affect the progress of organizational change. Also, there are incidences of communication breakdown when the committee members do not receive updates from any administration member as the fall semester starts (Mrachko et al., 2020). Further, the administration is not satisfied with the revised IEC program draft, which seems to change the initial draft the faculty created completely. This discontentment derails change implementation, with the deadline for aligning the project with the state law and licensure requirements approaching. The change initiation agents should implement various strategies to address discontentment and underlying issues that compromise change:
• Emphasizing face-to-face discussions to build organizational commitment to the vision (Burke, 2018).
• Creating organizational response frameworks to address and satisfy the latent needs of stakeholders.
• Prioritizing stakeholder concerns and needs when revising the IEC program draft.
• Balancing competing views by establishing consensual relationships and mutual interactions between stakeholders (Chan, 2021).
Considering the looming deadline for aligning the IEC program with state law and licensure requirements, these recommendations should be time-bound. For instance, the ad hoc committee should organize face-to-face meetings with other stakeholders within two weeks to address differences in perspectives, accommodate competing objectives, and revise the plan consistent with consensus decisions. These time-bound actions will allow the organization to implement the proposed program within the stipulated time. For instance, obtaining stakeholder buy-in, developing commitment to the vision, and initiating the program before the deadline would be ideal measures of the desired outcomes.
Consequences/Risks
The proposed actions seek to build the organizational commitment to the vision and promote effective stakeholder management amidst urgently implementing the proposed IEC program and a 4-year coursework plan. Although these recommendations can strengthen stakeholder collaboration and accommodate competing objectives, they may not effectively address anticipated and unintended consequences of the change initiative. For example, a hastened recreation of the IEC program and a 4-year degree plan to comply with the state law and licensure requirements may lead to multiple post-intervention ramifications. Mrachko et al. (2020) link this program with various consequences, including mismatches between student needs and faculty resources, issues placing many students in current field placements, and long-term feasibility concerns for the large program size. Therefore, regular assessments and updates are necessary to alleviate the negative impacts of the program.
Conclusion
The case study of a mid-sized university provides insights into the intricacies of effective leadership for change, especially when learning institutions contemplate the implementation of urgent policies. More essentially, the prevalence of multiple stakeholder perspectives and competing objectives reflect the need for effective leadership. The primary themes in the case scenario include the need to consider organizational change as a nonlinear process, the contribution of distributed leadership in facilitating change, and the linkages between change goals and the patterns of planned change. Amidst the time-bound change initiatives, change agents should prioritize stakeholder concerns, balance competing views, and build organizational commitment to the vision. Also, they should consider the effects of unintended consequences of hastened decisions.

References
Burke, W. W. (2018). Organization Change Theory and Practice (5th ed.). Sage.
Chan, G. (2021). Stakeholder management strategies: The special case of universities. International Education Studies, 14(7), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v14n7p12
Dampson, D., Havor, M., & Laryea, P. (2018). Distributed leadership an instrument for school improvement: The study of public senior high schools in Ghana. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 5(2), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.509.2018.52.79.85
Mrachko, A. A., Roberts, T., LaVenia, K. N., & Horner, S. L. (2020). A tale of too many agendas: The recreation of a teaching licensure program. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 23(4), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458920949606
Xu, S., Zhang, H., Dai, Y., Ma, J., & Lyu, L. (2021). Distributed leadership and new generation employees’ proactive behavior: Roles of idiosyncratic deals and meaningfulness of work. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.755513

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

A Tale of Too Many Agendas: The Recreation of a Teaching Licensure Program

Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership
2020, Vol. 23(4) 62–76
© 2020 The University Council for Educational Administration Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/1555458920949606
journals.sagepub.com/home/jel

Alicia A. Mrachko1 , Thomas Roberts1, Kristina N. LaVenia1 , and Sherri L. Horner1

Abstract
This case study is useful for leadership for change or leadership theory in education and other disciplines. It describes the process of including multiple stakeholders in a major revision of a large educator preparation program after state legislation mandates. Student discussions can focus on change goals and patterns of planned change, leading mandated change efforts, and resistance to change. Students can focus on a leader’s role in several ways: as the higher-education leader (Dean), as the field partner leader (K–12 schools), and as the faculty committee leader. The case can be used to examine laws affecting school policy, and/or school leadership and its influence on organizational culture. Students discuss the perspective of multiple roles and how the Dean can resolve the situation successfully.

