ESTRUCTURING ? R R O A D M A P T O D A V I D T. C O N L E Y ERIC CLEARINGHOUSE ON EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY OF OREGON Second Edition CHARTING THE COURSE OF CHANGE IN AMERICAN EDUCATION ESTRUCTURING R O A D M A P T OR ESTRUCTURING R O A D M A P T OR ERIC CLEARINGHOUSE ON EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 1997 ? CHARTING THE COURSE OF CHANGE IN AMERICAN EDUCATION SECOND EDITION Foreword by Michael W. Kirst D A V I D T. C O N L E Y iv Copyright ? University of Oregon 1997 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission in writing from the Publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Conley, David T., 1948? Roadmap to restructuring : charting the course of change in American education / David T. Conley ; foreword by Michael W. Kirst. ? 2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 0-86552-136-0. ? ISBN 0-86552-137-9 (pbk. ) 1. School management and organization?United States. 2. Education?Aims and objectives?United States. 3. Education and state?United States. 4. Educational change?United States. I. Title. LB2805.C616 1997 371.2?00973?dc21 97-8610 CIP Design: LeeAnn August Type: 11/12.5 Times Printer: Printed in the United States of America, 1997 First edition published 1993 ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management 5207 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403-5207 Telephone: (541) 346-5044 Fax: (541) 346-2334 World Wide Web: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~ericcem ERIC/CEM Accession Number: EA 028 073 This publication was prepared in part with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract no. OERI- RR 93002006. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No federal funds were used in the printing of this publication. The University of Oregon is an equal opportunity, affirmative action institution committed to cultural diversity. v MISSION OF ERIC AND THE CLEARINGHOUSE The Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) is a national information system operated by the U.S. Department of Education. ERIC serves the educational community by disseminating research results and other resource information that can be used in developing more effective educational programs. The ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, one of several such units in the system, was established at the University of Oregon in 1966. The Clearinghouse and its companion units process research reports and journal articles for announce- ment in ERIC?s index and abstract bulletins. Research reports are announced in Resources in Education (RIE), available in many libraries and by subscription from the United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402-9371. Most of the documents listed in RIE can be purchased through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service, operated by Cincinnati Bell Information Systems. Journal articles are announced in Current Index to Journals in Education. CIJE is also available in many libraries and can be ordered from Oryx Press, 4041 North Central Avenue at Indian School, Suite 700, Phoenix, Arizona 85012. Semiannual cumulations can be ordered separately. Besides processing documents and journal articles, the Clearinghouse prepares bibliographies, literature reviews, monographs, and other interpretive research studies on topics in its educational area. CLEARINGHOUSE NATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD George Babigian, Executive Director, American Education Finance Association Anne L. Bryant, Executive Director, National School Boards Association Esther Coleman, Executive Director, American Association of School Personnel Administrators Timothy J. Dyer, Executive Director, National Association of Secondary School Principals Patrick Forsyth, Executive Director, University Council for Educational Administration Paul Houston, Executive Director, American Association of School Administrators Samuel G. Sava, Executive Director, National Association of Elementary School Principals Gail T. Schneider, Vice-President, Division A, American Educational Research Associa- tion Don I. Tharpe, Executive Director, Association of School Business Officials International Brenda Welburn, Executive Director, National Association of State Boards of Education ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF Philip K. Piele, Professor and Director Stuart C. Smith, Associate Director for Publications vi DEDICATION To the Conleys: Frank, Genevieve, Judy, Robyn, Laurel, Gene, Mike, Karen, Ellen, and Julia. vii ABOUT THE AUTHOR avid T. Conley is an associate professor of educational policy at the University of Oregon. He is currently on assignment to the Oregon State Sytem of Higher Education as director of the Proficiency-based Admission Standards System (PASS) Project. In this capacity, he is responsible for the development of a new system for admission to higher education in Oregon based on student proficiency. In his role as associate professor, he teaches courses on educational policy, school restructuring, teacher leadership, supervision and evalua- tion of school personnel, school improvement, and educational leader- ship. He conducts research, publishes, and consults extensively nation- ally and internationally on these topics. In addition, he has been actively involved in the formulation and implementation of school-reform policy within Oregon. Before joining the faculty of the University of Oregon, he was a central-office administrator in two Colorado school districts. He was a key figure in school-reform efforts in Colorado in the mid-1980s, where, through his role with the Colorado Department of Education, he imple- mented the state?s teacher-evaluation law and designed and conducted training programs in evaluation and effective instruction. At the Univer- sity of Colorado, Boulder, he helped develop an innovative teacher- education program and served as the program?s first coordinator. Conley has an extensive background in multicultural education, having served for four years as director or codirector of programs in Colorado and California. He taught junior and senior high school for seven years and served as a building-level administrator at the junior and senior high school levels. He began his career working in public alterna- tive schools. His work on school restructuring has received national attention through publication by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Man- agement, Eugene, Oregon, and in leading journals for scholars and practitioners. He has produced a variety of research studies on school restructuring, which have been published in various sources and pre- sented at national and international conferences. A complete listing of D viii his publications is available in the ERIC database. He lectures and consults extensively on issues related to educational policy and school restructuring. He has served and currently serves as principal investiga- tor on a number of grants designed to research and implement school reform. Dr. Conley can be reached at 1-800-961-7277, or by e-mail at david_conley@ccmail.uoregon.edu. His mailing address is P.O. Box 3175, Eugene, OR 97403-0175. ix CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................xiv FOREWORD....................................................................................................xv INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 1 Purposes and Limitations of This Book ................................................. 1 Difficulty of Describing Restructuring .................................................. 5 Structure and Use of the Book ............................................................... 6 What Is Restructuring? .......................................................................... 7 Thinking About Change ....................................................................... 11 PART 1 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT .......................................................... 15 INTRODUCTION TO PART 1...................................................................... 16 CHAPTER 1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ............................................. 17 Educational Restructuring in the 1890s ............................................... 19 Educational Restructuring in the 1990s ............................................... 21 The Evolution of the American High School....................................... 22 A Fundamental Difference ................................................................... 27 CHAPTER 2. THE WHYS OF EDUCATIONAL RESTRUCTURING ............... 30 Societal Forces for Change .................................................................. 31 Performance of American Students on International Comparisons ..... 34 Changing Values within Society .......................................................... 38 The ?Reinvention? of Government ...................................................... 42 CHAPTER 3. CREATING NEW ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT SCHOOLS, SCHOOLING, AND STUDENTS ................................................................. 49 PART 2 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ................................. 63 INTRODUCTION TO PART 2...................................................................... 64 CHAPTER 4. FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS............................... 66 The Federal Government ..................................................................... 66 State Governments ............................................................................... 69 CHAPTER 5. SCHOOL DISTRICTS ............................................................ 74 Boards of Education............................................................................. 74 Central Administrators ......................................................................... 77 x CONTENTS CHAPTER 6. SCHOOL SITES .................................................................... 85 Principals ............................................................................................. 85 Teachers ............................................................................................... 89 Students ................................................................................................ 92 CHAPTER 7. PARENTS AND THE COMMUNITY ...................................... 96 Parents .................................................................................................. 96 The Community ................................................................................. 102 Summary ............................................................................................ 107 PART 3 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING.............................................. 109 INTRODUCTION TO PART 3.................................................................... 110 CHAPTER 8. PREVIEW OF THE TWELVE DIMENSIONS .......................... 112 Central Variables of Restructuring ..................................................... 114 Enabling Variables of Restructuring .................................................. 117 Supporting Variables of Restructuring ............................................... 119 CHAPTER 9. LEARNING STANDARDS ................................................... 122 Types of Standards ............................................................................. 123 Components of a Standard ................................................................. 132 Example of a Standard ....................................................................... 133 Another Type of Standard: Opportunity To Learn ............................. 136 Two Examples of Systems Based on Learning Standards ................. 137 International, National, State, and Local Standards........................... 138 The Future of Standards ..................................................................... 142 CHAPTER 10. CURRICULUM ................................................................. 145 Coverage versus Depth in the Curriculum ......................................... 147 Balancing Content and Process.......................................................... 149 Curriculum Integration ...................................................................... 151 Changes in Curriculum Development................................................ 155 The Role of National Subject-Area Reports, Standards Documents, and State Curriculum Frameworks .................................................. 156 New Structures for Vocational Education .......................................... 163 School-to-Work Programs ................................................................. 167 Challenge for Traditional Core Courses ............................................ 168 The Challenge for Teachers ............................................................... 169 CHAPTER 11. INSTRUCTION ................................................................. 171 What Is Constructivism? .................................................................... 171 Constructivism and School Restructuring ......................................... 176 Examples of Constructivist Instructional Practices ........................... 178 Challenges That Constructivism Faces .............................................. 180 CHAPTER 12. ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 184 Some Limits of Current Assessment Approaches .............................. 185 CONTENTS xi Authentic Assessment and Some Attempts To Develop More Authentic Assessment Tools .................................................. 187 Examples of Assessment Strategies ................................................... 189 The Problems and Challenges Faced by New Assessments .............. 196 Rising Demand for Accountability .................................................... 203 The Challenge of Changing the Central Variables ............................. 203 CHAPTER 13. LEARNING ENVIRONMENT ............................................ 206 Mixed-Age or Nongraded Grouping Strategies ................................. 207 Schools within Schools ...................................................................... 209 Creating Learning Communities ........................................................ 213 Community-Based Learning .............................................................. 217 Alternatives to Tracking..................................................................... 221 Untracking Schools ............................................................................ 224 School-to-Work Programs ................................................................. 228 Inclusion of Special-Education Students ........................................... 232 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 236 CHAPTER 14. TECHNOLOGY................................................................ 237 The ACOT Project ............................................................................. 238 Some Often-Overlooked Technologies .............................................. 242 The Evolution of Integrated Learning Systems ................................. 245 Emerging Multimedia Technologies .................................................. 249 The Internet and Networking ............................................................. 250 Problems Facing Technology in the Schools ..................................... 252 Issues to Consider When Developing Technology Plans................... 256 Linking Technology and Restructuring.............................................. 258 CHAPTER 15. SCHOOL-COMMUNITY RELATIONS............................... 260 The Role and Expectations of the Business Community ................... 263 Cooperation with Social-Service Agencies........................................ 271 New Expectations for Parental Involvement ..................................... 276 CHAPTER 16. TEACHING AND LEARNING TIME.................................. 288 Why Alter Time? ................................................................................ 288 Redesigning Time in Secondary Schools........................................... 289 Extending the School Year ................................................................. 297 Caution: Change in the Enabling Variables Is Not Necessarily Restructuring ................................................................................... 301 Some Common Threads in the Four Enabling Variables ................... 302 CHAPTER 17. GOVERNANCE............................................................... 303 Two Strategies for Change ................................................................. 304 Shared Decision-Making, Site-Based Management, and Local School Councils ............................................................................... 305 Decision-Making and Choice ............................................................ 313 xii CONTENTS School Choice: The Ultimate Change in Governance ....................... 