FINAL EXAM: INTEGRATING ALL FIVE
COMPONENTS OF CHANGE LEADERSHIP
Due: May 4, 2026
Exam Overview
The final exam is the capstone assessment of your learning in ELPS 606. It assesses your ability to integrate all five components of Fullan’s change leadership framework and to apply that integrated understanding to authentic, complex scenarios. This exam is the culmination of your semester of learning.
Exam Format and Structure
The final exam consists of two essay questions, each worth 200 points (total 400 points). You can access Fullan’s text while completing the exam and may reference it directly.
Due date: May 4, 2026 at 11:59 PM
Question 1: Case Analysis Using All Five Components (200 points)
You will be presented with a substantial change scenario describing a school or district attempting to sustain school improvement (SEE BELOW). The case will include information about the organization’s history, current challenges, a change initiative that has been implemented, and current status. The case will present both successes and ongoing challenges.
Your task is to:
1. Provide a comprehensive analysis of this change effort using all five of Fullan’s core components: moral purpose, understanding change, relationships, knowledge creation, and coherence making. For each component, analyze:
o What is happening with this component in this organization? o How is it supporting (or hindering) the change effort?
o What is working well? What needs strengthening?
2. Explain how the five components are interdependent in this situation. How does strength (or weakness) in one component affect the others?
3. Diagnose what is needed for the organization to deepen and sustain this change over the next several years. What leadership moves are most critical?
4. Propose a comprehensive leadership strategy for the next 18 months grounded in all five components of Fullan’s framework.
Question 2: Designing and Communicating Change (200 points)
You will be presented with a specific change initiative that a school or district is considering implementing. The scenario will include context about the organization, the students served, current challenges, and the proposed change.
Your task is to:
1. Analyze why this change is needed. What problem does it address? What does the evidence suggest about its potential impact?
2. Design how you would implement this change, demonstrating sophisticated understanding of how to navigate complexity, build relationships, foster learning, and create coherence. Your design should address:
o How you would build moral purpose and why the change matters o How you would help people understand change as a learning process o How you would build relational trust necessary for adoption o What structures you would create for organizational learning o How you would ensure coherence and alignment
3. Write the communication you would send to staff to introduce this change. Your communication should demonstrate Fullan’s principles: clarity about direction, honesty about difficulty, emphasis on learning, and grounding in shared purpose.
(This component should be approximately 300 words.)
4. Anticipate resistance or questions you might encounter. For each major concern, explain how your design addresses it and how you would respond to resistance while maintaining your commitment to the change.
Exam Quality Standards
Responses will be evaluated on:
• Comprehensiveness: Engaging substantively with all five components and demonstrating how they work together
• Analytical depth: Moving beyond description to genuine examination of why change is difficult and what enables it
• Accurate application: Direct, sophisticated engagement with Fullan’s frameworks with clear, appropriate citation
• Practical wisdom: Demonstrating that you can apply complex theory to authentic situations with nuance, honesty about difficulty, and sophisticated solutions
• Writing quality: Clear, grammatically correct, academically rigorous prose that demonstrates command of language and ideas
• Integration: Showing that you understand how the frameworks work together rather than as separate components
ELPS 606: LEADING CHANGE
Final Exam: Comprehensive Assessment Materials
FINAL EXAM OVERVIEW AND INSTRUCTIONS
Exam Structure and Format
The final exam for ELPS 606 is a comprehensive assessment of your mastery of Michael Fullan’s framework for change leadership. This exam asks you to integrate all five core components of his model—moral purpose, understanding change, relationships, knowledge creation, and coherence making—and to apply that integrated understanding to authentic, complex change scenarios drawn from real educational organizations.
The exam consists of two essay questions, each worth 200 points, for a total of 400 points.
Exam Parameters:
• Format: Open-book essay exam
• You may reference Fullan’s text and any course materials
• You may also reference your own experience and knowledge from beyond the course
• Time allotted: You can start anytime during the course (do not wait to the last week)
• Due date: Sunday, May 4, 2026 at 11:59 PM
• Submission: Upload your response as a Word document or PDF to the Final Exam assignment in Canvas
How to Prepare for the Final Exam
Review the Core Frameworks
Before you begin the exam, review the five core components of Fullan’s model:
1. Moral Purpose: The deeply felt commitment to make a difference in students’ and educators’ lives. It answers: Why are we doing this work? Who benefits? Whose needs are we serving?
2. Understanding Change: The recognition that change is a learning process, not a technical problem with a predetermined solution. It includes understanding the implementation dip, the importance of relationships in sustaining change, behavior before beliefs, and the role of the leader as a lead learner.
3. Relationships: The relational trust that forms the foundation of all organizational change. It includes benevolence, competence, honesty, and reliability. Relationships are not the soft stuff; they are the soil in which all real change grows.
4. Knowledge Creation and Deep Learning: The systems, structures, and cultural norms that enable organizations to create knowledge and foster continuous learning. It includes how organizations learn from one another, how leaders create structures for collaborative work, and how learning is connected to organizational improvement.
5. Coherence Making: The leadership work of aligning systems, strategies, and initiatives so they work together toward shared purpose rather than competing with
one another. It requires clarity about what really matters, elimination of initiatives that do not serve core purpose, and integration of improvement efforts.
Review the Standards
The final exam assesses your understanding of educational leadership against:
• NC Standards for School Executives (all 7 standards)
• NELP Standards (all 8 standards)
• PSEL Standards (all 10 standards)
As you respond to the exam questions, consider which standards are being addressed and how your analysis demonstrates competency in those standards.