Keywords
leadership, organizational change, education, education partnerships

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us.

—Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

There is nothing in this world constant, but inconstancy . . .

—Jonathan Swift (1667–1745)

1Bowling Green State University, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Alicia A. Mrachko, Bowling Green State University, 427 Education Building, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA.
Email: mrachka@bgsu.edu

Introduction
This case takes place in a mid-sized university in the United States. In the College of Education, the Dean formed a committee between the Special Education and the Curriculum and Instruction departments to address new legislation that changes teacher licensure for the Inclusive Early Childhood (IEC) program. Currently, this program prepares teacher candidates for both general and special education licensure, plus an infant/toddler certificate. Changes in the state law have increased the licensure band for Early Childhood and Early Childhood Special Education from Pre-K through third grade to Pre-K through fifth grade. The legislative change was a result of con- cerns from superintendents and principals across the state about the lack of flexibility in their staffing of elementary school classrooms. Because teachers with early child- hood or IEC licenses (Pre-K to third grade) could not be moved to fourth- and fifth- grade classrooms under the current licensure, smaller, rural school districts were particularly affected. The legislature responded with a bill to increase licensure to Kindergarten through eighth grade. The Deans of the state’s teaching colleges and universities rallied to reduce the span and reinstate Pre-Kindergarten, with the result- ing law passed as Pre-K to Grade 5 licensure in both general and special education. Colleges and universities in the state were notified that they had 2 years to align their programs to the new law and licensure. Although this sounds like a simple idea on the surface, at this university, lingering resentment from the initial creation of the IEC program, additional top administration mandates, and the addition of required field partner input reveals the multiple perspectives that will influence the discussion and ultimately the decisions regarding course content and field placement.
Once the semester begins in August, Dean Oldman appoints six IEC faculty mem- bers to an ad hoc committee to recreate the IEC program, including the 4-year course- work plan. At this time, she also asks Dr. Griffith to chair the committee. Although Dr. Griffith accepts, she is somewhat hesitant because she will be going up for tenure next year and is concerned about the “politics” involved. She knows that these kinds of policy changes, especially with so many people involved, are always controversial and contentious, with no one completely happy at the end. As chair, Dr Griffith asks Dr. Jones, a good friend and nontenured faculty member, to take meeting notes and help her in this seemingly overwhelming task.

Stakeholders
Dr. Griffith: Committee Chair, Special Education Department for Inclusive Early Childhood (IEC), teaches Inclusion and Classroom management courses. Her major concern is ensuring future IEC students have enough knowledge in special education principles and strategies to work effectively in a classroom with highly diverse students. She is also worried about successfully leading the committee to create a workable program.
Dr. Jones: Committee Member, Curriculum and Instruction Department, teaches Mathematics Education courses. His major concern is making sure future IEC

students, who usually dislike mathematics, have enough mathematics courses to develop the content knowledge necessary to teach grades Pre-K–5.
Dr. Craft: Director of Field Office and coordinates accreditation for the college. Her major concerns are ensuring (a) enough field placements exist, (b) field partners are engaged in developing the new program, and (c) program goals and the degree plan align with accreditation requirements.
Dr. Nishiyama: Department Chair for Special Education, former special education teacher. He was one of the leaders in the development of the original IEC program 8 years ago, which entailed several years of work for faculty and administration, some- times collaborative and sometimes contentious. His concerns center on (a) balancing student needs with faculty resources, and (b) clearly defining administrative respon- sibilities for the IEC program across multiple departments. He is equally committed to all these stakeholders, and needs to balance responsibilities to all parties.
Dr. McGilley: Department Chair for Curriculum and Instruction. She has been at the college for 2 years so was not involved in the original program development. She agrees with Dr. Nishiyama’s concerns about administrative, faculty, and stu- dent needs and roles. She also wants to avoid developing a negative emotional cli- mate, which she knows can easily develop when dealing with major changes.
Dr. Oldman: Dean of the College of Education. She has worked closely with the state for amending the new licensure legislation and is aware of the content and fieldwork challenges the new licensure presents to the program. Her biggest con- cern is making sure the faculty feel ownership of the program while still meeting the needs of the licensure. She also has concerns about how to place a large number of students in current field placements, and the long-term feasibility of the large program size (n = 600).
Ms. Andersen: Committee Member, Special Education Department, Coordinator of the current IEC program, teaches classes related to infancy and toddlerhood. Her major concerns are how the new program would affect current and future IEC stu- dents and ensuring that the Special Education part of the program remains equal to the General Education part, especially related to the number and quality of the field experiences.
Mr. Hans: Committee Member, Family and Consumer Science Department, over- sees the Infant and Toddler certificate part of the current IEC program, teaches classes related to infancy and toddlerhood, family relationships. His major con- cerns are the potential removal of the infant/toddler certificate, including his classes, which are instrumental in developing students’ understanding of the impor- tance of families in education.