321 Decentralization: The ?Magic-Bullet? to School Restructuring? ....... 327 CHAPTER 18. TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP........................ 330 Why Develop Teacher Leadership? ................................................... 331 Creating a Range of Options for Teacher Leadership ........................ 335 The Principal as Facilitative Leader .................................................. 343 Shared Leadership: The New Concept .............................................. 359 CHAPTER 19. PERSONNEL .................................................................... 361 Creating New Definitions of Teacher ................................................ 361 New Conceptions of the Paraprofessional?s Role .............................. 364 The Changing Role of Certified Support Staff .................................. 367 Enhancing the Performance of Newly Hired Teachers ...................... 369 CHAPTER 20. CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS.................................... 373 Roots in Industrial Unionism ............................................................. 373 Unionism vs. Professionalism............................................................ 376 Can Conflict Be Avoided? ................................................................. 378 Restructuring Requires Flexibility ..................................................... 379 Issues Raised by School-Site Councils .............................................. 380 Redefinition of Roles ......................................................................... 381 Collaborative Bargaining and Policy Trust Agreements.................... 383 Some Examples of Professional Unionism ........................................ 388 Changes Occurring in the NEA and AFT .......................................... 390 The Importance of Collaborative Working Relationships ................. 393 PART 4 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING.................................................... 395 INTRODUCTION TO PART 4.................................................................... 396 CHAPTER 21. CREATING READINESS ................................................... 400 Creating Readiness for Restructuring ................................................ 400 Visiting Schools, Agencies, and Businesses ...................................... 405 Other Activities to Build Readiness ................................................... 410 The Phases of Readiness and Beyond................................................ 412 CHAPTER 22. INCREASING ALIGNMENT AND BUILDING A VISION... 416 The Ten Commitments: Prerequisites To Restructuring .................... 417 Key Questions to Frame Restructuring Efforts.................................. 420 Vision-Building: A Potentially Powerful Component of Restructuring ............................................................................... 427 Some Prerequisites for Successful Vision-Building .......................... 429 CHAPTER 23. MOVING THE PROCESS FORWARD: MACROLEVEL CHALLENGES ......................................................................................... 433 Ambiguous and Confusing Policy Toward Education ....................... 433 xiii Equity of Finance Systems ................................................................ 435 Bureaucratic Nature of Educational Organizations ........................... 439 Understanding Culture and Organizational Frames of Reference ..... 441 Failure vs. Success of Reforms .......................................................... 445 CHAPTER 24. MOVING THE PROCESS FORWARD: SCHOOL-SITE OBSTACLES AND LESSONS .................................................................... 450 Nine Pitfalls of School Restructuring ................................................ 451 Finding the Time To Restructure ....................................................... 455 Professional Development ................................................................. 462 The Critical Role of the Principal ...................................................... 465 Lessons from Oregon?s ?2020? Schools ............................................ 469 CHAPTER 25. WHERE ARE WE HEADED?............................................. 471 What Do We Know About Restructuring?......................................... 478 A Vision of a Restructured High School ............................................ 478 A More Personal Vision ..................................................................... 485 Are the Visions Being Implemented? ................................................ 497 Contradictions of Restructuring ......................................................... 499 What Lies Ahead? .............................................................................. 504 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................... 507 SUBJECT INDEX....................................................................................... 545 AUTHOR INDEX....................................................................................... 563 xiv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project began as an expansion of a fifty-five page monograph (Conley, February 1991) I had written outlining a framework within which to understand the phenomenon of school restructuring. That monograph evolved into the first edition, a full-fledged book on the topic. Had I known this was going to happen, I might have had the sense to be a bit more intimidated by the challenge I faced. And without the support and assistance of the people I acknowledge here, I?m quite certain that this volume would not have emerged in this final form. Stuart Smith, associate director for publications of the ERIC Clear- inghouse on Educational Management, has been key to the continuing development and evolution of this book. His insightful comments and supportive manner have made it much easier for me to examine my work self-critically. His editing makes this a book that is much easier to read and is more clearly organized and conceptually consistent than it would have been otherwise. His suggestions for the organization of part 4 were particularly helpful. Other staff at the Clearinghouse have also been very helpful. Linda Lumsden has shepherded this edition, helping shape its evolution. LeeAnn August continued to show her mastery of page layout technology. She receives credit for the very readable layout, the cover design, and the production of proofs. I am once again indebted to Phil Piele, director of the Clearinghouse, for his willingness to support a second edition and his consistent encouragement. Many people offered suggestions and ideas for the first edition, including students in several classes on restructuring at the University of Oregon, who read early versions and offered comments, and my col- league and friend, Jaye Zola. My colleagues at the University of Oregon, Steve Goldschmidt and Paul Goldman, offered a number of helpful suggestions for sections of the first edition as well. Karin Hilgersom helped ensure that the citations and quotations that appear in the first edition were accurate, a particularly challenging task, given my filing system at the time. xv FOREWORD Restructuring in education is widely discussed, criticized, lauded, and confused. It has many potential real and symbolic meanings. But this metaphor has galvanized considerable nationwide activity, and it is one of the most prominent dimensions of education reform. Many educators adapted the restructuring lexicon from U.S. businesses that focused on objectives such as downsizing middle management and eliminating or selling products less integral to their core business. As in many attempts to transfer business concepts to education, much was gained and lost in the translation to public education. Similar move- ments at the federal level have been termed ?reinventing government? by the Clinton Administration. Someone needed to make sense out of important but misunder- stood, diverse restructuring activity. David Conley has done this and provided a great service to the education profession. He chose an extremely broad definition of restructuring, and consequently this book encompasses the widest possible range of restructuring possibilities. Moreover, the context and systemic interactions involved in restructur- ing are fully described. The title of a ?roadmap? is appropriate because, while the reader is apprised of restructuring vision, strategies, and context, the book does not pass final judgments on what is ?good or bad? restructuring. It is too early for this, and the research base does not exist to make definitive judgments. Since restructuring has so many dimensions and considerations, it is extremely useful to have resources that can assist decision-makers all in one place. Dispersed information is a problem in education, where there are so many sources that span numerous subfields. This book includes twenty-five chapters, and all are necessary to comprehend how many different parts of the education system are involved in restructuring. The book includes several levels of government, curriculum and instruction, personnel, and five chapters concerning different dimensions of pro- cess. But this volume is more than a compilation of sources. It includes judgments, speculation, and wisdom about restructuring. Conley is forthright in presenting ?best guesses? after weighing a variety of evidence. As the book unfolds, it becomes clear that the initial concerns about multiple meanings can be overcome as Conley clarifies the means and ends of restructuring. This second edition is a major overhaul of the final fourteen chap- ters. Education restructuring is a fast-moving target, so additions and revisions were made from the 1993 first edition to reflect new knowl- edge and perspectives. A frequent response to U.S. education problems is a focus upon structure and organization, rather than the technical core of curriculum and teaching. Conley provides a sophisticated analysis of how structural change may be necessary, but he makes it clear that revamping structure alone is insufficient. School restructuring works best when it is focused on teacher capacity and student achievement. Some educators expect that ambitious restructuring such as site-based management, team teach- ing, and longer class periods will increase pupil attainment. Conley makes clear that these structural changes must be accompanied by other improvement strategies. In short, at the end of this ?roadmap? the reader knows where he has been and where to go. The contents are also a one-stop shopping location for systemic restructuring. The book serves multiple audiences of practitioners, policymakers, and scholars. Once you start down this road, you will want to continue. Michael W. Kirst Professor of Education Stanford University xvi FOREWORD I lived briefly in southern Maine, long enough to become familiar with some of the folk tales of New England. One of these stories is of a traveler, hopelessly lost on the back roads of Maine. He stops at the house of an old woodsman who is sitting on his porch and asks direc- tions. The old man begins telling the traveler directions several times, but stops each time midway through and begins again with a different set of directions. Finally, as the traveler becomes more exasperated, the old man strokes his chin thoughtfully and says, ?Come to think of it, you can?t get there from here.? In many ways school restructuring is an attempt to get ?there? from ?here.? Many states, as well as school districts and individual schools, are pursuing different paths toward the goal of a fundamentally rede- signed public educational system. Some paths are proving to be more fruitful than others. What is becoming clear is that there is no one route all schools will follow; there is not one ?road? to restructuring. Reports from the field indicate schools and school districts are employing a profusion of strategies and approaches, many of which they identify as restructuring. This book explores the paths down which states, districts, and schools are traveling. These paths suggest a road map to restructuring, an overall framework of organizational change that results in educa- tional redesign. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS BOOK A tremendous amount has been written about school restructuring during the past half-dozen years. Writers and researchers have investi- gated, discussed, and debated the need and rationale for change in public education, the various strategies being attempted, their relative effec- tiveness, and the difficulty of bringing about change in public schools. This wealth of information has not been easily available to practi- tioners. It is widely dispersed in journals, papers, and unpublished, hard- 1 INTRODUCTION 2 INTRODUCTION to-find documents. When school people begin to consider restructuring, it is not easy for them to assemble the resources that might aid their discussions and decisions. This book is designed to help address this need, at least in part. It is an attempt to assemble many of the salient works on school restructuring that have appeared in print since discussions on the topic began in earnest in the mid-1980s. But this book goes beyond simply summariz- ing the writing in this area. Its goal is to provide a conceptual framework within which restructuring activities and processes can be considered; to provoke thinking, discussion, and questions regarding restructuring; and to enable readers to go beyond this text to many other sources that will deepen their understanding of ideas presented here. The book draws from more than 600 sources across a wide spectrum of perspectives and beliefs regarding restructuring. It incorporates and builds upon several of my earlier works on this topic,* along with information I gleaned from discussions and interviews with practitio- ners. Additional insights have come from my role as a school-restructur- ing consultant, as a site facilitator for nine schools participating in a U.S. Department of Education grant designed to enable schools to take the ?next step? in restructuring, and more recently as director of a project that works with thirty high schools to develop proficiency-based college admission standards for Oregon?s public colleges and universities. This book provides a picture of many of the trends and issues in school restructuring and attempts to place these issues into a context that helps explain where schools have come from and where they might be going. The book is designed to serve as a tool to help faculties develop their vision of school restructuring and their strategies for pursuing the process of restructuring. It might also be used profitably as a resource for principals, administrators, and boards of education who are trying to understand in greater detail this concept and its implications. My goal in writing this book is to help educators, community members, and policy-makers understand more clearly why many educa- tors are trying to restructure education, what people may mean when they talk about restructuring, what a few select schools are doing, and how the process of attempting fundamental change in education is being played out. I try to avoid being a cheerleader or cynic. This choice is left to the reader. Rather, I hope that this book will enable the reader to have a more informed opinion on school restructuring, and to be more aware of the causes, issues, techniques, and strategies that are associated with this movement.0000000000 * See, for example: D. Conley (March and September 1991); Conley, Dunlap, and Goldman (1992); Goldman, Dunlap, and Conley (1993). INTRODUCTION 3 The scope of the book is both a strength and a weakness. Because it deals with all the activities being labeled as restructuring, along with the process of restructuring, I have had to exclude many important sources. Others may be oversimplified or given inadequate presentation. A reader with a high degree of expertise in one of the dimensions of restructuring might take issue with the conclusions reached about the relative importance of particular techniques or trends within that dimen- sion, or with the omission of a particularly important or significant source. These reactions would be justified. I have made a series of con- scious decisions to trade off depth for breadth in many cases. I hope to have avoided superficial treatment of key issues and to have captured the main or representative points of view for all the dimensions dis- cussed. Although I have limited the depth of investigation of each topic, the reference list will direct the reader to sources that could serve as the foundation for a more thorough investigation of topics of particular personal interest. Rather than try to write the definitive book on all aspects of educa- tional restructuring, I have designed this book to be an accessible, user- friendly guidebook or ?roadmap? to allow the reader to develop a better understanding of restructuring from a ?big picture? perspective. This book also does not attempt to demonstrate or prove the effec- tiveness of the various techniques being prescribed under the rubric of