Study Tips
• Reread key chapters. Return to the chapters that felt most complex or important to you. Make notes about the ideas that seem most applicable to the scenarios you will encounter.
• Review course discussions. Reread the discussion prompts from throughout the semester and the responses from your peers. What patterns emerge in how people think about change?
• Connect to your own experience. Think about change initiatives you have been involved in. How do Fullan’s frameworks help you understand what happened?
• Practice applying frameworks. For each of the five components, practice articulating how it shows up (or fails to show up) in an organization you know.
• Prepare examples. Have several concrete examples ready from your own experience that illustrate Fullan’s concepts.
Exam Expectations and Grading
What Excellent Responses Demonstrate
Responses that achieve high marks on this exam will demonstrate:
• Comprehensive analysis that engages substantively with all five components of Fullan’s framework
• Sophisticated understanding of how the components are interdependent and mutually reinforcing
• Accurate, nuanced application of Fullan’s concepts to the specific scenarios presented
• Integration of multiple ideas rather than isolated discussion of single concepts
• Practical wisdom that recognizes both the power of Fullan’s frameworks and the complexity of real-world application
• Evidence of integration across the entire course, not just recent weeks
• Clear, grammatically correct, academically rigorous prose that demonstrates command of language and ideas
• Appropriate citation and reference to Fullan’s text where relevant
What the Exam Does Not Require
• Perfect or complete solutions to complex problems (change in real organizations is never fully solved)
• Agreement with every idea Fullan presents (critical engagement is valued)
• Extensive outside research beyond Fullan and course materials (though it is welcomed if relevant)
• A particular political perspective or ideology
• Recitation of lecture content
How Your Response Will Be Evaluated
Each question is evaluated on a rubric that assesses:
1. Depth and comprehensiveness of analysis
2. Accurate and sophisticated application of frameworks
3. Integration of multiple concepts
4. Practical grounding in real educational contexts
5. Writing quality and clarity
FINAL EXAM QUESTIONS AND
SUPPORTING SCENARIOS
QUESTION 1: COMPREHENSIVE CASE ANALYSIS
(200 points)
Scenario: Madison Ridge School District Improvement Initiative
Context and Background
Madison Ridge School District serves 8,500 students across 12 schools in a mixed urbansuburban community in the upper Midwest. The district includes elementary schools (K–5), middle schools (6–8), and high schools (9–12). Approximately 34% of students qualify for free or reduced lunch; 28% are multilingual learners; 18% receive special education services.
The district has experienced significant leadership instability over the past decade. Four superintendents have served in the past eight years, with tenures ranging from eighteen months to three years. This instability has resulted in numerous incomplete initiatives, conflicting priorities, and deep skepticism among teachers about whether improvement efforts are worth their time and energy.
Two years ago, the current superintendent, Dr. Patricia Chen, arrived with a mandate from the board: improve student achievement, particularly for students of color and students from low-income families. The board also expected her to reduce the achievement gap between the highest and lowest performing schools in the district.
The Initiative
Dr. Chen’s improvement strategy focused on three major components:
1. A new literacy framework for all K–8 schools, based on the science of reading and requiring significant changes in how reading is taught across the elementary and middle school grades.
2. A professional learning community (PLC) structure in which teachers would work in grade-level or subject-area teams, use student data to identify problems of practice, and collaboratively design solutions.
3. A distributed leadership model that elevated teacher leadership by creating instructional coaches in each school who would work alongside teachers to implement the new literacy framework and facilitate PLC work.
Each school was given a literacy coach hired or promoted from within the school’s existing staff. Central office provided a five-day summer training for coaches and limited ongoing professional development.
Current Status: Two Years In
The initiative has had mixed results. Some schools have embraced the work enthusiastically. At Lincoln Elementary, the principal was a vocal supporter. She provided protected time for coaching, included literacy work in her formal teacher evaluations, and visibly participated in learning alongside her staff. Achievement on the district literacy assessment improved 8% in year one and 6% more in year two. Teacher survey data showed that 78% of Lincoln Elementary teachers believe the literacy initiative is improving student learning.
The situation is quite different at other schools. At Roosevelt Middle School, the principal, Mr. James, has been publicly skeptical. He attended the summer coaching training but left after the first day due to a family emergency and never returned. His attendance at monthly principal meetings focused on the literacy initiative has been sporadic. He has not provided protected time for coaching or for PLC work. Teachers at Roosevelt report that they are “trying to fit in literacy coaching when they can” but that “it feels like one more thing added to an already overwhelming list.”
Achievement data tells the story. Roosevelt’s literacy assessment scores increased 2% in year one and declined 1% in year two. When coaches tried to facilitate PLCs at Roosevelt, attendance was inconsistent and conversations felt perfunctory. Several experienced teachers at Roosevelt have expressed privately to coaches that they do not believe this initiative will last any longer than the previous ones. One teacher said, “We have seen four superintendents in eight years. I will wait this out like I waited out the previous initiatives.”
Across the district, the picture is mixed. Four schools show meaningful progress similar to Lincoln. Four schools show modest improvement but face barriers to deeper implementation. Four schools show minimal progress or regression, similar to Roosevelt.