Minor players
Dr. Bilnie: Curriculum and Instruction Department, teaches Science courses in the current IEC and Middle Childhood programs. His major concern is that Science is treated equally to Literacy and other content courses. He also has lingering resent- ment from lack of faculty ownership in the original IEC program creation.

Dr. Spratt: Educational Foundations Department, teaches Social and Cultural Diversity and Educational Psychology courses. Her major concern is making sure these courses are not “watered-down,” removed from the new program, or taken from her department (which has occurred in the past with master’s-level courses). Dr. Dowright: Curriculum and Instruction Department, teaches Literacy courses in the current IEC and Middle Childhood programs. Her major concern is the Third Grade Reading Guarantee and how the new program aligns with that.

Teaching Case Narrative
The Work Begins
As they walk into the first committee meeting, Dr. Griffith and Dr. Jones look at each other and sigh. This task sounds exciting, but they are anticipating conflict between colleagues, both in the faculty and in the field office, because of different perspectives, priorities, and personalities. The new committee tasked with the redesign of the IEC program consists of six faculty colleagues who have not worked together as a unit in the past. Therefore, Dr. Griffith and Dr. Jones are not exactly sure what to expect so are feeling anxious but excited. Because the college Dean appointed her to chair this committee, Dr. Griffith is determined to lead this change effort well.
Over the next 6 months, this interdisciplinary faculty committee works to develop a rough draft of the 4-year degree plan. This process entailed a needs-assessment sur- vey to field partners and in-depth examination of accrediting body standards. The survey indicated that field partners, both administration and classroom teachers, believed classroom management, pedagogy, content, and communication with fami- lies were the highest priority for teacher preparation. The accreditation standards reflect similar priorities, with an increased emphasis on content knowledge, assess- ment, and whole child development. While these priorities directed the committee to maintain a rigorous schedule for the students, the Provost’s office clearly states the expectation that the revision should reduce the amount of credit hours, bringing it closer to the standard 120 credit hours for a bachelor’s degree.
With a better understanding of partner needs, accreditation standards, and univer- sity administration’s dictates, the committee works to update the plan. Differences are clear. Mr. Hans is passionate about the early childhood development course and field work and articulates the need to keep the same number, if not more, early child- hood placements. Dr. Jones argues against the early childhood course in favor of more content needed for the higher-grade bands. Both sides adamantly defend their positions. Sensing the potential for a stalemate, Dr. Griffith, feeling her anxiety ris- ing, attempts to maneuver the committee toward field priorities. Surprisingly, this breaks the impasse; the committee agrees that the program should provide four core field experiences so that preservice teachers experience the breadth of the license in both general and special education. Feeling relief, Dr. Griffith then leads the commit- tee to build courses around the field experiences they prioritized. This tactic works and the committee creates a rough draft of a 4-year degree plan. After this last

meeting, Drs. Griffith and Jones debrief, glad they were able to avert a crisis and that the committee members seemed to come to an agreement.
The committee members are proud of the draft they created and feel it provides a high level of academic content, including new content in social emotional develop- ment and an unprecedented depth and breadth of field opportunities. As a next step, the committee seeks feedback from other IEC faculty to gain potential buy-in. During this meeting, Dr. Spratt (Educational Foundations) double-checks that the educational foundation courses are still in the program (they are) and Dr. Dowright (Literacy) looks at the alignment of the new plan with the Third Grade Reading Guarantee (it is). Although the broader faculty group supports the overall plan, heartfelt opinions are expressed, including a re-hashing of the debate over field experiences versus content courses. For instance, Dr. Bilnie (Science Methods) is adamant that the program include the same amount of social studies and science content as reading and math while Ms. Andersen (Coordinator IEC program) is just as adamant that special educa- tion field experiences cannot be shorter than general education field experiences because the students are receiving both licenses. Mr. Hans (Infant and Toddler) contin- ues to advocate for early childhood field experiences. Although it took longer than expected, Drs. Griffith and Jones, and hopefully the rest of the committee, are satisfied with the meeting and the newest draft of the program plan.
However, at the end of the meeting, many faculty members, especially those who remember the issues from the last program change, express concern for what might happen to the program plan at the various administration levels.