restructuring. When appropriate, I cite or discuss relevant research as it relates to a particular dimension or activity. However, this is not a review of the research in the formal sense. It is an exploration and systematic analysis of the literature on a number of closely related topics designed to help identify and label the key issues and ideas embedded within the topics being examined. This is not a book about school restructuring alone. It considers changes that are occurring in central offices, boards of education, state departments of education, and the federal role in education. At the same time, much of the information presented about restructuring strategies is focused at the level of the individual school site. The school site, while the nexus for restructuring, does not exist in a vacuum. For that reason, I also consider the school?s relationship to other levels of organization that have an impact on its ability to reshape itself. Is this book about elementary, middle level, or high school restruc- turing? Is it about urban, suburban, or rural schools? While I offer many examples from secondary schools, much, perhaps most, of what is discussed here applies to all levels of education. For that reason I make no systematic attempt to divide the text into sections addressing differ- 4 INTRODUCTION ent grade levels. While the unique challenges and needs of urban and rural schools are not addressed separately, I do attempt to consider the impact many of these issues have upon these schools. To address these distinctions adequately would require another book. Once again, this book strives to identify common patterns and themes that might have implications for educators regardless of the location of their school. Finally, two topics are not addressed directly as dimensions of restructuring but may be thought of as overlays to all dimensions. These are multiculturalism and the presence of a caring staff. The ability of American schools to accommodate and adapt to the increasingly multicultural nature of the student population will ulti- mately determine the viability of public education and in some impor- tant ways the economic and social future of the nation. Although multiculturalism is not included as a separate dimension, I want to stress that this concept will have far-reaching implications for schools. Decisions made in nearly every area listed among the twelve dimen- sions of restructuring will be (or should be) influenced by principles of multiculturalism. In that sense it transcends and pervades all the dimen- sions. Many sections of the book argue for enhanced success for all learners and other manifestations of the concept of equity that implies that all students will be able to succeed in public schools. Underlying these points is the assumption that enhanced student learning for all is unlikely to occur in the absence of a truly multicultural school program and community, one that incorporates and respects the culture, history, beliefs, and values of diverse groups present in the school community and American society. The other topic that is important but not stated explicitly elsewhere is the notion that effective schools are invariably staffed with compe- tent, caring teachers and other adults who work with children. Let it be noted that almost none of the activities discussed on the coming pages will be possible without highly trained, dedicated, caring people in schools. Let it also be noted that it is not enough simply to hire the best people and let them go their own way. The organizational context must support them. Much of this book is about how the organizational context can support competent, caring staff. DIFFICULTY OF DESCRIBING RESTRUCTURING What is it possible to say about restructuring? What is it? How is it interpreted? How many schools are involved in it? How is it being put INTRODUCTION 5 into practice in schools? No one answer provides an adequate response to these questions, in part because restructuring is a dynamic, evolving concept that means many things to many people. Newmann (1991b) highlights the difficulty of defining this term and suggests some of the term?s relative advantages and disadvantages: Restructuring joins a lexicon of other memorable slogans in the history of educational reform (e.g., back to basics, community control, effective schools, choice, cultural literacy). Much of a slogan?s appeal rests in its capacity to embrace multiple meanings that draw diverse constituencies together in an apparently common cause. While a slogan galvanizes attention and energy, thus offering new possibilities for action, its ambigu- ity brings the risk that energy will be dissipated in scattered, and even contradictory, directions. The danger here lies not in multiple meanings and approaches, but in the failure to clarify the means and ends of different approaches to ?structural? change. (p. 1) In attempting to describe restructuring, writers face a chicken-and- egg dilemma: Should they use the best evidence available to discern patterns that are fluid and still emerging, knowing that these will be subject to constant revision? Or should they wait until there is an adequate research base that verifies what has occurred and how well it has worked? The second strategy, while of great value, is constrained by the current lack of adequate empirical data from which to draw generali- zations that can be substantiated. The first is riskier and more prone to error. It involves making ?best guesses? based on reading of the litera- ture, emerging descriptive and case studies, interviews and observations of those who define themselves as being involved in restructuring, and analysis of the actions of policy-makers at all levels. It can have some value in moving forward the discussion and understanding of a concept that has meaning de facto for many educators and policy-makers. This book employs elements of both strategies. The basic outlines of restructuring are relatively clear, what some have called a ?new conven- tional wisdom.? Some of the effects of this combination of changes in instruction, curriculum, organizational roles and structures, and power relationships are also being ascertained. However, I do not want the reader to think that every observation offered in the pages that follow can be supported by empirical data. Many are ?best guesses? based on a weighing of the evidence from a variety of sources. At the same time, I have made a conscientious effort to ensure that the empirical data that do exist have been referenced where appropriate. I hope that this method of treating the topic of restructuring may serve as a useful contribution to the evolving understanding of this complex, multidimensional phenom- enon, and that it might provide some support or assistance both to those considering and those actively engaged in restructuring. 6 INTRODUCTION STRUCTURE AND USE OF THE BOOK The book is organized into four major parts. Part 1, Rationale and Context, presents a historical context within which restructuring can be considered, as well as a summary of the current motivations for and implications of educational restructuring. Part 2, Changing Roles and Responsibilities, examines the evolution of new roles for essentially all the groups that participate in public education directly or indirectly. These first two parts help provide the policy context within which the specific activities of school restructuring that are discussed in part 3 can be better understood. Part 3, Dimensions of Restructuring, explores the concepts of incremental and discontinuous change, then proceeds to an extended discussion of current activities in school restructuring along twelve dimensions. Part 4, Process of Restructuring, captures the les- sons being learned about the process of restructuring schools and pre- sents examples of strategies and techniques for restructuring. I have not designed this book to serve as a cookbook or a ?how-to? guide. Quite the contrary. My presupposition is that, for restructuring to succeed, each school must redefine itself individually and allow each teacher, administrator, student, and parent to create a sense of owner- ship. To help accomplish this, many schools have adapted techniques from strategic planning to develop a vision of where they are going. The vision identifies the gap between the school?s current practice and an ideal state. Each individual in the school then interprets and translates the vision personally, determining its implications and meaning. The process of developing a vision?of creating a framework for discussion of the purposes, values, and methods of education?is en- hanced when participants can draw upon a wide range of points of view, conduct their own systematic investigations, and learn from the experi- ences of others who have attempted to implement their vision. The use of such data helps move the process beyond the personal beliefs of each participant to a broader framework within which personal perspectives can be weighed and analyzed. As I mentioned previously, some com- mon elements are beginning to appear in many of the visions for education?s future. This book can be used in a variety of ways to facilitate the process of restructuring. It can be divided into sections, with different individu- als given the responsibility to read and summarize the key points in each section and identify their implications for the school; or a group may choose to focus upon one section and have all members read and discuss the section. Similarly, a team might analyze a section, identify the key sources cited in that section, and then find and reproduce them for the faculty or committee charged with investigating restructuring options. A INTRODUCTION 7 related technique involves assigning source articles to each faculty or committee member and having them prepare a written abstract of the key points in the article. These abstracts might then be copied and assembled in notebook form to allow others easier, quicker access to the literature base on the topic being investigated. The structure of this book also lends itself to use as a resource book for workshops or courses on restructuring and change in education. Many of the activities described in the previous paragraph might also be used in such settings. I have also written a companion volume that can help prepare schools for change. It is entitled Are You Ready to Restructure? Its content parallels much of what is in this book, but is written in a nontechnical, conversational style. Its twelve chapters can be assigned to a team considering school change. The book does not contain the citations and quotations from sources found in this volume. Each chap- ter concludes with a series of discussion questions to help the team determine its attitudes toward what has been presented. The goal of the book is to increase readiness for change, or to allow a school to deter- mine it may not be ready, if that is the case. It serves as a necessary and valuable prerequisite to considering the types of specific changes pre- sented in this book. No matter how this book is employed, its purpose is to provide the reader with the broadest possible overview of this complex, multidi- mensional topic, and to structure the presentation of information on this topic in a manner that triggers the generation of ideas and the identifica- tion by the reader of possible problems and potential solutions. The goal is a better-informed reader who is able to make more sophisticated analyses and reach more thoughtful conclusions on this topic of critical importance to the future of education. WHAT IS RESTRUCTURING? In education, the term restructuring is as notable for its ambiguity as for its meaning. In the private sector the term has come to mean a process of rapid adaptation prompted by the need to maintain or regain competitiveness. The restructuring process has been called a ?radical reaction to product or market changes? (Enderwick 1989, pp. 44-45). Employment and work-assignment patterns within a company are usu- ally disrupted by this process, and layoffs frequently occur as a result. This is not the meaning for this term as educators apply it to change in schools. 8 INTRODUCTION In fact, educators often do not distinguish very carefully among possible conceptions of change. It is useful to distinguish among three levels of change occurring sometimes simultaneously in public schools: renewal, reform, and restructuring, what might be referred to as the ?three R?s? of change in education. This differentiation can be impor- tant, particularly given the fact that almost every school at some point embarks on a change effort of some sort, and that most attempts to change are serious events in the life of schools. Renewal activities are those that help the organization to do better and/or more efficiently that which it is already doing. Most school- improvement projects fall into this category, as do many of the staff development programs districts offer. Faculties can easily assume that if they are undertaking a number of important renewal activities they are ?restructuring,? since these activities take a great deal of energy and are capable of yielding positive results. This type of approach, however, does not cause educators to examine any of their fundamental assump- tions or practices, except by implication. For many schools, renewal may be the most appropriate way to proceed. For others, renewal efforts cloaked as restructuring will lead to frustration because the school will not improve nearly as much as is necessary given its current state of functioning, but a great deal of energy will be expended in the process. Education has a well-documented tradition of improvement efforts that characterize the renewal mindset of change. The pace of systematic improvement has quickened over the past two decades as a research base and models of improvement have been developed (Clarke 1984, Cohen 1982, Edmonds 1982, Joyce 1991, Mortimore and Sammons 1987, Purkey and Smith 1983, Purkey and Degen 1985, Stedman 1987, Vickery 1990). More and more states are requiring systematic school improve- ment. This increased knowledge base and more prescriptive policy framework may set the stage for schools to attempt more fundamental change. Many models of school improvement help teach educators the skills of data collection and analysis necessary for developing a profile of current practices and identifying areas in need of improvement (Blum and Butler 1985), of determining key shared values and goals (Cook 1988), and of developing the sense of collegiality that allows teachers to talk with one another about practices in their schools (Little 1982). These skills can be important in terms of creating an internal capacity to manage change within the school. Indeed, the existence of this capacity can enable schools to consider change of a more fundamental nature (D. Conley, March 1991; Goldman, Dunlap, and Conley 1993). Reform-driven activities are those that alter existing procedures, rules, and requirements to enable the organization to adapt the way it INTRODUCTION 9 functions to new circumstances or requirements. Two important points help to identify and define reform-oriented efforts: First, changes center on procedural elements, the policies and procedures that determine the basic ?rules of the game? for all participants in the system; and, second, the impetus for reform almost always comes from some external force, such as a board of education, a state department of education, or even educational reformers. This external impetus generates internal actions, such as the appointment of committees to examine how current practice would need to be changed to bring the school into compliance with the new expectations or requirements. Clearly, reform-oriented change cannot be overlooked. In many cases an external ?jolt? may be required to jump-start change in schools that are particularly complacent, self-satisfied, or dysfunctional. At the same time, such activities are more likely to produce a new set of rules or procedures than an examination of fundamental practices or assump- tions about schooling. Some legislatively mandated programs do have effects on schools, causing them at the very least to talk about current practice. However, many externally originated programs of change for schools do not seem to be very successful, in part because teachers are less likely to develop ownership of the program, or to adapt it to their needs (Berman and McLaughlin 1974, Fullan and Pomfret 1977, Fullan and Stiegelbauer 1991, Goldman and Smith 1991). As in the case of renewal activities, schools can devote a great deal of energy to reform- based improvements and never realize that they have not engaged in a consideration of issues related to restructuring the educational environ- ment. Restructuring activities change fundamental assumptions, prac- tices, and relationships, both within the organization and between the organization and the outside world, in ways that lead to improved and varied student-learning outcomes for essentially all students. The im- portant elements of this definition are the idea that fundamental assump- tions must be challenged for change to occur and the emphasis on student learning as the key variable being addressed. Learning here refers to performance standards identified and defined by the state, district, and/or school site. The conception of learning contained in the terms improved and varied is different from that held today by many students, teachers, administrators, parents, and policy-makers. It implies not just short-term memorization of material, but the ability to retain, synthesize, and apply conceptually complex information in meaningful ways, particularly as such application demonstrates understanding of challenging content, intricate concepts and systems, sophisticated learn- ing strategies, real-world problems, and natural phenomena. 