Dr. Chen is in her third year. The board is pleased with overall progress but is concerned about the uneven results. Achievement gaps between schools have narrowed slightly but remain significant. Dr. Chen is also aware that the literacy coaches are exhausted. Several have asked to step down. The coaches report that they feel unsupported, that they lack clarity about what their role should be, and that principals’ engagement varies so dramatically that their work feels impossible in some buildings.
Additional Information
Board minutes from the past year include several comments about “ensuring this initiative is sustained” and “holding principals accountable.” Dr. Chen has decided that in year three, she will focus on “increasing fidelity to the framework” and will develop a fidelity checklist that will be used to evaluate schools’ implementation of the literacy initiative.
A recent staff survey found that overall teacher morale is slightly improved compared to two years ago, but 34% of teachers report that they feel overwhelmed by multiple competing initiatives. When asked what would help them most, the top response (47% of teachers) was
“clarity about what really matters and where we should focus energy.”
Question 1 Prompt
Analyze Madison Ridge School District’s literacy improvement initiative using Fullan’s five core components of change leadership. Your response should address the following:
Part A: Component Analysis (150 points)
For each of the five components, analyze what is happening in this organization:
1. Moral Purpose: What is the moral purpose that should anchor this literacy initiative? To what extent is that purpose clear and compelling to different stakeholders (teachers, coaches, principals, families)? What evidence suggests that moral purpose is (or is not) driving decisions and effort?
2. Understanding Change: How well have leaders framed this as a learning process? What evidence do you see of the implementation dip? How has the district supported people through the discomfort of learning? What role has the leader as lead learner played?
3. Relationships: What is the quality of relational trust in this district? How has trust (or lack of trust) affected people’s response to the initiative? What evidence do you see of relational trust or distrust? How has the history of leadership instability affected relationships?
4. Knowledge Creation and Deep Learning: What structures has the district created for organizational learning? What is actually happening in PLCs across schools? How are coaches supported in their own learning? What barriers prevent deep collective learning?
5. Coherence Making: Is the literacy initiative coherent or fragmented within schools? What competing priorities are teachers navigating? How have resource allocation decisions communicated what really matters? What incoherence contributes to the uneven implementation?
For each component, provide specific evidence from the scenario, explain how strength or weakness in that component is affecting the initiative, and identify what needs strengthening.
Part B: Interdependence Analysis (30 points)
Explain how the five components are interdependent in this situation. How does the weakness in relational trust at Roosevelt Middle School, for example, constrain knowledge creation? How does incoherence (the perception that this is “one more thing”) undermine moral purpose? Show how strength in one component would support strength in others.
Part C: Diagnosis and Recommendations (20 points)
Based on your analysis, what is most critical for the district to address to deepen and sustain this literacy initiative? What would you recommend that Dr. Chen prioritize in the next eighteen months?
Guidance for Question 1 Response
How to Approach This Question
This question asks you to demonstrate sophisticated understanding of Fullan’s framework by applying it systematically to a realistic change scenario. The scenario intentionally includes both strengths (Lincoln Elementary’s success) and challenges (Roosevelt Middle School’s resistance and the coaches’ exhaustion). Your job is not to fix the situation perfectly but to analyze what is happening through Fullan’s lens.
Key Moves to Make in Your Response
1. Ground your analysis in specific evidence. Do not make general statements about “some schools” without pointing to specific examples from the scenario. When you analyze moral purpose, reference what the scenario tells you about teachers’ beliefs. When you analyze relationships, point to specific evidence of trust or distrust.
2. Move beyond description to analysis. Simply restating what the scenario tells you is not sufficient. Instead, explain why things are happening the way they are. For example: “The uneven implementation across schools is not primarily a problem of coaching quality but rather a problem of relational trust and principal leadership. At schools where the principal actively supports the work (Lincoln), teachers engage. At schools where the principal is skeptical (Roosevelt), teachers hold back, waiting to see if this initiative will last.”
3. Use Fullan’s language and concepts. Reference specific ideas from the text. You might reference “the implementation dip,” “relational trust,” “the role of the leader as lead learner,” “knowledge creation,” or “coherence making.” Make it clear that you understand these concepts and can apply them to explain what is happening.
4. Recognize complexity. The scenario is intentionally complex. There is no single cause of the uneven implementation. Multiple factors are at play. Acknowledge that complexity in your response. You might say: “The challenge at Roosevelt cannot be solved by simply replacing the principal. The problem is deeper: it involves relational trust (which has been eroded by leadership instability), the perception of incoherence (this feels like one more thing), and the leader as lead learner (Mr. James has not visibly engaged in the learning).”
5. Connect to the bigger picture. The scenario includes information about the district’s history of leadership instability and the impact on teacher skepticism. Use that information. Explain how Fullan’s frameworks help you understand why that history matters for the current initiative.
What to Avoid
• Do not oversimplify the situation. This is not simply a problem of bad principals. It is a systems-level challenge.
• Do not assume there is a single right answer. Change leadership is inherently complex. Your job is to analyze the situation thoughtfully, not to present a false sense of certainty.
• Do not ignore inconvenient evidence. The scenario includes the fact that Dr. Chen wants to increase fidelity and develop a checklist. You can analyze whether that is the right move given what you understand about change, relationships, and coherence.
• Do not write without evidence. Every major claim should be supported by something in the scenario or by clear reasoning from Fullan’s frameworks.
How Comprehensive Should Your Response Be?
Aim for 400–500 words for Part A (approximately 80–100 words per component), 150–200 words for Part B, and 100–150 words for Part C. Quality matters more than length, but these ranges give you a target for depth.