Administration Gets Involved
Finally, after more than 7 months, Dr. Griffith prepares for a meeting with the admin- istration. She again feels anxious about their reactions but excited and proud of the work that the committee has done. During the meeting, she presents the new faculty- created plan to the relevant members of the administration, who all have slightly dif- ferent perspectives, concerns, and roles. Dean Oldman is concerned that students cannot successfully complete the program in the 4-year time limit imposed by the university and the still high number of credit hours required. She also has an issue with how the proposal separates the general education and special education courses. Drs. Nishiyama (Dept. Chair for Special Education) and McGilley (Dept. Chair for Curriculum and Instruction) are worried about the program size and the ability to staff the courses adequately. Due to large student enrollment and the current economic cli- mate where hiring additional full-time faculty is not a possibility, the program already employs too many adjunct instructors. Dr. Craft (Director of Field Office) shares con- cerns about the availability of special education placements for the students. Currently, the IEC students complete their special education placement in an inclusive Pre-K placement. If the new program requires special education placement in the Kindergarten through fifth-grade setting, there will not be enough licensed special educators in the region to place both IEC and Special Education students in appropriate K–5 classroom settings. The new program draft also does not provide enough credit hours to fund the

university supervisors for student teaching. Moreover, Dr. Craft mentions that they have not shared the plan with field partners for feedback, and wonders what they will think about this new program. Because the end of the academic year is fast approach- ing, Dean Oldman and Dr. Craft agree to present the draft to field partners before the committee does further work. Thus, Dr. Griffith is tasked with facilitating a meeting with field partners from several school districts and some IEC faculty members. As she walks out of the meeting, she is still proud of the work the committee has done but also feels overwhelmed by the amount of new concerns and information brought up in this meeting. Plus, she is concerned with how she will find time to prepare for and run the next meeting on top of her other duties.

Enter the Field Partners
As the school district partners, administrators, and IEC faculty members file into the room, Dr. Griffith is anxiously thinking,

Will we be able to come to some agreement on what is best for the program? Will I be able to represent the draft well in my presentation? I have to remember to say that we created this with the students first in our mind.

Dr. Craft is thinking,

It’s time for the administration to take the leadership on this. The faculty cannot be expected to make the hard decisions concerning funding salaries and finding placements. I hope they understand that some things will not go the way they have initially wanted.

Several more experienced faculty members, including Mr. Hans (Infant Toddler) and Dr. Bilnie (Science Methods), are also concerned about the outcome of the meet- ing. Ms. Andersen (IEC Program Coordinator) is thinking,

Ultimately the faculty and university should decide the program no matter what the field partners say. In past program changes, the field partners have complained because no one likes change. But they have gotten used to it, and now will probably complain about changes again. This time, because accreditation requires more field involvement, we might have to act on the complaints. Not that we didn’t listen to them before, we always listened.

Dr. Bilnie is thinking, “I don’t think it really matters what we propose, I think the administration already has an idea and they will do that in the end anyway. It’s all about money.”
The meeting starts with Dr. Craft welcoming everyone and presenting the new state and accreditation requirements. As per usual at the beginning of these meetings, Dr. Griffith is both anxious and excited to see what everyone thinks of this proposal. She presents the draft proposal year-by-year, including both coursework and field place- ments. Then, the large group is divided into six tables to discuss in small groups. Each

group is asked to comment on the following: if any topic was over- or underempha- sized, if the sequence of courses and field experiences were appropriate, if the pro- posed structure of the field experiences were appropriate, and to provide overall strengths and weaknesses. At least one faculty committee member and one field office personnel were at each table. College administrators were also in groups. The discus- sions were lively and very respectful. Dr. Griffith began to breathe a sigh of relief. It was not going to be contentious and maybe we could agree upon some important points! At the end of the discussion, the groups came together to report to the large group one item they felt was a strength of the new program proposal, and one item they felt needed to be changed or rethought. Everyone liked the focus on literacy. However, the group felt the field placement was not long enough each semester for preservice teachers to build relationships and fully engage in a real teaching experi- ence (e.g., the new program had four student teaching experiences for 7 weeks of four semesters rather than two full semesters in the old program). The Dean assures every- one that this was a draft and changes would occur in response to the discussion today. Drs. Griffith and Jones think that the meeting went well and the field partners leave feeling good about the discussion.