10 INTRODUCTION The definition highlights the need to consider a variety of levels and ways of learning and to examine all current assumptions, practices, and relationships in the light of a single overarching goal: enhancing stu- dents? learning. It also draws attention to the needs of all students attending school, not just those students who are currently succeeding. Far too often, the emphasis on improved student learning becomes obscured when schools define restructuring as changes that focus on or result in enhanced working conditions for adults. While the needs of adults should not be overlooked, anyone engaged in educational rede- sign or improvement should remember that any change that fails to result in improved student learning doesn?t ultimately affect the funda- mental purpose of schooling. Clearly, many dimensions of life in schools have an equal impact on the students and adults in the school, and improvements can often be designed to benefit both. Such opportunities can and should be pursued productively and vigorously. However, many of the ideas for school restructuring being considered currently are unlikely to have much impact on the lives of students unless they are explicitly linked with other activities more closely related to student learning. Many educators have used the general idea of restructuring as a way to create the appearance of change without necessarily confronting the harsh realities that fundamental organizational redesign suggests. These educators seem to say: ?I?m all for change?as long as I don?t have to do anything differently.? This unwillingness to look at underly- ing assumptions, values, beliefs, practices, and relationships can prevent schools from coming to grips with the profound and disturbing implica- tions of true restructuring. It seems likely that any district or school that adopts the definition of restructuring presented earlier would find itself in the position of exam- ining almost all its practices. For most schools such self-examination is too difficult and threatening. Fullan (1991) makes this point: ?The incentive system of public schools with abstract and unclear goals, lack of performance scrutiny, and a noncompetitive market makes it more profitable politically and bureaucratically to ?innovate? without risking the costs of real change? (p. 28). Schools should not feel so alone in this respect. In the corporate world as well, companies rarely look very closely at themselves in the absence of some external challenge or threat, which precipitates an internal crisis. The more clear and pressing the threat is, the more fundamental the examination, and the more drastic the response is likely to be. Without the presence of a strong external pressure, schools are going to have a very difficult time remaking themselves voluntarily, INTRODUCTION 11 particularly when such a process could involve dislocation, reassign- ment, and retraining for numerous members of the organization, and is almost assured of engendering community concern in nearly all cases, and active opposition in at least some cases. THINKING ABOUT CHANGE Large organizations have a difficult time adapting rapidly. This is true whether we speak of schools or companies. I find it helpful to think of change along a continuum, one that considers the gap between the organization?s current state of functioning and conditions in its external environment. If the discrepancy is small, the organization can change slowly and in steps. If the gap is large, a complete overhaul may be called for if the organization is to survive. At one end, the organization is very much in control of the goals and processes of change; at the other, it is not. In this conception of change, the key distinction is the rapidity and magnitude of change the organization faces to realign itself with the demands of a swiftly changing or evolving external environment. Meyer, Brooks, and Goes (1990) analyzed the strategies organiza- tions employ when confronted by rapid change, or ?environmental jolts.? They differentiate between continuous, or first-order change, and discontinuous, or second-order change: Almost everyone who spends much time thinking about change processes seems to conclude that the world changes in two fundamentally different modes (Watzlawick, Weakland, and Fisch, 1974). Continuous, or first- order change, occurs within a stable system that itself remains unchanged. Indeed system stability often requires frequent first-order change, such as the myriad of small compensatory steering movements that permit a bicyclist to maintain his or her equilibrium. Discontinuous, or second- order change transforms fundamental properties or states of the system. The distinction between first- and second-order change has been likened to that between simple motion and acceleration (Watzlawick et al., 1974). Some compelling examples of social systems plunging from first-order to second-order change are afforded by the sociopolitical upheavals in east- ern Europe in late 1989. (p. 94) Meyer, Brooks, and Goes (1990) state that ?as the pace of techno- logical, socioeconomic and regulatory change accelerates, organiza- tions? survival depends increasingly on devising entrepreneurial re- sponses to unforeseen discontinuities? (p. 93). Meyer and colleagues then offer a conceptual framework for under- standing how these changes occur and the responses at individual work sites and at the industry level. They identify four reactive strategies: 12 INTRODUCTION 1. Adaptation: Incremental change within an individual organization 2. Evolution: Incremental change within an established industry 3. Metamorphosis: Frame-breaking change within an individual organi- zation 4. Revolution: Emergence, transformation, and decline of entire indus- tries They conclude that there is no guarantee organizations will choose a successful or appropriate change strategy. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, San Francisco Bay Area hospitals pursued various strategies in response to decreasing regulation and increasing pressures for cost containment?a pattern of discontinuous change. Historically, protected organizations such as hospitals have had a difficult time responding to second-order change, in part because managers are unprepared for it: Discontinuous change is enigmatic and paradoxical for managers caught up in it. It breaks the frame in which they have been operating, a frame which they probably have come to take for granted. The events triggering discontinuous changes can appear so inconsequential, and the onset can be so sudden, that managers often are forced to act before they understand of (sic) the consequences of acting. When turbulence subsides a new equilib- rium may be achieved that is partly a product of those actions. In this sense, managers in the throes of revolutionary change assume the role of entre- preneurs reinventing both their organizations and their environments. (p. 108) Educators find themselves in a similar situation. They may well be on the verge of being confronted with sudden, unpredictable jolts, whose significance will be difficult to discern; small, adaptive responses of the type that are associated with school improvement may be disas- trous. Whether, or to what degree, educators can assume the role of entrepreneur to reinvent their organizations and environments may be the key unanswered question upon which the fate of the restructuring movement, and perhaps public education in the twenty-first century, hinges. Cuban (1988), like Meyers and others, uses the same terms to describe the intensity of change: first-order and second-order. First- order changes improve the efficiency and effectiveness of what is being done already ?without disturbing the basic organizational features, with- out substantially altering the way that children and adults perform their roles? (p. 342). Second-order changes ?alter the fundamental ways in which organizations are put together, including new goals, structures, and roles? (Fullan 1991, p. 29). Educators have been largely unable to implement second-order change successfully in schools. The difficulty of this type of change should not be underestimated. A more detailed discussion of the problems and challenges associated with fundamental INTRODUCTION 13 change in education will be presented in part 4, Process of Restructur- ing. Renewal and reform can be thought of as incremental forms of change in most situations and manifestations. They do not disturb organizational features substantially, nor do they necessarily alter the ways adults perform their roles. Restructuring, on the other hand, im- plies second-order change. However, as will be considered later, many schools that claim to be restructuring appear reluctant in practice to engage in second-order change. They may develop documents replete with the language of such change, but an examination of the nature of their workplace often leads an observer to conclude that little in practice is different, and that those differences that do exist would better be categorized as first-order, rather than second-order, changes. The reader is encouraged to analyze changes occurring in her or his organization and consider whether (or to what degree) they are renewal, reform, or restructuring, and to what degree the organization is conceiving of change as entailing first-order versus second-order alterations of prac- tice and structure. On a deeper level, the reader must come to grips with her or his organization?s basic capacity to change. How capable of change is the organization, even if its existence is threatened? Not all organizations respond successfully even to threats to their survival. The last thirty years of economic transformation in the United States bear witness to this phenomenon, as many companies that were household words no longer exist. P A R T 1 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT 16 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT INTRODUCTION TO PART 1 The educational-restructuring movement has sprung up and devel- oped with such rapidity that it is difficult to place it into a context. Is it old wine in new wineskins? Is it merely another fad? Who wants it? When is educational change renewal, when is it restructuring? What is restructuring, anyway? Is it a movement at all? What is its future? The term restructuring means many things to different people. The fuzziness about what constitutes restructuring has been, perhaps, one of its more appealing elements: almost anything qualifies. The term con- tinues to be used to describe many different changes occurring in the structure, methods, and content of public schooling. Restructuring will continue to be difficult to define as long as it lacks a clearly identifiable focal point. Unless this focus becomes defined, it will be difficult to put restructuring into context, both as a change strategy and as a historical phenomenon. Chapter 1, Historical Background, explores the relationship be- tween contemporary restructuring and earlier attempts at large-scale reform of education. Chapter 2, The Whys of Educational Restructur- ing, summarizes some of the reasons presented to justify large-scale change in public schools. Finally, chapter 3, Creating New Assumptions About Schools, Schooling, and Students, explores some of the values that are embedded in the goals of educational restructuring. 16 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 17 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND CHAPTER 1 17 Many people involved in restructuring have heard skeptics utter phrases such as ?I know I?ve been in the business a long time when I see the same ideas coming around for the second and third time,? or ?Here we go again,? or ?The more things change, the more they stay the same.? The type of on-again, off-again approach to innovation that has characterized American education over the past thirty years has helped give rise to these attitudes. Educators who express them are not without some justification in being wary of committing their precious time and energy to a new program or approach when few have been sustained successfully during their careers. However, this skepticism also masks the idea that if educators try a particular innovation once, they should either incorporate it into educa- tional practice for all time or abandon it categorically. In reality, an educational innovation may come and go, not necessarily or solely because of its relative effectiveness, but at least in part because of the context into which the innovation is introduced. If it is a good match with the politics, culture, and economics of the school, district, or state, it has a greatly enhanced probability of becoming institutionalized. As the context changes, today?s failure becomes tomorrow?s success, and vice-versa. This chapter explores the historical context of school restructuring over the past century. It also traces the values and goals that have driven change in public education at various times and explains how these shifting goals have led to periodic efforts to reshape schools. This brief treatment is not meant to serve as a substitute for a careful reading of the history of education generally or of educational reform specifically. Authors such as Tyack (1974), Cremin (1988), Cuban (1984a), and Callahan (1962) have chronicled these events in much greater depth and detail. My goal is to provide some perspective on current efforts to restructure schools, since the restructuring movement seems to lack a historical perspective. 18 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT Those engaged in efforts to redesign schooling generally possess little awareness that significant change has occurred at other periods, or that there is much to be learned from previous attempts to solve educa- tional problems. Few of the spokespeople for today?s reforms have identified the link restructuring seems to have with the Progressive school of thought in education, for example. And few analyses note how similar the concerns emanating from the business community today are to those voiced by the private sector nearly one hundred years ago. Similarly, few of those who advocate basing curriculum and in- struction on the needs of students acknowledge the link their thinking has with other reformers from previous eras. They do not seem to be aware that many of the changes they promote as original and even radical have already been examined by researchers, have been put into practice on a large scale, and have been found to improve student learning. One of the best examples is the Eight Year Study, which examined the success that students from ?progressive? public schools of the 1930s had when they subsequently entered college. It demonstrated very clearly and powerfully the effectiveness of many techniques advo- cated by today?s reformers. Ralph Tyler (1986/1987), the director of the study, describes several of its most significant outcomes: The Progressive Education Association developed the Eight Year Study in which 30 schools and school systems from Boston to Los Angeles demon- strated the effectiveness of curriculums designed by each school to meet the needs of its own students.... Perhaps [the] most significant [outcome of the study] in terms of current practices in curriculum development was the widespread accep- tance of the idea that schools could develop educational programs that would interest a large proportion of their students, help to meet some of the students? needs and, at the same time, provide students with the prepara- tion essential for success in college. Because of that project, most state departments of education and most colleges and universities greatly re- duced their specific requirements for the high school curriculum and relied more upon each school?s taking responsibility?although recent trends have been in the opposite direction. A second outcome of the study was the recognition by colleges and universities that they could find among high school graduates who had not met specific subject requirements many who would succeed in college work. They learned that they could select successful candidates for admis- sion on the basis of their ability to read, write, solve quantitative problems, and show evidence of strong interest in further education. This led to the wider use of entrance examinations, such as the SAT, that did not test specific content but appraised general skills.... ... [An