QUESTION 2: CHANGE DESIGN AND COMMUNICATION (200 points)
Scenario: Implementing Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy
Context and Background
Westfield High School serves 1,200 students in grades 9–12 in a diverse urban community. The student body is 42% Black, 31% Latinx, 18% Asian/Pacific Islander, 7% White, and 2% multiracial. Approximately 45% of students qualify for free or reduced lunch. Eighty-three percent of students who enter ninth grade graduate within four years, which is above the state average but below the district average. Discipline disparities exist: Black and Latinx students are suspended at rates 2.2 times higher than White and Asian students.
The school has a dedicated and experienced faculty. Most teachers have been at Westfield for at least five years. The principal, Dr. Marcus Johnson, has been in his role for three years and has built strong relationships with staff and community. He is respected for his integrity and his genuine care for students and teachers. However, he is not viewed as an instructional leader. One department chair said, “Marcus is wonderful as a person and a leader, but he does not dive deep into instructional work.”
The Proposed Initiative
The district’s equity office has adopted culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP) as a framework to guide teaching in all schools. CSP, as articulated by scholars including Django Paris and others, emphasizes that teaching should both honor and sustain the cultural practices, knowledge, and ways of being that students bring from their home communities, while also providing access to dominant cultural capital and academic knowledge.
For Westfield, implementing CSP would represent a significant shift. Currently, most teaching is grounded in a more traditional scope and sequence focused on state standards. While teachers care about their students, the curriculum does not explicitly integrate or sustain students’ cultures and communities. A review of course materials found that 89% of literary texts studied were written by White authors, and only 12% of history curriculum content addressed the contributions and experiences of people of color with depth and nuance.
Dr. Johnson has been charged with leading the implementation of CSP at Westfield. The district is providing two professional development days in the summer and monthly professional learning sessions during the school year. However, beyond that, schools are largely responsible for their own implementation and have significant autonomy in how they approach the work.
Dr. Johnson recognizes that this is important work. He has seen firsthand how the current curriculum does not reflect or celebrate the identities of most of his students. He has also seen how a more restrictive, deficit-focused approach to discipline disproportionately affects students of color. He wants to lead change that is meaningful and sustainable.
However, he is also realistic about the challenges. Not all of his faculty see the urgency. Several senior teachers have expressed concern that CSP will result in “lowering standards” or that it will be “too political.” Some teachers feel that their expertise was built on a particular curricular approach and that significant changes feel threatening. The teachers’ union contract includes provisions that limit how much change can be required in a single year.
Additional Constraints and Opportunities
• The school has a literacy coach and a math coach (both credible teachers), but no dedicated staff for curriculum development or instructional coaching in other subject areas.
• The school’s budget is tight. Significant resources would need to be reallocated to support professional development and curriculum work.
• Several community organizations have expressed interest in partnering with the school on this work, but the school has not yet established formal partnerships.
• Students have diverse perspectives on how well the school currently honors their cultures. While some students feel erased, others feel respected and seen. This diversity of student perspective will be important to navigate.
• The next principal evaluation cycle includes a focus on equity and inclusive leadership.
Question 2 Prompt
You are Dr. Marcus Johnson. Design your approach to implementing culturally sustaining pedagogy at Westfield High School. Your response should address the following:
Part A: Change Design (140 points)
Design your approach to implementing CSP, demonstrating sophisticated understanding of how to navigate complexity, build relationships, foster learning, and create coherence. Your design should specifically address:
1. Establishing and Articulating Moral Purpose: What is the moral purpose that should anchor this change? How will you help teachers, students, families, and the broader community understand why CSP matters—not just as a district mandate but as something that serves students and honors who they are?
2. Framing CSP as a Learning Process: How will you help teachers understand that this is genuinely new learning, not something they should already know? How will you support them through the implementation dip? What role will you play as a lead learner?
3. Building and Maintaining Relationships: How will you engage teachers who are skeptical or worried? How will you build trust with the teachers’ union, with community organizations, with students, and with families? How will you create psychological safety for teachers to try new approaches even when they are uncertain?
4. Creating Structures for Knowledge Creation: What collaborative structures will you create for teachers to learn together about CSP and to design culturally sustaining units and lessons? How will you ensure that learning is collective rather than isolated? What role will your literacy and math coaches play?
5. Making Coherence: How does CSP connect to your school’s mission and existing improvement efforts? How will you ensure that CSP is not experienced as “one more thing” but as the centerpiece of your improvement work? What choices will you make about what to stop doing so that CSP receives adequate time and energy?
6. Sequencing and Pacing: What will happen in year one, year two, and year three? What will you prioritize first? How will you build momentum while maintaining sustainability?
Part B: Communication Strategy (40 points)
Write the communication you will send to your faculty to introduce the CSP initiative at a required faculty meeting. This communication should be approximately 400–500 words and should demonstrate Fullan’s principles:
• Clarity about the moral purpose and why CSP matters for your students
• Honesty about the difficulty and the learning curve
• Invitation to see this as a learning journey rather than a compliance mandate
• Acknowledgment of diverse perspectives and legitimate concerns
• Clear about direction while open about how you will get there
• Grounded in your school’s values and relationships
Your communication should feel authentic to how Dr. Johnson might actually speak to his faculty. It should not be jargon-filled, but it should be intellectually serious and grounded in moral purpose.