So What Happens Now?
After the field partners left, Dean Oldman asks the university people to stay for a couple minutes. The relief that Dr. Griffith had felt drains away. Here is the decisive moment. Dean Oldman begins,

Thank you everyone for all your work on this proposal. I recognize that this effort took time away from your regular work and now you are here at the end of the semester to continue that effort. Your proposal was an excellent, if idealistic, draft. However, I think you already know some of our constraints and we cannot ignore them. We do not have enough Special Education placements to do the large-scale Kindergarten through fifth grade placements you have proposed. I want you to go ahead with creating the courses, but we need to think long and hard if all these courses are absolutely necessary for the program. We have to create space for the field hours and try to cut more hours. You have done a great job thinking out of the box for the structure, but we will not be able to accommodate all of it. If we are going to use this structure as written, it will mean severely curtailing the number of students we allow in the program. This has ramifications for current and future staffing and for funding. I just want to be very clear now so there are no misconceptions.

It is quiet in the room, with no one saying anything or even looking at each other. Dr. Bilnie thinks, “Damn, it has happened again. So much for almost a year of work.” Drs. Griffith and Jones shuffle their papers around, feeling exhausted and defeated, not able to think about what they are supposed to do next. After Dean Oldman leaves, Drs. Craft and Nishiyama suggest the committee not to proceed with more work until some of these issues are resolved. An hour later, feeling frustrated, Drs. Griffith and Jones meet at a local restaurant to decompress and talk it through. They decide that they, and

the rest of the faculty, need to wait for direction from the administration. Although still frustrated, exhausted, and concerned about the outcome of this major recreation of the IEC program, they are somewhat relieved personally that they can now focus on their grading and other end of the semester activities.
As the fall semester starts, the committee members have not heard anything from any member of the administration. In the second week of class, Dr. Craft sends the IEC faculty a revised draft that addresses the special education placement problem and the field partner concern with the length of student teaching. The administration thinks this is a wonderful compromise, but the new proposal completely changes the draft created by the faculty. Although it does not eliminate any coursework, the new plan moves all coursework in the last 2 years of the program into the junior year, with the senior year a full student teaching year. With the state-mandated deadline for program changes less than a year away, university curriculum changes deadlines less than 2 months away, and much work still needing to be done, Drs. Griffith and Jones are once again worried about the task of creating a positive outcome for the revision, including how IEC faculty would react and adjust to these changes.

Teaching Notes
The Learning Objectives for the Case
This case is useful for courses focused on leadership for change and leadership theory, within either higher-education or Pre-K to 12 educational settings. Relevant literature that students may wish to utilize for discussion includes Burke’s (2018) articulation of how we might rethink organizational change—the paradox of planned organizational change, Fullan’s (2007, 2019) writings on leadership, and Hargreaves’s (2004) work to explore internal, external, and personal change initiatives. In particular, students have an opportunity to reflect on the linkages between change goal(s) and the pattern(s) of planned change. Novice change agents often approach planned change within orga- nizations with a linear change agenda in mind while experienced change agents know quite well that change in organizations, planned or otherwise, rarely involves a linear pattern (Burke, 2018). Figure 1 offers a visual illustrating the nonlinear nature of orga- nizational change.
We structure the teaching notes to work alongside each main component of our case, focusing first on the introduction, and then on each subheading.

Introduction. The context of this case offers several noteworthy features for leaders to consider. First, a policy mandate prompts the change, which emanates from on-the- ground constituents’ needs for improved staffing flexibility. Thus, the impetus for the required change in licensure is something driven by practitioners in school districts (e.g., superintendents and principals) who are faced with requirements to place highly qualified teachers in each classroom, while working in the current climate of teacher shortages—especially in high needs areas such as special education (Billingsley, 2004; Thornton et al., 2007). This context is a reminder for readers to consider how policy

Figure 1. Depiction of the nonlinear nature of organizational change.
Source. Reprinted with permission from Burke (2018).