addtional] outcome was the wide acceptance of educational evaluation instead of testing.... The Eight Year Study... demonstrated that HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 19 it was possible to appraise the progress of students toward [achievement of course objectives] by using questionnaires, observations, and samples of products as well as tests. (p. 38) Tyler?s work on the Eight Year Study is just one example of the lessons that have been learned regarding educational practice, lessons that appear not to be acknowledged in many conversations about and programs of restructuring. The brief discussion of selected historical events that follows serves only to illustrate this point by suggesting other parallels that might be drawn between previous attempts at funda- mental change in education and what is occurring now. EDUCATIONAL RESTRUCTURING IN THE 1890S Change in public education is nothing new. However, observing change in education can be difficult, since events unfold from year to year. The process may be likened to a time-lapse sequence of a flower opening: as each frame is recorded, little change is noted; but when the clip is played back, the flower is observed to burst forth into glorious bloom on a moment?s notice. In fact, the educational system has been evolving since the arrival of the Pilgrims. What has been difficult to discern are the occasions when education has undergone fundamental change in relatively short periods. For example, during the period from the early 1890s through roughly 1920, changes of virtually unimagin- able proportion washed over the system with regularity. These changes shaped the system that exists to the present. The combined forces of urbanization, industrialization, and immi- gration put tremendous pressure on education during this period. High school enrollments increased twenty-fold from 1875 to 1900 as the right to finance public education through broad tax support was established (Stuart and others v. School District No. 1 of Kalamazoo 1874). The legitimization of public funding enabled schools to develop new pro- grams and serve more students. And more students there were. The tidal wave of immigration peaked at roughly eight million in the 1890s and continued during the next two decades. This influx created pressure for standardization of an educational system that had truly been community controlled and de- centralized. While educators took the lead in designing and implement- ing the reforms of the era, they were clearly influenced by the values, philosophies, and techniques prevalent in the private sector. In addition, higher education exerted a powerful influence in the direction of stan- dardizing educational practice. It was during this period that grade-level organization, the Carnegie unit, the notion of intelligence and of IQ 20 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT tests, the use of standardized achievement tests, the content and struc- ture of the high school curriculum, the junior high school, and the professional superintendent and principal, among other major reforms, were implemented. The notion that the purpose of an education was to prepare youth for the labor force in addition to attaining the traditional goals of the liberal- arts curriculum also gained respectability and credence. High schools were to be comprehensive institutions; they would educate all the youth, though in different ways and toward different ends. Previously public education had been viewed primarily as a way to enable students to read the Bible, as a form of socialization necessary in a democratic society, and as a vehicle for the transmission of local community values. A grade school education was generally sufficient to serve these purposes. It was around this same period that the Progressive movement in American education was born. Although the roots of Progressivism can be traced back at least to Rousseau, it was John Dewey who did more than any other individual to give voice to the thinking of the Progressive movement and bring it into the public eye. The Progressives believed not only in the involvement of the learner in the construction of knowledge through structured experience, but in the use of public education as a tool for social reform (Sewall 1983). Public education came to be seen as the means by which classes of students who would otherwise have little hope of advancing themselves might improve their lot in life in comparison with their parents. The last state to pass a compulsory school attendance law, Missis- sippi, did so in 1918. At the same time, many other states were increas- ing the minimum ?leaving age,? thereby increasing the number of students going on to higher grades and the challenges associated with instructing them. Public education was to be the key for new immigrants and other city dwellers to establish the foothold that would allow them to climb the social and economic ladder. Two forces, the Progressive educators and the business community, while not necessarily in agreement on the general goals of school restructuring, ended up being able to advocate or support many reforms that blended together in practice. Progressives favored reform to hu- manize education and use it as a tool for social reform and economic opportunity for the less advantaged. The business community supported fundamental change in education designed to prepare young people to enter the labor force with the proper attitudes and habits necessary for factory work. For very different reasons, these two groups, one internal to the educational community and the other external to it, supported a series of reforms that served to rationalize and systematize public HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 21 education and strengthen its links to the economic system. Neither necessarily saw the other as an ally; however, they combined to increase the pressure for systemic educational reform at just the time when the system was most vulnerable to change. It is clear, based on Callahan?s (1962) interpretation, that the busi- ness community was clearly the more powerful of the two forces. However, it is worth remembering today that strong voices advocating change from both within and outside the educational community had powerful effects, even if their messages were not always the same, in large measure because social, political, economic, demographic, and even technological forces all converged on the educational system more or less simultaneously to create an almost irresistible tide of change in education. EDUCATIONAL RESTRUCTURING IN THE 1990S How do the events of the past century and those from earlier in this century help us understand the forces that favor fundamental change in education today? Once again, two distinctly different groups, for very different reasons, are advocating radical transformation of public educa- tion. On the one hand, educational reformers such as Theodore Sizer and John Goodlad promote changes that can be viewed as consistent with the Progressive tradition of education. These reformers emphasize active construction of knowledge by students, demonstration of skills through exhibitions rather than tests, allocation of time based on the needs of the learner rather than on the needs of the school schedule, and alteration of the student-teacher relationship to student-as-worker, teacher-as-coach. A teacher in a school that is a member of Sizer?s Coalition of Essential Schools describes this change in emphasis: Since I?ve moved to this school, my teaching has really changed. I used to feel as if I were the quarterback in the classroom. I carried the ball and made touchdowns with my best lectures. Somewhere along the line, I realized that I was doing all the work. Now I stand off to the side, and the kids do the running. (Wasley 1991, p. 35) The influence of present-day educational reformers should not be underestimated. They are highly visible within the educational commu- nity; their articles appear in journals that practitioners read; and they speak regularly at large educational conferences and conventions. They also have had the ear of many state legislators who have significant power to implement educational reform. At the same time, a possibly stronger force for change has emerged? the business community. As business has been forced to redesign the 22 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT traditional factory model in the face of a rapidly evolving world economy, its needs for workers have changed. It is clear that the American economic system has been remaking itself over the past decade to adapt quickly to its changing place in the international economic system, from Goliath to partner. The United States will likely never again dominate the world economy as it did in the period immediately following World War II. Its new role is still being defined (Reich 1988 and 1990). Business is viewing a well-educated work force as more important than ever before to its success. The public school system continues to be seen, at least for the time being, as a critical partner in the eventual success and profitability of American business. Another way to compare and contrast restructuring is to examine the high school, which was a focal point for fundamental change at the turn of the century and appears to be in such a position once again. The next section takes a closer look at this process. THE EVOLUTION OF THE AMERICAN HIGH SCHOOL One clear trend in the restructuring movement is that high schools appear to be quite difficult to change, and at the same time appear to be the level of education more in need of change than any other. At the turn of the twentieth century, the high school adopted the factory model of organization, with its reliance on standardization, efficiency, task spe- cialization, and batch processing, more completely than any other level of education. Ironically, the high school?s success in adapting to the last wave of systemic change has made it the level facing the greatest challenge today. The high school also finds itself being the institution where the largest proportion of children fail. A high dropout rate has been acceptable until now for a variety of reasons. However, as will be argued later, it may no longer be acceptable for one of every four or five students to leave school without a diploma. The pressure on high schools to change radically and fundamentally continues to increase. Why is the high school under such pressure to change? A brief examination of its evolution will help put into perspective its philo- sophical assumptions and historical role. The intellectual roots of the American high school can be traced back at least to the 1700s and the Renaissance, and, for some elements, to the ancient Greeks. The study of knowledge organized by time- honored disciplines still is present in high schools in slightly altered form and comprises the intellectual core of the high school. History, science, mathematics, English, and, to a certain extent, foreign lan- HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 23 guages (formerly Latin) are still identified as the ?core? subjects in nearly every high school in America. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, these were the topics of interest to a landed aristocracy and, more importantly, members of a newly emerg- ing business class. Reese (1995) points out that many public high schools did undergo a transition from the ?classic? curriculum (Latin, Greek, philosophy, the Classics) to an adaptation of the ?English? curriculum (modern languages, history, geography, science, advanced mathematics, and English literature) and that public high schools em- phasized both preparation for work and college (pp. 91-93). However, even this transition created an ?academic? core that has been passed down with relatively few changes to the present. What was labeled ?preparation for business? in the 1800s passes for preparation for col- lege in today?s high school. In the 1890s, enrollments increased sharply as schools became the primary means to socialize immigrant children, public taxes were used to fund universal education, and new laws held young people out of the work force. Only then did the role of the secondary school come under examination. Although high schools had also prepared students for opportunities in the burgeoning mercantile economy that was developing on the Eastern seaboard throughout the 1800s, there was little consistency to the programs offered for preparation in business. The universities, however, did have relatively clear expectations for students. They were, then as now, a powerful influence on the high school program. Beginning in the 1890s, the colleges launched a series of reforms designed to (1) make high school programs more uniform through the use of common course titles; (2) enforce some form of quality control through the imposition of the Carnegie unit*, which set standards for the amount of credit to be granted based on the amount of ?seat time? in a course; (3) admit students on merit and achievement, not just religious background, parental ability to pay, or other extraneous measures, which resulted in the creation of The College Entrance Examination Board (now the College Board) and knowledge-based entrance exami- nations; and (4) standardize grading procedures through the use of gradepoint averages and official transcripts. The recommendations of the Committee of Ten, convened in 1892, resulted in a much closer 0000000000 * The leader in this movement was the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, which offered a pension plan (today known as TIAA-CREF) for profes- sors, who had few retirement benefits. High school teachers were not allowed to participate in the program unless their high school agreed to measure its courses in year- length ?Carnegie units.? 24 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT alignment between high schools and colleges and a standardization of the high school curriculum around an academic ?core.? By 1911, pressures for the high school to change were increasing rapidly. That was the year the committee on the articulation of high school and college submitted its report to the National Education Asso- ciation. A direct outgrowth of that report was the appointment by the NEA of the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Educa- tion, which went on to develop the Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education. An excerpt from the commission?s report provides insight into the perceived need for change in public education: Secondary education should be determined by the needs of the society to be served, the character of the individuals to be educated, and the knowl- edge of educational theory and practice available. These factors are by no means static. Society is always in process of development; the character of the secondary-school population undergoes modification; and the sciences on which educational theory and practice depend constantly furnish new information.... Failure to make adjustments when the need arises leads to the necessity for extensive reorganization at irregular intervals. The evi- dence is strong that such a comprehensive reorganization of secondary education is imperative at the present time. 1. Changes in society?Within the past few decades changes have taken place in American life profoundly affecting the activities of the indi- vidual. As a citizen, he must to a greater extent and in a more direct way cope with problems of community life, State and National Govern- ments, and international relationships. As a worker, he must adjust himself to a more complex economic order. As a relatively indepen- dent personality, he has more leisure.... The responsibility of the secondary school is still further increased because many social agencies other than the school afford less stimulus for education than heretofore.... In connection with home and family life have frequently come lessened responsibility on the part of the children; the withdrawal of the father and sometimes the mother from home occupations to the factory or store; and increased urbanization, resulting in less unified family life. Similarly, many important changes have taken place in community life, in the church, in the State, and in other institutions. These changes in American life call for extensive modifications in secondary education.... 