Part C: Addressing Resistance (20 points)
Anticipate the major concerns you will hear from stakeholders (skeptical teachers, union representatives, families, students). For at least three concerns, explain how your design addresses that concern and how you will respond if someone raises it.
Guidance for Question 2 Response
How to Approach This Question
This question asks you to demonstrate that you can design change, not just analyze it. You are taking on the role of a school principal and designing an approach that integrates all of Fullan’s frameworks. This is not a perfect design; it is a realistic, grounded approach that acknowledges constraints while creating conditions for meaningful change.
Key Moves to Make in Your Response
1. Ground your design in Fullan’s frameworks. Do not just list what you will do. Explain how what you are designing reflects Fullan’s understanding of how change works. For example: “I will establish cross-grade-level curriculum design teams rather than having each teacher work in isolation because Fullan’s research shows that knowledge creation is collective. When teachers work together on problems of practice, they learn from one another and the work is more rigorous than when individuals work alone.”
2. Be specific and concrete. Do not make vague promises. Instead, describe what will actually happen. For example, instead of “I will build relationships with skeptical teachers,” say: “I will schedule individual conversations with the three senior teachers who have expressed concerns about CSP. I will ask genuine questions about their concerns, listen without defending, and look for common ground around our shared commitment to our students.”
3. Acknowledge constraints and work within them. You cannot solve all problems. Instead, be realistic about limitations and explain how you will navigate them. For example: “The teachers’ contract limits how much change can be required in a single year. Rather than seeing this as a barrier, I will use it strategically: in year one, I will focus on one subject area (English language arts) with volunteers. This allows me to build momentum and evidence of impact without violating the contract or overwhelming teachers.”
4. Show how the five components work together. Your design should not address the five components sequentially but should show how they are interdependent. For example, you might explain that by establishing moral purpose around honoring student identities and building relationships with skeptical teachers, you are creating the conditions where they will be more open to the collaborative learning you are designing.
5. Demonstrate awareness of equity and student voice. This is a change about centering students’ cultures and identities. Your design should show how students and families are actively involved in shaping and giving feedback on the work, not just recipients of change designed by adults.
6. In the written communication, strike the right tone. The communication should be warm, genuine, and intellectually serious without being condescending. It should acknowledge the real work being asked of teachers while grounding it in moral purpose. It should show that you care about their concerns while maintaining clarity about the direction.
What to Avoid
• Do not ignore the skepticism. Acknowledge it as legitimate. Some concerns deserve to be taken seriously.
• Do not present CSP as fixing everything. Be honest that this is challenging, long-term work.
• Do not assume consensus on CSP exists. Some people may disagree with the framework itself. Your job is not to convince everyone but to build enough shared understanding and commitment that the work can move forward.
• Do not design a change process that works only if everyone cooperates. Build in structures that allow people to participate in different ways and at different paces.
• In the written communication, do not use language that sounds canned or overly formal. Use your own voice.
How Comprehensive Should Your Response Be?
Aim for approximately 500–600 words for Part A (roughly 80–100 words per subsection), 400–500 words for Part B (the faculty communication), and 150–200 words for Part C (addressing resistance).
COMPREHENSIVE RUBRIC FOR FINAL EXAM ASSESSMENT
Rubric Structure
Each of the two exam questions is evaluated on a 200-point scale. The rubric assesses five dimensions of excellence:
1. Comprehensiveness and Integration (50 points)
2. Analytical Depth and Sophistication (50 points)
3. Accurate Application of Frameworks (50 points)
4. Practical Grounding and Realism (30 points)
5. Writing Quality and Clarity (20 points)
QUESTION 1 RUBRIC: COMPREHENSIVE CASE ANALYSIS
Dimension 1: Comprehensiveness and Integration (50 points)
Excellent (45–50 points)
• Addresses all five components of Fullan’s framework with substantive analysis
• Shows how components are interdependent (not just listing them separately)
• Analyzes both strengths and challenges across the district
• Engages with the complexity of the scenario (uneven implementation, competing factors)
• Diagnosis and recommendations build on the component analysis rather than standing alone
Proficient (38–44 points)
• Addresses all five components with adequate depth
• Shows some understanding of interdependence, though analysis could be deeper
• Analyzes multiple schools and perspectives
• Engages with most of the scenario’s complexity
• Recommendations follow from analysis
Developing (30–37 points)
• Addresses most components but some lack adequate depth
• Limited analysis of how components relate to one another
• Analysis is somewhat linear or disconnected
• Engages with some but not all aspects of the scenario’s complexity
• Recommendations are somewhat generic
Beginning (20–29 points)
• Addresses some components but significant gaps in coverage
• Little evidence of understanding interdependence
• Analysis is superficial or disconnected
• Misses key aspects of the scenario
• Recommendations do not clearly follow from analysis
Minimal (0–19 points)
• Fails to address multiple components
• No understanding of how components relate
• Analysis is missing or superficial
• Does not engage with the scenario
• Recommendations are absent or irrelevant
Dimension 2: Analytical Depth and Sophistication (50 points)
Excellent (45–50 points)
• Moves beyond description to genuine analysis of why things are happening
• Explains underlying causes and systemic factors
• Shows understanding that change is complex and multifactorial
• Recognizes tensions and tradeoffs
• Makes nuanced judgments (e.g., identifies where Dr. Chen’s instinct about fidelity might be misguided given what is really needed)
• Demonstrates understanding of how the history of leadership instability shapes current dynamics
Proficient (38–44 points)
• Provides analysis that goes beyond simple description
• Explains some underlying causes
• Recognizes multiple factors contributing to outcomes
• Makes mostly accurate judgments
• Shows understanding of some historical context
Developing (30–37 points)
• Some analysis, though often remains at surface level
• Identifies some underlying causes but analysis is incomplete
• Recognizes multiple factors but does not fully integrate them
• Judgments are sometimes accurate but sometimes oversimplified
• Limited engagement with context
Beginning (20–29 points)
• Minimal analysis; mostly descriptive
• Does not explain underlying causes
• Sees only isolated factors
• Judgments lack nuance
• Ignores context
Minimal (0–19 points)
• No meaningful analysis
• Purely descriptive or incorrect
• Missing or inaccurate understanding of causes
• Judgments are absent or wildly off-base
Dimension 3: Accurate Application of Frameworks (50 points)
Excellent (45–50 points)
Demonstrates clear, accurate understanding of all five components
References Fullan’s text appropriately and accurately
• Applies concepts precisely to the specific scenario
• Uses Fullan’s language and concepts (implementation dip, relational trust, knowledge creation, etc.)
