Over the holiday break, I had a chance to read Michael Fullan’s Turnaround Leadership. He reports on a study that found that of those people who underwent significant cardiac procedures (bypass, angioplasty, and catheterization) only one out of ten had stuck to the changes in diet and exercise recommended by their doctors. Think about that. We are talking about people who had literally been told change or die. Despite the sobering nature of that news, only 10% changed.

I began to think that we are really doing the same thing in public education today. Teachers are bombarded with all of the consequences (missing AYP, not making value added cut scores, loss of funding) that might result if classroom practice is not significantly altered. Are we expecting teachers to change at a rate exceeding that of cardiac patients?

Is change really necessary? Only if we want to realize results other than what we are currently getting. To do the same thing and expect different results is the definition of folly. If we proceed from the notion that change is necessary, what works?

Fullan does not leave us hanging. Change that lasts is change that results from people feeling better. If a person emerges from a cardiac procedure, makes the dietary and exercise changes that were recommended, and feels better as a result of those things, sustained change is much more likely. Not because of the doctor’s warning, but because the person felt better.

Consider the implication for teachers. In the end, sustained change (and hopefully improvement) will be realized by those teachers who were able to make their daily classroom experience better as a result of making a change. What problems are you facing in the classroom? Is change the answer?