3. Changes in educational theory?The sciences on which educational theory depends have within recent years made significant contribu- tions. In particular, educational psychology emphasizes the following factors: a) Individual differences in capacities and aptitudes among second- ary-school pupils.... HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 25 b) The reexamination and reinterpretation of subject values and the teaching methods with reference to ?general discipline?.... c) Importance of applying knowledge.... d) Continuity in the development of children.... The foregoing changes in society, in the character of the secondary school population, and in educational theory, together with many other considerations, call for extensive modifications of secondary education. Such modifications have already begun in part. The present need is for the formulation of a comprehensive program of reorganization, and its adop- tion, with suitable adjustments, in all the secondary schools in the Nation. Hence it is appropriate for a representative body like the National Educa- tion Association to outline such a program. This is the task entrusted by that association to the Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. (Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education 1928) The commission recommended changes that began moving the high school toward meeting the needs of a much broader range of students. It recommended the inclusion of vocational courses, the provision of guidance for students, and attention to the education of the ?whole child? through subjects such as health, ethics, the worthy use of leisure time, and citizenship. The high school had now moved from one central mission, college preparation, to three: college prep, vocational educa- tion, and general education. The proportion of students completing high school increased steadily over the next fifty years, so that by 1953 half of all American youths were graduating. The high school struggled to provide a meaningful education for all of them. This massive increase in graduation was accomplished at least in part by an expansion of the general education track?less challenging, less focused courses that were designed prima- rily for those not necessarily going on to college nor preparing for a profession. The Russians changed this in 1957 with the launching of Sputnik. Alarm bells sounded, particularly in Congress. A series of federal programs were legislated to improve the quality of American education, but with particular emphasis on math and science. James Conant, presi- dent of Harvard University, undertook a two-year study of the American high school. His report (Conant 1959) became ?the most authoritative design for secondary education in the postwar era? (Sewall 1983). The report basically harkened back to the recommendations of turn-of-the- century university presidents, emphasizing traditional academics for nearly all students, minimum requirements in ?core? subjects, and use of ability grouping with particular attention to the academically gifted. 26 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT These recommendations helped lead to the creation of a new track in high schools?the ?Advanced Placement? track, initiated in 1956 and rapidly implemented in the late fifties and early sixties (Powell 1993). Now there was the college-bound student and the ?truly college-bound.? In the sixties issues of equity began to receive greater attention in response to the civil-rights movement and the school-desegregation process. The high school was under pressure to produce more world- class scientists to compete with the Russians; at the same time, it was expected to educate the less privileged to higher levels so that they might participate in the American Dream. The result was the gradual development of the ?at-risk? track, which encompassed a broad array of strategies, including special tracks, alternative schools, and programs within high schools. This made five separate tracks, each with its own curriculum. The passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142) in 1975 led to the creation of the most recent track, special education. Consisting of a bewildering array of acronyms, these pro- grams function within and independently from the high school, some- times overlapping the at-risk track, often not. Their relationship with the rest of the high school program is problematic at best in most schools, particularly in regard to determining the level of academic achievement special students must attain to earn a diploma. Special education, al- though often more like a school-within-a-school than another track, can be thought of as the sixth track in the high school. What emerges is a picture of the high school in the 1990s as an institution that has struggled to adapt during the past hundred years through the sequential introduction of additional tracks to address both equity and excellence goals while accommodating an increasingly di- verse student body. Its core, however, is still firmly rooted in intellectual traditions from a time when mass education was not the established practice. This heritage of adaptation creates a constant tension within high schools since some elements of the curriculum are deemed more ?legitimate? than others. The tradition of a liberal-arts education as ?discipline for the mind? confronts a school population that is not motivated to pursue activities simply as ?disciplines? or mental exer- cises. Thus the debate over the role of a liberal education (Bloom 1987, Hirsch and others 1987) overlooks reality; if students are not and cannot be motivated to participate in this model, it matters little what ultimate virtues the model possesses in theory. If society wants all students to become educated to some relatively high level of intellectual function- ing, a classical liberal education may not present the most promising HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 27 foundation if it cannot be adapted to reflect the much broader and differentially motivated student population it is now expected to serve. This is not the same thing as saying there is no place in high schools for the best elements of liberal education; rather, as will be explored throughout the remainder of this book, new models are emerging that consider a variety of intellectual approaches and instructional strategies to be more or less equal and permit students to follow a variety of paths to meet common standards. This flexibility allows the transmission of a wider range of knowledge in a manner that helps more students to achieve higher degrees of success. One effect of the restructuring movement has been to stimulate discussion of the role and purpose of high schools, particularly their ability to educate nearly all students to some relatively high level of functioning. It seems clear that the high school must be considered the new ?common school,? the level of education that all children are expected to attain. This level of common education has risen consis- tently throughout the history of the country, from a primary education in the 1700s, to an upper-elementary education by the late 1800s, to a junior high school education by the late 1930s. In the postwar era, the expectation that nearly all students would obtain a high school education developed rapidly; this expectation is becoming firmly institutionalized in the postindustrial society of the 1990s. From this perspective, changes that must occur in high schools will need to be more fundamental than those in middle and elementary schools, though those levels face serious challenges as well. A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE It is worth noting that many of the ideas being considered for restructuring in the 1990s were most recently attempted in the late sixties and early seventies. Innovations such as flexible scheduling, team teaching, integrated curriculum, individualized education, schools within schools, and many others were common twenty years ago. Many teachers who are old enough to remember this say, ?Here we go again,? when they hear discussion of these ideas. There is at least one major difference in the way these innovations might affect schools now versus then. In the sixties and seventies, various advocates for social change were attempting to use schools as a vehicle to remake society. Many of the people who entered teaching at this time agreed with the notion that schools could be vehicles for social change. The average age of teachers was much younger then, as school officials engaged in several years of frantic hiring to keep pace with the 28 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT arrival of the baby boom in schools. This younger, perhaps more idealistic, teaching staff tended to make more of a connection between education and issues of social justice. They tended to believe that schools could promote the ideals of democratic participation and indi- vidual self-worth that the civil-rights movement and the ?countercul- ture? represented. These were times when freedom was emphasized and accountability downplayed. The business community (and many, perhaps most, parents) never truly supported the type of changes that were occurring in schools. In addition to lack of fundamental support, there was lax accountability to determine if these reforms produced tangible improvement in student learning. By the late seventies, a more general repudiation of the ideal- ism of the sixties helped contribute to a swing of the pendulum in the other direction, and the ?back to basics? movement emerged. The situation in the 1990s is quite different in many respects. It is the business community that is leading the call for basic reforms in education and the educators who, in many cases, are resisting. The roles have reversed. Rather than educators attempting to change school in order to change society, it is society (in the form of business and government) that is attempting to change schools. Teachers are the ones advising caution and urging that the pace of change be more deliberate. The teaching profession is now older, more experienced, and perhaps more cautious or wary (some might say cynical) in responding to calls for fundamental reform than it was two decades ago when the last wave of massive experimentation took place. Many from the current genera- tion not only saw those reforms (and what became of them), but have subsequently spent the better part of their lives in public schools. It is difficult for adults at midcareer to be convinced that all they have done throughout their careers might have been wrong or ineffective. Parents have once again been left on the sidelines by policy-makers and educators. The result has been opposition to restructuring based on both real and imagined concerns. In essence, parents have not been convinced of the need for change. Parents tend to be dissatisfied with education in the abstract and satisfied with it in the concrete; they generally rank their local schools highly, but do not rank the educational system nearly as highly (Elam, Rose, and Gallup 1994, Elam and Rose 1995). The emphasis in the call for school restructuring is not primarily a social goal such as enhanced equity; rather, it is economic and societal survival. The emphasis is not on freedom, but on accountability. Re- structuring, in this context, represents a reordering of society?s priorities for education. Because many educators are not enthusiastic about this HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 29 reordering of priorities and some parents are concerned about change in education generally, educational restructuring is likely to follow a course of fits and starts. However, the forces for change remain as strong as ever in the environment that surrounds schools. Some schools have begun adapting, but the most powerful and sustained calls for change in education will likely come from outside the education profession, at least in the immediate future. One other important difference between the current era of reform and previous eras is the notable absence of higher education as a driving force. In the 1890s, for example, all the most important reports of the period were authored either by university personnel or by committees on which higher education was well represented. Similarly, in the wave of curriculum development that followed in the wake of Sputnik and the calls for high school reform in particular, higher education was the leading voice. Colleges and universities have been peculiarly silent to date on school restructuring, except to indicate concern that educational reform not result in the lowering of standards. In part this is a reflection of the fact that current reforms are not necessarily focused tightly on the college-bound, but on the total educational environment and on the improvement of the performance of all students. Although this trend appears to be changing as a number of higher education systems launch efforts to modify admission criteria to accom- modate students educated in restructured high schools, colleges and universities are taking these steps to accommodate, not to drive, changes occurring in high schools. This lack of leadership foreshadows tough times ahead for postsecondary education if it becomes the last bastion of the educational system developed at the turn of the century under its influence and guidance. 30 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT 0000000000 * See, for example: Anrig and Lapointe (1989); Lapointe, Mead, and Phillips (1989); Beck (1990); Benjamin (1989); Broder (1991); Carlisle (1988); Carnevale (1992); Cetron and Gayle (1991); Cetron, Rocha, and Luckins (1988); Dumaine (1989); Frymier and Gansneder (1989); Hodgkinson (1988); Pennar (1991); Szabo (1990); Wanat (1991); Weisman (December 11, 1991); and Commission on the Skills of the American Work Force (1990). CHAPTER 2 THE WHYS OF EDUCATIONAL RESTRUCTURING 30 Not everyone agrees that schools need to be restructured. Many teachers and parents, in particular, believe that schools are about as good as they can be given the resources they have and the challenges they face, and that there is little to be gained by attempting large-scale change in education. At the same time, the world within which schools exist continues to change in many ways. Social, political, and economic systems are changing, evolving, adapting, fracturing, and in some cases imploding at an ever-increasing rate. Old institutions, beliefs, assump- tions, and behaviors no longer seem adequate to deal with the problems and issues that citizens in complex societies face today. The ever more rapid pace of technological development also creates an environment in which patterns of human behavior and relationships that have been constant for literally thousands of years are being altered, and new skills are needed to prosper or even to survive. This chapter is based on the assumption that the reader is at least somewhat aware of the types of criticisms that have been leveled at the education system over the past several years. Therefore, the discussion offered here of the forces underlying the need to restructure education is general in nature. There have been many excellent summaries of the statistical data that demonstrate how students are prepared currently in schools, how particular ethnic and racial groups are not achieving at levels comparable to their peers, and how the number of at-risk students are growing rapidly and schools are not prepared to cope with their needs.* This chapter examines broader trends in society that help create the imperative for schools to change. These trends have influenced the THE WHYS OF EDUCATIONAL RESTRUCTURING 31 thinking of policy-makers and educators as they have considered the types of changes necessary for schools. SOCIETAL FORCES FOR CHANGE In an earlier work I analyzed the rationale for restructuring by considering changes occurring throughout society in terms of three broad and somewhat overlapping categories: economic forces, social forces, and technological forces (D. Conley, February 1991). The basic points from that analysis are presented here. However, the reader is advised to consult the original work for a more detailed treatment of the topic. A brief summary of these forces, with an additional dimension, Performance of American Students on International Comparisons, fol- lows. ECONOMIC FORCES The economic system is transforming in ways that have implica- tions for all social institutions, including schools. Some of the elements of the transformation that have the greatest potential impact upon the schools include the following: ? The continuing transition from a work force composed predomi- nantly of low-skilled workers and a small, highly educated mana- gerial elite who made decisions to a work force in which front-line workers are key decision-makers (Reich 1988, 1990). ? Increased economic competition from Asia and Europe that has led to an accelerated rate of change in the business world and the necessity for teamwork in the workplace (?The New Industrial Relations? 1981, Mandel and Bernstein 1990). ? Less access to ?guaranteed? jobs for high school dropouts through the old means such as trade unions, one major employer in a community, or use of ?old boy? network. ? Increasing polarization in the creation of new jobs, with many high-education and many low-education jobs being created, and almost no new ?blue-collar, family wage? jobs. ? A dramatic increase in ?leased workers,? individuals who work long term for a company but are employed by an employment service, creating more mobility and job insecurity, and the need for workers to acquire skills to remain competitive (?Outlook Positive for Job Seekers? 1996). 