• Makes explicit connections between framework concepts and evidence from the scenario
Proficient (38–44 points)
• Demonstrates solid understanding of the frameworks
• References Fullan appropriately
• Applies concepts to the scenario, though sometimes in general terms
• Uses most key concepts accurately
• Makes some explicit connections between frameworks and evidence
Developing (30–37 points)
• Demonstrates basic understanding of the frameworks
• Some accurate references to Fullan
• Applies concepts to the scenario in somewhat generic ways
• Uses some key concepts, though understanding may be incomplete
• Connections between frameworks and evidence are sometimes unclear
Beginning (20–29 points)
• Demonstrates incomplete or partial understanding of frameworks
• References to Fullan are vague or sometimes inaccurate
• Attempts to apply concepts but does so imprecisely
• Key concepts are misunderstood or misapplied
• Connections between frameworks and evidence are unclear
Minimal (0–19 points)
• Demonstrates misunderstanding of frameworks
• References to Fullan are absent, vague, or inaccurate
• Fails to apply concepts appropriately
• Key concepts are misunderstood
• No connections between frameworks and evidence
Dimension 4: Practical Grounding and Realism (30 points)
Excellent (27–30 points)
• Analysis is grounded in realistic understanding of how schools and teachers actually work
• Recommendations are practical and implementable within real constraints
Shows understanding of the genuine difficulty of change work
Acknowledges what cannot be solved quickly or easily
Demonstrates respect for teachers’ expertise and concerns
Proficient (23–26 points)
• Analysis shows solid understanding of school realities
• Recommendations are mostly practical
• Shows awareness of some constraints
• Acknowledges difficulty
• Shows respect for teachers
Developing (18–22 points)
• Analysis is somewhat grounded in reality but may miss some factors
• Recommendations are partly practical but may overestimate what is possible
• Limited awareness of constraints
• Minimal acknowledgment of difficulty
• Limited respect for teacher perspective
Beginning (13–17 points)
• Analysis shows limited understanding of school realities
• Recommendations are somewhat unrealistic
• Does not adequately account for constraints
• Treats change as simpler than it is
• Does not demonstrate respect for teachers
Minimal (0–12 points)
• Analysis is divorced from reality
• Recommendations are impractical or impossible
• Ignores constraints
• Treats change as simple or formulaic
• Dismissive of teacher perspective
Dimension 5: Writing Quality and Clarity (20 points)
Excellent (18–20 points)
• Clear, grammatically correct, academically rigorous prose
• Ideas are well-organized and easy to follow
• Sophisticated use of language without being pretentious
• Paragraphs are well-developed with clear topic sentences
• Transitions between ideas are clear
Proficient (15–17 points)
Generally clear and grammatically correct
Ideas are organized and mostly easy to follow
Language is appropriate and academic
• Most paragraphs are well-developed
• Most transitions are clear
Developing (12–14 points)
• Mostly clear with some grammatical errors
• Organization could be clearer
• Language is appropriate though sometimes awkward
• Some paragraphs lack development
• Some transitions are unclear
Beginning (9–11 points)
• Unclear writing with multiple grammatical errors
• Organization is confusing
• Language is sometimes inappropriate
• Paragraphs lack development
• Transitions are unclear
Minimal (0–8 points)
• Writing is difficult to understand
• Multiple serious grammatical errors
• Disorganized
• Inappropriate language or tone
• No clear transitions
QUESTION 2 RUBRIC: CHANGE DESIGN AND COMMUNICATION
Dimension 1: Coherence and Integration of Design (50 points)
Excellent (45–50 points)
• Design integrates all five components of Fullan’s framework in a coherent, mutually reinforcing way
• Shows how building relationships enables knowledge creation, which supports coherence making, etc.