mandates are likely to impact all school leaders at some point; the need to lead imple- mentation of mandated change efforts can be particularly challenging, and this is espe- cially true as districts and schools continue to respond to accountability policies and demands (Coburn et al., 2009).
This context highlights the multiple perspectives at play (Pre-K to 12 school needs as well as higher-education programmatic constraints), and thus the various forces pushing and pulling on this issue. Like most policy mandates, this one centers on the problem at hand, but offers no direction for how leaders might navigate this change. Spillane et al. (2002) point out that when it comes to policy implementation, it is not actual policy that is implemented, but, rather, it is the leaders’ (and followers’) inter- pretations of the policy that is implemented. That is, the sense-making that goes on during policy implementation is critical for whether or not the organization realizes the policy’s intended outcomes. An illustrative quote from Majone and Wildavsky (1978) may help: “Policy ideas in the abstract . . . are subject to an infinite variety of contingencies, and they contain worlds of possible practical applications. What is in them depends on what is in us, and vice-versa” (p. 113).

The Work Begins. This section of the case invites students to consider the levels of organizational change, and the various ways resistance to change can manifest. Burke (2018) encourages leaders to consider (a) various levels of organizational change (e.g., individual, group, and total system) and (b) the relations between resistance(s) to change and levels of change. Some examples of individual changes include recruitment, retention, and exiting of employees. Burke points out that indi- vidual resistance to change is often because the individual is anxious about potential

negative consequences of change to him or her directly or indirectly. For example, a faculty member being asked to modify a program may be worried about loss of instructional time or potential drawbacks of removing course content.
According to Hambrick and Cannella (1989), resistance to change can vary not only by level (i.e., individual, group, or total system) but also by type. The typology offered for classifying resistance to change involves differentiating between blind resistance, political resistance, and ideological resistance (Burke, 2018). Blind resis- tance stems from individual tendencies to be resistance to change in general, whereas both political and ideological resistance to change are grounded in a specific concern or objection to the proposed change. Political resistance to change often stems from a person’s fear of loss if the change is implemented (loss of status in the workplace, loss of control over decision-making, etc.). Ideological resistance to change is associated with a person’s conviction that the change is not a good move for the organization or some subset of stakeholders.
There is evidence that increased stakeholder involvement leads to better decision- making and overall outcomes (Beierle & Konisky, 2001). This case allows us to focus on the tensions between stakeholders’ priorities in agenda-setting, as we see people from different programs, departments, and levels of authority within the university and broader education system all present with their particular concerns for the agenda. Within the policymaking literature, there is a distinction between levels, or hierarchies, of problem solutions. Specifically, scholars identify phases of the process, including the agenda universe, systemic agenda, institutional agenda, and the decision agenda (McClain & Tauber, 2018). As various stakeholders engage with the agenda-setting pro- cess, the focus narrows from the universe of agenda options (i.e., all possible answers to problems or concerns) through to the institutional agenda (i.e., specific options available to a group of stakeholders) and finally the decision agenda (i.e., those items about to be acted upon by a group of decision-makers). At each phase, stakeholders compete for the priorities that are best aligned with their responsibilities, goals, and values. It is impor- tant to keep in mind that as we move up the organizational hierarchy, there are increases in access to information (e.g., budget constraints and forecasts) as well as accountability for outcomes which explain some of the differences between leaders’ priorities for agenda-setting and the priorities of those in supporting or subordinate roles.

Administration Gets Involved. Here, we hear more voices with an interest in the program- matic changes. Each person holds a different perspective, and this reveals new chal- lenges to implementing change. This chapter invites readers to reflect on distributed leadership (Harris et al., 2007; Spillane et al., 2001) and the implications for organiza- tional change. Leadership scholars have considered distributed leadership as it relates to organizational change, and one definition is particularly helpful for our discussion:

An alternative perspective (to the heroic leader) that is slowly gaining more adherents is to define leadership as a shared process of enhancing the individual and collective capacity of people to accomplish their work effectively. Instead of a heroic leader who can perform all essential leadership functions, the functions are distributed among different members of the team or organization. (Yukl, 2008, p. 2)

Although distributed leadership practices sound very appealing, there are barriers to effective distribution of leadership in large organizations. In distributed leadership practices, it is often the goal to involve all who have relevant expertise in a change effort; this can create a situation, though, where inclusivity is sought with a lack of acknowledgment of real power differentials between members of the leadership team (Lumby, 2013). Promoting shared leadership has the potential to support successful change, but it must be managed in such a way that power over decision-making, and not just tasks, gets shared. For instance, in our scenario, there are several types of leadership, including three levels of university administration, the committee chairs, and the field partner administration, all of who have different levels of real power and areas of concern.