32 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT ? More racial/ethnic/gender diversity in the workplace and con- comitant equal employment provisions for hiring that require employers to show a link between the prospective employee?s knowledge and skills and the hiring decision. ? A global economy where companies function throughout the world, workers may have to travel or live outside the U.S. to progress in the company, and almost every business needs to understand its relationship to foreign competitors (Baker 1990, Hoerr and others 1990). ? A federal deficit that has become a centerpiece for governmental debate, and an apparent willingness by legislators to address the deficit, guaranteeing that there will be few additional federal monies available to support education, or any other social pro- grams. This trend is accompanied by pressure for no tax increases at the federal and, in many cases, state levels combined with decreased rates of personal income growth, which in combination will inhibit the ability of state and local governments to raise taxes (Hollister 1990). ? A stable to shrinking work force that will be composed increas- ingly of women, minorities, and immigrants, groups traditionally not served well by public education, combined with the expecta- tion that all new entrants into the work force be educated to some relatively high level of functioning (Hoachlander, Kaufman, and Wilen 1989). ? The elimination of middle-management positions throughout the economy during the late eighties and into the nineties, which resulted in responsibility for decision-making being pushed down- ward, requiring workers who are more able to think and managers who are more able to adapt; continued layoffs in large corpora- tions, creating workers who must undergo retraining or develop new skills in midcareer. SOCIAL FORCES Some of the important social forces operating to produce change that will have an impact on public schools include the following: ? The changing structure of the family in the era of the ?post- nuclear family,? the increase in single-parent families, the con- comitant disintegration of extended support networks for fami- lies; the tendency for any crisis to throw a family off balance for THE WHYS OF EDUCATIONAL RESTRUCTURING 33 an extended period unless some sort of external assistance is available (Wanat 1991). ? The increase in the number of children who are living in poverty (Moynihan 1988, Pennar 1991). ? The apparent failure of social welfare and social-service programs nationally to address the escalating needs of families; a lack of interagency cooperation, which results in duplication and overlap among social-service programs and many programs offered by schools (Liontos 1990). ? The failure of schools as vehicles for desegregation or for equal educational performance for minority students (Olson, October 17, 1990; Stockard and Mayberry 1992); the increasing polariza- tion along economic and racial lines, particularly in urban areas (Bates 1990). ? A decreasing sense of civic responsibility, of social tolerance, of a social contract among citizens for the benefit of all; a lack of understanding of the principles of democratic rule by majority with respect for the rights of the minority; decreasing participa- tion in the electoral process and in decision-making at the local level (Boyer 1990). TECHNOLOGICAL FORCES Technological forces include a broad array of new techniques for organizing, communicating, and disseminating information that raise some of the following issues: ? Schools are neither organized nor funded in a way that enables them to keep up with changes in knowledge or changes in technol- ogy used to store and present such knowledge (Elmer-Dewitt 1991, Levinson 1990). ? Textbooks are an obsolete technology, yet they continue to be central to the way schools conceive of teaching and learning. ? Knowledge is becoming more accessible to more of the popula- tion. Therefore, the teacher?s role as subject-matter expert must change. ? Information need no longer be stored in memory for it to be useful; the ability to access information will be as or more impor- tant than the ability to store information in one?s memory (Bugliarello 1990, Sheingold 1991). 34 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT ? The structure of knowledge is rapidly evolving. The division of academic disciplines is no longer appropriate for understanding or solving the problems that exist in the world, yet schools cling to this one structure to the exclusion of other possibilities. ? Information is coming to be seen less as an end in itself than as a means to an end, an essential ingredient in problem-solving. Curricula that focus on information as an end in itself (fact-based rote learning) can be counterproductive, extinguishing the curios- ity and inquisitiveness of the learner and providing little practice in applying information to solve problems. ? Schools have defined technology as computers. There are many types of technology in addition to computers that will have an equal or greater impact on learning (D. Conley, February 1991, pp. 8-10). ? Schools are not moving to integrate technology, nor are they keeping up with the latest developments; in fact, they are falling farther and farther behind as the equipment they purchased in the 1980s becomes obsolete and they are unable to purchase new equipment (Elmer-Dewitt 1991). ? Statistics such as the number of computers per teacher are worse than useless as a measure of progress to determine effective use of technology in schools; careful examination of schools? attempts to use computers yields results that are dismaying and dishearten- ing (Borrell 1992). PERFORMANCE OF AMERICAN STUDENTS ON INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS The performance of American students on international compari- sons continues to be a topic of discussion among policy-makers. While Berliner and Bracey in particular caution against using these scores for policy-making purposes, the issue of test scores continues to come up in discussions of the shortcomings of public schools. Therefore, it is important to understand test scores if they are influencing public policy, even if they are not the most appropriate tool for the task. The results compiled below, combined with studies that compared performance to standards American educators agreed were reasonable, indicated gaps in performance between American students and those from other countries: ? Husen (1967) reports results from tests conducted in 1964: ?The International Study of Achievement in Mathematics compared THE WHYS OF EDUCATIONAL RESTRUCTURING 35 achievement in twelve countries: Austria, Belgium, England, Finland, France, West Germany, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, Scotland, Sweden, and the United States.... Japanese students excelled all others, regardless of their socioeconomic status, while the U.S. students ranked near the bottom.? ? A 1974 study of science achievement found that although the brightest American students fared well in reading, they did not perform as well in science: ?Assessments reveal that, while 10 percent of the top United States students excelled similar groups in all other countries in reading, in science they occupied seventh place? (Hechinger and Hechinger 1974). ? The National Assessment of Educational Progress report released in 1989 (Lapointe, Mead, and Phillips 1989) contains a great deal of evidence to suggest that American schools have not improved much during the past decade and that they do not educate the vast majority to high levels. While noting improvement in basic skill acquisition from the midsixties to 1980, Anrig and Lapointe (1989) observe that most of the improvement took place before 1980. ?The trend line stopped moving up in 1980 and has re- mained virtually at the same level for the past eight years? (p. 5). The report goes on to present some of the following information: ? While 40 percent of American thirteen-year-olds could regu- larly solve two-step problems in mathematics, close to 70 per- cent of Canadian students at the same grade level could do so. ? While only 9 percent of American thirteen-year-olds could understand certain mathematical concepts, 40 percent of Ko- rean thirteen-year-olds could do so most of the time. ? The decline in mathematics achievement continues through high school, so that by age seventeen far fewer than 10 percent of American youth have mastered algebra, geometry, and the ability to solve multistep problems. ? In writing, only 25 percent of seventeen-year-olds can write an adequate analytic paper from given information. ? Only 20 percent can write a persuasive letter to the principal. ? Only 28 percent can write an adequate essay in the imaginative area. 36 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT ? In the opinion of the hundreds of people who served as NAEP advisors, it seemed reasonable to assume that at least 80 percent of thirteen-year-olds could do the following tasks: ? answer four factual questions about a simply written single-page description of the development of a game of basketball?only 6 out of 10 can do so; ? select, from four options, the correct answer to the question, ?Which is true about 87 percent of 10??: ?It?s greater than, less than, equal to, or can?t tell??only 2 out of 10 can do so; ? recognize that different soils affect plant growth?only 5 out of 10 can do so; ? write an adequate informative report about a simple personal expe- rience?only 2 out of 10 can do so (Anrig and Lapointe 1989, p. 9) ? Ravitch and Finn (1987) found in a study of the nation?s seven- teen-year olds ?abysmally low levels of general knowledge about common facts, events, people, authors, and ideas in history and literature? (McDaniel 1989). ? Stevenson and Stigler (1992) developed ?culture-fair? tests to compare the performance of American and Asian students in mathematics and reading. Their conclusion was as follows: A close examination of American children?s academic achievement rap- idly dispels any notion that we face a problem of limited scope. The problem is not restricted to a certain age level or to a particular academic subject. Whether we look at the average scores for schools or at the scores for individuals, we find evidence of serious and pervasive weakness. In mathematics, the weakness is not limited to inadequate mastery of routine operations, but reflects a poor understanding of how to use mathematics in solving meaningful problems. Nor is mathematics the only subject in which American students do poorly. We have presented evidence of the overrepresentation of poor readers among American children, and Ameri- can students have fared badly in international studies of achievement in science. (p. 50) The performance of American students on international compari- sons, and on achievement tests, is a complex and emotion-laden issue. As noted previously, Bracey (1991, 1992) and others (Hodgkinson 1991, Berliner 1992, Carson, Huelskamp, and Woodall 1991) have criticized the use of test data and international comparisons as the basis for judging the performance of American students. For example, Bracey THE WHYS OF EDUCATIONAL RESTRUCTURING 37 questions the value of the International Assessment of Educational Progress, which uses scores from 9- and 13-year-olds: Is a multiple-choice test the most appropriate measure of a nation?s achieve- ment? Even if it is, is there any relationship between test scores at ages 9 and 13 and later accomplishments by individuals or by nations? Is it wise to give weight to the scores of 13-year-olds... [who] might well rank next-to- last?ahead of only the seniors [in terms of groups that] don?t take tests seriously. (p. 108) There is widespread concern among these writers that the media are focusing on negative test scores. Bracey (1992) states that Newsweek?s coverage of the results from the International Assessment of Educa- tional Progress (IAEP-2) released in February 1992 ?reflects the per- verse attention that education gets from the media?when it gets any attention at all? (p. 108). The net effect of such attention seems to have been to foster public opinion that there is a crisis in education. Such perceptions must be acknowledged, whether accurate or not, and fac- tored into any analysis of the motivators for change in American schools. It is not my intention to impugn the efforts of American educators or to suggest that schools are intellectual disaster areas. Quite the contrary, many educators are exerting superhuman efforts to sustain a system that appears to be having great difficulty adapting to the changing needs of students. Frymier (1992) emphasizes this point in a description of his national study of at-risk students: The data collected in the Phi Delta Kappa Study of Students at Risk underscores the point that teachers and others in schools are working hard?very hard?to help children who hurt and children who fail. Whether or not these efforts are effective cannot be determined from these data. The fact that general concern about the problem of children at risk is so widespread in America suggests that such efforts are insufficient, ineffec- tive, or both. But the efforts are real. Anyone who wants to fault schools for not trying has not studied these data carefully. Still the crucial question remains: How effective are the programs and practices being used today to help students who are at risk? (p. 259) Issues pertaining to the performance of American students, as well as the societal changes outlined in the preceding section, have received wide exposure and discussion through the media and in educational journals and conferences. There is, however, another set of issues that may have as profound an impact on education ultimately as those listed above. These emerging issues reflect changing values within society, changes that have been occurring gradually for perhaps fifty years or more. In combination with the factors listed previously, these issues suggest that change in education is inevitable, if only to bring schools into closer alignment with societal values. 38 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT CHANGING VALUES WITHIN SOCIETY The data and trends presented in the previous sections make the case that, if nothing else, the world around schools is changing. Other less tangible forces may also serve to influence the types of changes that may need to occur in schools. These forces can be thought of as value shifts that are taking place at the societal level. In some senses these shifts are more difficult to perceive than those present in demographic data. Often they are best observed in hindsight. As one looks back on a decade or more, these shifts become more apparent; in day-to-day life they may be less apparent. Why is it important for educators to take these value shifts into account when considering change in schools? The primary reason is that these value shifts often form or influence the context within which policy decisions are made in a representative democracy such as exists in the United States. Policy-makers at the local level (school board), state level (legislature and governor), and federal level (Congress and the President), along with various lobbying and special-interest groups, are influenced, consciously or otherwise, by large-scale trends in this society, and, increasingly, the world at large. The ideas that are proposed and the solutions that are entertained are shaped by this value frame- work, which suggests the desirable goals of public policy and the most appropriate means by which to attain these goals. This is true in part because schools rarely utilize systematic data in setting goals, assessing performance, or diagnosing organizational strengths and weaknesses. Similarly, research on effective educational practices may not be considered systematically when new programs or plans are being developed. In the absence of attention to data and research, policy-makers are more susceptible to generalizations and intuition as they formulate responses to educational problems. In such an environment, large-scale trends are more influential. While changes are occurring in many different constellations of values, there are four interconnected values in particular that public education does not necessarily reflect well: (1) the increased value placed on the individual and individual rights, (2) the triumph of the marketplace as an economic model, (3) the rise of democratic systems of government, and (4) the changing needs of the work force. These sets of values are not likely to be useful as outlines for particular strategies to be employed at the school site. But they are worth examining as ways of thinking about the solutions policy-makers are likely to entertain or value. These values do help explain why one program or strategy might be more or less attractive to decision-makers, all other things being THE WHYS OF EDUCATIONAL RESTRUCTURING 39 equal. They also suggest the type of language and rationale that might be used to justify or undergird a program of school restructuring. INCREASED EMPHASIS ON THE INDIVIDUAL AND ON INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY Robert Bellah and others (1985) have written eloquently about the strong tradition of individualism in American society and its effect on our social institutions: Individualism lies at the very