• Design is grounded in moral purpose throughout
• Clear sequencing and pacing across three years
• Each element of the design connects to and supports other elements
Proficient (38–44 points)
Design addresses all five components with integration
Shows how components work together, though some connections could be clearer Generally grounded in moral purpose
• Reasonable sequencing across years
• Most elements connect logically
Developing (30–37 points)
• Design addresses most components
• Some integration, though components sometimes feel separate
• Partially grounded in moral purpose
• Sequencing is present but could be clearer
• Some elements connect; others feel disconnected
Beginning (20–29 points)
• Design addresses some components but misses others
• Little integration; components are largely separate
• Weak connection to moral purpose
• Sequencing is unclear
• Elements do not clearly connect
Minimal (0–19 points)
• Design is incomplete or missing major components
• No meaningful integration
• No clear moral purpose
• No sequencing
• Elements are disconnected or contradictory
Dimension 2: Analytical Depth in Design (40 points)
Excellent (36–40 points)
• Design demonstrates sophisticated understanding of change processes
• Thoughtfully addresses how to engage skeptical teachers
• Shows understanding of how to build relationships while maintaining direction
• Addresses how to manage competing demands and limited resources
• Demonstrates awareness of equity dimensions and student voice
• Anticipates challenges and explains how design addresses them
Proficient (29–35 points)
Design shows solid understanding of change processes
Addresses engaging skeptical teachers
Shows understanding of relationship-building
Addresses resource constraints
Shows awareness of equity
Anticipates some challenges
Developing (22 28 points)
• Design shows basic understanding of change processes
• Limited attention to engaging skeptical teachers
• Shows some understanding of relationships
• Limited attention to resources
• Minimal attention to equity
• Anticipates few challenges
Beginning (15–21 points)
• Design shows incomplete understanding of change
• Does not adequately address skepticism or resistance
• Limited relationship-building strategies
• Does not address resource constraints
• Does not attend to equity
• Does not anticipate challenges
Minimal (0–14 points)
• Design shows little understanding of change processes
• Ignores skepticism or dismisses it
• No relationship-building strategies
• Ignores resource constraints
• Does not attend to equity
• Does not anticipate challenges
Dimension 3: Quality of Written Communication (40 points)
Excellent (36–40 points)
• Communication is clear, warm, and genuine
• Establishes moral purpose compellingly
• Acknowledges challenges and teacher concerns respectfully
• Invites teachers into a learning journey
• Maintains clarity about direction while open about process
• Language is appropriate and authentic to how a principal might actually speak
• Demonstrates respect for teacher expertise
Proficient (29–35 points)
• Communication is generally clear and appropriate in tone
Establishes some moral purpose
Acknowledges some challenges
Invites engagement in the work
Shows clarity about direction
Language is mostly natural and authentic
Shows respect for teachers
Developing (22 28 points)
• Communication is somewhat clear but tone may be off
• Moral purpose is present but not compelling
• Limited acknowledgment of challenges
• Limited invitation to learning
• Direction is clear but process is not
• Language feels somewhat formal or inauthentic
• Limited respect for teacher perspective
Beginning (15–21 points)
• Communication is unclear or tone is inappropriate
• Moral purpose is weak or absent
• Does not acknowledge challenges
• Does not invite engagement
• Direction is unclear
• Language is awkward or overly formal
• Dismissive of teacher concerns
Minimal (0–14 points)
• Communication is confusing or inappropriate
• No clear moral purpose
• Ignores challenges
• Does not invite engagement
• Direction is unclear
• Language is inappropriate
• Dismissive or condescending
Dimension 4: Addressing Resistance (20 points)
Excellent (18–20 points)
• Identifies major concerns realistically
• Explains how design addresses each concern
• Demonstrates respectful engagement with skepticism
• Shows understanding that not everyone will agree
• Offers meaningful responses rather than dismissing concerns
Proficient (15–17 points)
Identifies several concerns
Explains how design addresses most concerns
Shows respect for skepticism
Acknowledges disagreement
Offers reasonable responses
Developing (12 14 points)
• Identifies some concerns
• Partially explains how design addresses them
• Shows some respect for skepticism
• Limited acknowledgment of disagreement
• Responses are somewhat generic
Beginning (9–11 points)
• Identifies few concerns
• Vague explanation of how design addresses them
• Limited respect for skepticism
• Does not acknowledge disagreement
• Responses are weak
Minimal (0–8 points)
• Does not address resistance
• Does not explain how design addresses concerns
• Dismissive of skepticism
• Ignores disagreement
• No meaningful responses
Dimension 5: Demonstrated Understanding of Fullan’s Frameworks (40 points)
Excellent (36–40 points)
• Design demonstrates sophisticated understanding of all relevant Fullan concepts
• References concepts appropriately and connects them to design decisions
• Shows understanding of interdependence of framework components
• Uses Fullan’s language accurately
• Demonstrates understanding that is deep and nuanced
Proficient (29–35 points)
• Design demonstrates solid understanding of Fullan’s frameworks
• References concepts appropriately
• Shows understanding of how components relate
• Uses Fullan’s language accurately
• Understanding is solid
Developing (22–28 points)
• Design demonstrates basic understanding of frameworks
• Some reference to Fullan’s concepts
• Limited understanding of how components relate
• Uses some Fullan language, though understanding may be incomplete
• Understanding is present but incomplete
Beginning (15–21 points)
• Design demonstrates limited understanding of frameworks
• Minimal reference to Fullan’s concepts
• Does not understand how components relate
• Misunderstands or misapplies some concepts
• Understanding is weak
Minimal (0–14 points)
• Design shows little or no understanding of frameworks
• Does not reference Fullan appropriately
• Does not understand how components relate
• Misunderstands or ignores key concepts
• Understanding is absent
ADDITIONAL FINAL EXAM SUPPORT
MATERIALS
Summary of Key Fullan Concepts for Exam Preparation
Moral Purpose
• Deeply felt commitment to make a difference in students’ and educators’ lives
• Answers the question: Why are we doing this? Who benefits?