Enter the field partners. This section addresses the importance of strong partnerships between teacher education programs and Pre-K to 12 stakeholders who are heavily invested in the “product” of well-prepared teachers. Kennedy and Heineke (2014) propose that 21st-century teacher preparation requires higher education to address specific community needs, in addition to foundational skills and methodology, to bridge the gap between preparation and practice. Accrediting bodies now require teacher education programs to collaborate with field partners regularly in the interest of ongoing improvement (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, 2018). Part of Dr. Craft’s insistence on the field partner meetings was a result of this requirement. Field partner collaboration created another layer to the shared leadership discussed above (Lumby, 2013).
The events in this section provide an opportunity for reflecting on the importance of face-to-face communications for groups. The events in the large-group meeting also serve as a reminder that various leadership styles (e.g., transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) may be on display at the same time (Bass, 1996; Van Wart, 2013). There is evidence that a central feature of transformational leadership involves the ability to articulate a vision for organizational goals (Kouzes & Posner, 1987). Furthermore, studies of leadership communication suggest that face-to-face discus- sions may be most effective for building organizational commitment to vision because this form of communication is most “rich” not only in information, but also in oppor- tunities for feedback (Jensen et al., 2018).

So what happens now?. The scene in this section brings us full-circle, with a reminder that policy mandates (i.e., external demands for change) often bring tension and stress by forcing internal change (e.g., program revisions). Change agents are typically tasked with balancing the needs of external customers with those inside the organiza- tion. In our example, there is a need to meet the needs of Pre-K to 12 stakeholders and top administration while designing and delivering undergraduate teacher preparation programming that meets the needs of undergraduate students. Policymakers delivering a mandate for changes in licensure may not have considered the unintended conse- quences associated with field placement hours (required by law) and number of courses required for degree completion for students in the IEC program (Fullan, 2007).

Although it is likely that unintended consequences, as well as unforeseen benefits, may always be associated with policy mandates, work to carefully analyze and predict unintended consequences is needed to support effective policy implementation (Brady et al., 2014). For effective policy implementation in our scenario, the leadership must consider not only unforeseen curricular and placement issues, but the more pervasive issue of faculty and partner ownership of the process and outcome.

Suggested Readings
Burke, W. W. (2018). Organizational change: Theory & practice (5th ed.). SAGE. Fullan, M. (2019). Nuance: Why some leaders succeed and others fail. SAGE. Jensen, U. T., Moynihan, D. P., & Salomonsen, H. H. (2018). Communicating the vision: How face-to-face dialogue facilitates transformational leadership. Public Administration Review, 78(3), 350–361.
Lumby, J. (2013). Distributed leadership: The uses and abuses of power. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 581–597.

Discussion Questions
1. Introduction: How is the sense-making of this policy and program change sim- ilar and different for the stakeholders involved?
2. The Work Begins: (a) For each stakeholder, what is his or her degree of resis- tance to change? Include the levels and types of resistance that apply. (b) If you were in one of the leadership positions (i.e., Dean, Department Chairs, and Chair of the committee), what could you do to help each person embrace or at least accept this change?
3. Administration Gets Involved: Analyze each of the leaders in this distributed leadership case: (a) What was their role in the recreation of the program? (b) What were the positive outcomes of their handling of their part of this program change?
(c) What were the negative outcomes of their handling of their part of this pro- gram change? (d) If you were in their position, what would you do the same and differently? Remember to support your ideas with research and theory.
4. Enter the Field Partners: (a) What role do you think the field partners should play in the ultimate decision-making for the program revision and why? (b) Analyze this face-to-face meeting, using both resistance to change and distrib- uted leadership theories. As a leader in this meeting, what would you do the same or differently than the leaders in this case?
5. So What Happens Now?: (a) From a distributed leadership perspective, ana- lyze the potential consequences of an administration-derived draft after a year of faculty-led revisions. (b) What are some of the unforeseen potential conse- quences of the new state policy for this university, including the administra- tion, faculty, field partners, and undergraduate students? As one of the leaders, is there anything you could do to help predict any of these unforeseen conse- quences and/or ameliorate them?