• Varies across sectors but in education centers on student learning and human development
• Acts as a compass that orients all decisions
• Sustains leaders through difficulty and setbacks
Understanding Change
• Change is a learning process, not a technical problem with a predetermined solution
• Implementation dip: temporary decline in performance when a change is first introduced; signals real learning is happening
• Relationships first: relational trust must precede and underpin implementation
• Behavior before beliefs: people often change their practices before their underlying beliefs shift
• Avoid fat plans: detailed advance plans often become rigid and prevent learning and adaptation
• Lead learner: leaders who model intellectual humility and curiosity about change enable others to embrace learning
Relationships
• Relational trust is foundational to all change
• Components: benevolence, competence, honesty, reliability
• Trust is the condition that makes people willing to take risks, collaborate, and learn from one another
• When trust is weak, people protect themselves, avoid collaboration, and resist change
• Relationships are not the soft stuff; they are the condition that makes real change possible
Knowledge Creation and Deep Learning
• Organizations that sustain improvement have structures and norms for collective learning
• Knowledge is treated as a collective resource to be built upon, not as individual expertise to be guarded
• Deep learning environments include: collaborative work, time for learning and reflection, connection to organizational purpose
• Leaders foster knowledge creation by removing barriers, creating structures, and modeling the learning stance
Coherence Making
• The leadership work of aligning initiatives, strategies, and systems around shared purpose
• Prevents the fragmentation and “one more thing” fatigue that undermines change
• Requires clarity about what really matters and ruthlessness about eliminating or scaling back initiatives that do not serve core purpose
• Requires alignment between stated priorities and actual resource allocation
• Requires explicit connection-making so people understand how various initiatives work together
Final guidance
As You Work on Each Question
1. Read the scenario carefully. Take time to understand the context, the people, the challenges. This is not a speed test.
2. Make a quick outline before you write. Jot down your main points and how they will flow. This takes five minutes and saves you twenty minutes of disorganized writing.
3. Be specific and grounded. Do not make general statements. Reference the scenario.
Use concrete examples.
4. Explain your reasoning. Do not just say what you think; explain why you think it. “The implementation is uneven across schools because relational trust varies. At
Lincoln Elementary, the principal actively supports the work, and teachers engage. At Roosevelt, the principal is skeptical, and teachers hold back.” The because explains the what.
5. Use Fullan’s language. Show that you understand his concepts by using them. But do not overuse jargon. Balance terminology with explanation.
6. If you get stuck, move on. Come back to the difficult section later. Do not spend thirty minutes on one question if you are supposed to spend about ninety minutes on each.
7. Save time for editing. Even if you are running short on time, spend five minutes reading through what you have written. Fix obvious errors and clarify unclear passages.
Managing Your Time
• You can start working on your final at anytime (Do not wait-start early)
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Can I use outside sources beyond Fullan?
A: Yes. You may reference your own experience, knowledge from beyond the course, and other sources if they are relevant. However, the exam is primarily an assessment of your understanding of Fullan’s frameworks. Make sure Fullan is the anchor of your response.
Q: How much should I quote Fullan?
A: You do not need extensive direct quotes. Instead, paraphrase Fullan’s ideas and cite them appropriately (e.g., “As Fullan argues…” or “Fullan’s research reveals…”). A few key quotes can be powerful, but focus on demonstrating that you understand the concepts.
Q: What if I disagree with some of Fullan’s ideas?
A: Critical engagement is valued. If you think Fullan is missing something or if his framework does not fully apply in a particular context, say so. But make your critique clear and grounded. For example: “Fullan emphasizes relationships and moral purpose, which are crucial. However, I also think that clear structural alignment of curriculum standards and assessments matters in ways Fullan does not emphasize as much.”
Q: How long should my responses be?
A: The guidance in the prompts gives you targets. Aim for that length, but focus on quality over quantity. A well-developed 600-word response is better than a rushed 800-word response.
Q: When can I submit m final (you can submit anytime but no later that the Due date?
A: Exams are due by 11:59 PM on Sunday, May 4. Late submissions will receive reduced credit (5% per hour late). If you have circumstances that prevent you from submitting on time, contact me as soon as possible.
Q: What if I have a question while I work on the exam?
A: Email me anytime.
Exam Success Checklist
Before you submit your final exam, review this checklist:
Question 1: Comprehensive Case Analysis
• [ ] I have addressed all five components of Fullan’s framework
• [ ] I have shown how components are interdependent, not just listed them separately
• [ ] I have provided specific evidence from the scenario for each point I make
• [ ] I have moved beyond description to genuine analysis (explaining why, not just what)
• [ ] I have used Fullan’s language and concepts accurately
• [ ] I have acknowledged the complexity of the situation (multiple factors, not single causes)
• [ ] My diagnosis and recommendations follow logically from my analysis
• [ ] My writing is clear, grammatically correct, and academically rigorous
Question 2: Change Design and Communication
• [ ] My design integrates all five components of Fullan’s framework
• [ ] My design shows how the components work together
• [ ] My design is grounded in moral purpose
• [ ] My written communication is warm, genuine, and intellectually serious
• [ ] My communication acknowledges challenges and teacher concerns respectfully
• [ ] I have addressed how I would engage skeptical teachers
• [ ] I have shown how my design works within realistic constraints
• [ ] I have addressed at least three major sources of resistance
• [ ] My writing is clear and authentic to how a principal might speak
• [ ] My design demonstrates understanding of equity and student voice