6. This case ends unresolved. Taking the perspective of each of the stakeholders,
(a) how resistant to change is she or he at this time point? Has this resistance changed from the beginning? (b) How effective does she or he believe this distributed leadership model is working? (c) What do you think should be her or his next step in the recreation of this program?
7. Looking at the larger picture of this scenario, if you were the leadership (e.g., Dean, School directors) facing a required organizational and systemic change to a program, how could you (a) anticipate and possibly prevent some of the underlying issues (e.g., power struggles, nontenured professors vs. administra- tion) that may undermine the process, and (b) think about how to clearly com- municate your vision without creating an immediate top-down decision chain and no ownership of change.
8. Put yourself in Dr. Griffith’s position. Given the work the committee has already done, the significant changes proposed by administration, and the lim- ited time they have to make curriculum changes, how would you engage the committee to get an agreeable proposal ready for university review and approval?

Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs
Alicia A. Mrachko https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5999-7974 Kristina N. LaVenia https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8284-5864

References
Bass, B. M. (1996). Is there universality in the full range model of leadership? International Journal of Public Administration, 19(6), 731–761.
Beierle, T. C., & Konisky, D. M. (2001). What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19(4), 515–527.
Billingsley, B. S. (2004). Special education teacher retention and attrition: A critical analysis of the research literature. The Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 39–55.
Brady, M. P., Duffy, M. L., Hazelkorn, M., & Bucholz, J. L. (2014). Policy and systems change: Planning for unintended consequences. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 87(3), 102–109.
Burke, W. W. (2018). Organizational change: Theory & practice (5th ed.). SAGE.
Coburn, C. E., Honig, M. I., & Stein, M. K. (2009). What’s the evidence on districts’ use of evidence? In J. Bransford, L. Gomez, D. Lam, & N. Vye (Eds.), Research and practice: Towards a reconciliation (pp. 67–87). Harvard Education Press.

Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2018). CAEP 2018 K-6 elementary teacher preparation standards (initial licensure programs).
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (2019). Nuance: Why some leaders succeed and others fail. SAGE.
Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A., Jr. (1989). Strategy implementation as substance and sell- ing. Academy of Management Executive, 3(4), 278–285.
Hargreaves, A. (2004). Inclusive and exclusive educational change: Emotional responses of teachers and implications for leadership. School Leadership & Management, 24, 287–309. Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., & Hopkins, D. (2007). Distributed leadership and organizational change: Reviewing the evidence. Journal of Educational Change, 8(4),
337–347.
Jensen, U. T., Moynihan, D. P., & Salomonsen, H. H. (2018). Communicating the vision: How face-to-face dialogue facilitates transformational leadership. Public Administration Review, 78(3), 350–361.
Kennedy, A. S., & Heineke, A. (2014). Re-envisioning the role of universities in early child- hood teacher education: Community partnerships for 21st century learning. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 35, 226–243.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things done in organizations. Jossey-Bass.
Lumby, J. (2013). Distributed leadership: The uses and abuses of power. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 581–597.
Majone, G., & Wildavsky, A. (1978). Implementation as evolution. In H. Freeman (Ed.), Policy Studies Review Annual (pp. 103–117). Beverly Hills: SAGE.
McClain, P. D., & Tauber, S. C. (2018). American government in black and white: Diversity and democracy (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30, 23–28.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.
Thornton, B., Peltier, G., & Medina, R. (2007). Reducing the special education teacher shortage. The Clearinghouse: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80(5), 233–238. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.80.5.233-238
Van Wart, M. (2013). Lessons from leadership theory and the contemporary challenges of lead- ers. Public Administration Review, 7(4), 553–565.
Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 708–722.

Author Biographies
Alicia A. Mrachko is an assistant professor at Bowling Green State University, where she teaches Behavior and Inclusion courses for both undergraduate and graduate programs. Her cur- rent research lines include coaching pre-service educators in evidence-based practice, positive behavior supports in schools, and coaching paraprofessionals in social communication for chil- dren with Autism Spectrum disorder.
Thomas Roberts is an assistant professor at Bowling Green State University where he teaches mathematics education courses. His current lines of research explore students’ experiences in

informal STEM and STEAM learning environments, early childhood and elementary STEM education, and preservice elementary teacher preparation.
Kristina N. LaVenia is an assistant professor at Bowling Green State University. She teaches courses on leadership, organizational change, and research methods. One of her research inter- ests is understanding how leaders work to support organizational change.
Sherri L. Horner is an associate professor at Bowling Green State University. She teaches Educational Psychology and Human Development courses. In her research, she mainly investi- gates how young children learn about literacy, including alphabet and environmental print.