core of American culture.... There is a biblical individualism and a civic individualism as well as a utilitarian and an expressive individualism. Whatever the differences among the tradi- tions and the consequent differences in their understandings of individual- ism, there are some things they all share, things that are basic to American identity. We believe in the dignity, indeed the sacredness, of the individual. Anything that would violate our right to think for ourselves, judge for ourselves, make our own decisions, live our lives as we see fit, is not only morally wrong, it is sacrilegious. (p. 142) While Bellah and others also note the importance of collective action and its role in American society, the trend over the past thirty-five years appears to have been to define more clearly the rights of individu- als, particularly those less able to compete on an equal footing in society. It began with the civil-rights movement of the late fifties and sixties, which was designed to ensure that every individual had an ?equal opportunity? to succeed in American society, both economically and socially. This is not to deny the importance of collective action, but only to note that from a policy perspective, significant effort has gone into ensuring the rights of individuals. This has an effect on the ways institutions come to be organized and to function, particularly bureau- cratic institutions that are sensitive to laws and regulations. Following on the heels of the civil-rights movement were several other pieces of legislation that emphasized the value of the individual. Title IX, which guaranteed equal access by women to athletic opportu- nities, is only one example of a flurry of legislation designed to ensure equal treatment for women. The Education for All Handicapped Chil- dren Act (P.L. 94-142) opened the door for many students who had been denied a public education. It also required schools to provide programs on an individualized basis for students with demonstrated special needs and guaranteed the rights of parents to participate in the placement of their children with special needs. More recently, legislation to ensure the rights of HIV-positive and AIDS-infected students to an education has been enacted in various states. Most recent of all, the Americans with 40 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT Disabilities Act extends protections to individuals with a wide range of limiting conditions. These laws collectively represent the output from an extraordinary period of governmental support for individuals who have historically been unable to compete equally in society. It?s impor- tant to note we may have reached the high point of this period. Recent directions at the federal and state levels by both political parties signal a shift back toward individual responsibility. The new wave of rhetoric and subsequent legislation seeks to reestablish indi- vidual accountability in areas from welfare to teen parenting to child support to divorce. Legislators seek simple solutions by which they can legislate desired values back into being. We may be entering a period when the historical emphasis on the individual in American society may be interpreted in the direction of responsibility, not protection. Schools may find themselves caught in a crossfire. On one hand, they have been limited in their ability to control, discipline, or compel students. On the other, they are expected to ensure that students indi- vidually take responsibility for their actions in school so that they are prepared to act responsibly and to understand the consequences of their actions once they become members of society. This would imply tighter standards, fewer social promotions or second chances, trends that run counter to developing each individual, particularly those who are less able to compete by virtue of some characteristic not of their own choosing. It is interesting to speculate about the reasons underlying the grow- ing emphasis on the individual. Smaller family size, particularly after World War II, and lower infant and child mortality rates led parents to value each child more and to appreciate each child?s individual charac- teristics. The increasing education level of each succeeding generation enlarged its members? world view and its sense that each individual had worth. And, as mentioned earlier, the complexity of the economic and social systems are such that individuals are being called upon to make more decisions of an increasingly complex nature, which inherently augments the importance of each person. In all the examples cited above, the impetus for validating indi- vidual rights and recognizing unique differences and needs has come from outside the educational community. While educators do many things to meet the needs of students as individuals, schools and districts are not generally organized in a manner that views each student as a client with unique needs, characteristics, and circumstances. The model upon which much of secondary education is based, what Shedd and Bacharach (1991) refer to as the Factory Management Approach, is THE WHYS OF EDUCATIONAL RESTRUCTURING 41 designed to minimize differences in order to maximize efficiency. They contend this model is based upon the following assumptions: ? The purpose of a public school system is to provide students with training in a common, basic set of academic skills. ? Teaching is a relatively straightforward process. The situations that teachers face can be anticipated, and appropriate behaviors for handling those situations can be specified in advance. ? Except for age differences, students are a relatively homogeneous group. Differences in their needs and abilities within age groups are minimal or irrelevant. (p. 52) Much of the difficulty in changing the model under which public education operates will stem not from the specific programs schools propose to undertake, but from the implicit value structure embedded in the Factory Management Approach, whereby the needs of the individual are clearly subordinated to the efficient functioning of the institution. The increasing emphasis on the value and worth of the individual can easily lead in American schools to individual isolation. Classes and schools are organized in ways that define instruction and learning as something that occurs and is tested at the level of the individual. Team assignments are viewed with suspicion; collaboration is often labeled as cheating. Classroom organization may inadvertently reinforce some of the worst aspects of individualism, while doing little to develop the capacity for behavior and action of a collective nature. Stevenson and Stigler (1992) describe the organization of American classrooms: Americans emphasize individuality, an emphasis that has both emotional and academic costs for children. Teachers often leave children to work alone at their desks, and frequently divide the class into small groups, separated according to the children?s level of skill. Teachers spend a good deal of time working with these groups and with individual children, and the class operates as a whole only part of the time. So each child spends relatively little time in direct interaction with the teacher. Children spend most of the school day in the classroom, with little time for play and social interaction. As a result, one senses that American children often feel isolated and lonely. Partly for this reason, they are less enthusiastic about school than their Chinese and Japanese peers. Until the school day is reorganized so that there is time for more than six subjects and a fast lunch, it is unlikely that school will assume a central place in the lives of American children. (p. 69) The increasing emphasis on the individual holds the potential to be both a blessing and a curse. If American schools only legitimize one form of learning and achievement, that done by an individual, students will find few reasons to cooperate, and to develop interdependence and 42 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT social-learning skills. At the same time, the reliance on batch processing models, in other words, the factory approach, will likely not be success- ful as a means to develop skills in group and collective action that appear to be important both for learning in school and for functioning success- fully in the future. Schools have a long way to go to take into account the changing conception of the individual and of the individual?s rights in today?s society. THE ?REINVENTION? OF GOVERNMENT Several trends have contributed to the reexamination of government worldwide. In almost every case the trend has been toward decentraliza- tion of authority and increased emphasis on local decision-making. Part of this movement springs from the ascendance of the ?marketplace? economic model over state-controlled approaches. By its very nature the marketplace model affirms a preference for individual decisions over the forces of bureaucratic central planning. In marketplace economies it is the microdecisions made by myriad indi- viduals that in theory determine prices, products, markets, employment patterns, and the ultimate structure of communities. The pronounce- ments of faceless bureaucracies are to be avoided to the maximum degree possible. Whether this is how free-market economies actually operate is not the point. The perception in much of the world that such an economic system provides the best hope for individual and collective prosperity is what matters. This is particularly important for educators to consider, given that key elements of the marketplace philosophy are choice and competition, two concepts that are troublesome to public education. Given the symbolic power of the image of the free market, policy- makers have been much more willing to look toward choice and compe- tition as concepts to ?rescue? public education. The perceived failure of ?big government? worldwide to solve complex problems will push private-sector ideas and experiments in education to the forefront of discussions. ?It?s a top-down system. It?s a rule-driven system. And any rule-driven system, as evidenced by what?s happening in Russia and Eastern Europe, just stifles creativity and innovation and is not attuned to the market? (Olson, September 18, 1991, p. 19). This statement is a good example of the type of logic that may underlie proposals for overhauling education during the coming years. THE WHYS OF EDUCATIONAL RESTRUCTURING 43 A second trend contributing to the reinvention of government is the resurgence of belief in democratic institutions as the best means to address complex social problems. The growth of democratic institutions throughout the world clearly goes hand in hand with the development of the marketplace. However, the spread of democracy has some additional implications for educators. Once again, this trend reflects thinking in broad terms about the role of the individual in organizational contexts. Not only in political institu- tions, but in work settings and even family relationships, participation in decision-making is increasing. Taking a cue from the Japanese, the language of the workplace is moving from one of coercion to consensus (?The New Industrial Relations? 1981, Port and others 1990). Ironically, in the face of the breakup of the traditional extended family, the rise of gangs, and increased violent behavior from some students, schools have been forced to develop more rules and regula- tions to maintain order in the classrooms and halls. In schools through- out the nation, discipline and attendance policies often top the list of topics considered for school-improvement efforts. This emphasis on refining the tools of control is quite logical in the context of the Factory Management Approach. However, if most of a school?s energy is devoted to behavior-management issues, little is available to improve its instructional program in ways that may increase students? engagement and subsequently decrease behavior problems more permanently. Smith and O?Day (1991) discuss the relationship between the goals of the reform movement and the focus of many schools on discipline and attendance as solutions: If the school is to be successful in promoting active student involvement in learning, depth of understanding, and complex thinking?major goals of the reform movement?its vision must focus on teaching and learning rather than, for example, on control and discipline as in many schools today (McNeil 1986). In fact, the very need for special attention to control and discipline may be mitigated considerably by the promotion of success- ful and engaging learning experiences. (p. 235) The challenge in this situation may be not how to develop a ?per- fect? attendance or discipline system, but how to engage students ac- tively in an education that has some intrinsic meaning and value to the student, and how to enlist parents and community members as equal partners in the process of determining the goals of education. The inconsistencies become more apparent when teachers and parents de- mand greater involvement in decisions. The adults want participatory decision-making and democracy. But it is hypocritical to propose that adults should work and interact in less coercive environments and then 44 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT turn around and use this enhanced freedom primarily to control children more effectively. In this new model of government, local control is a tool for improvement, not just control. Further contributing to the reinvention of government is the leveling off and, in many cases, decrease in consumer purchasing power over the past twenty-five years, and the past fifteen years in particular. During this period, only the highly educated and economically privileged have increased their purchasing power in real-dollar terms. The result has been that government has seen slower growth or decline in its revenues, in part because significant revenue comes from taxes on the middle class, and in part because citizens are resistant to increased taxes when their own incomes are not increasing. The net effect has been to squeeze government, particularly over the past ten years. Public agencies can no longer count on automatic in- creases in their budgets. Staffing levels have been frozen or reduced for years on end. A school cannot count on solving an educational problem, for example, by hiring a new teacher or developing a new program. Existing staff and resources will have to do. Schools are not accustomed to such limits, since their per-pupil funding has increased consistently and significantly since the early 1900s, and particularly since 1950. The reinvention of government means public agencies are going to be expected to develop solutions, not just programs, that they are going to have to solve problems with constant or decreasing resources, and that they will be expected to involve those affected by the programs in important decisions (Odden 1996). As government moves closer to the level of problems and services, accountability is also increasing. Schools can expect to have more autonomy, but also closer scrutiny to see if they are wisely using the resources allocated to them. These trends in combination have significant implications for schools. Accustomed to functioning as protected bureaucracies, schools are now being asked to become adaptive, efficient, and results-oriented. THE INFLUENCE OF WORK FORCE NEEDS As noted earlier, the business community has exerted significant influence. The way the argument for greater economic productivity and adaptability is translated into calls for educational reform can be better understood by examining some of the key documents that describe businesses? agenda for education. Whether or not one believes that the influence of business on educational purposes and programs is a good thing, it is neither reasonable nor realistic to discount the influence that the organized, systematic efforts launched by various business-related groups have had on policy-makers throughout the nation. THE WHYS OF EDUCATIONAL RESTRUCTURING 45 Three reports from organizations outside education indicate the direction the private sector wants education to take to adapt to changing economic realities. In 1990 the Commission on the Skills of the Ameri- can Work Force published America?s Choice: High Skills or Low Wages. American workers, the report says, are at a crossroads: They must develop higher skills to produce goods with high value on the international market or face decreasing wages as they compete with low-wage Third World workers in the production of low-value, mass- produced items. According to the commission, America must resolve these fundamental questions regarding public education: ? Do we continue to define educational success as ?time in the seat,? or choose a new system that focuses on the demonstrated achievement of high standards? ? Do we continue to provide little incentive for non-college-bound students to study hard and take tough subjects, or choose a system that will reward real effort with better pay and better jobs? ? Do we continue to turn our backs on America?s school dropouts, or choose to take responsibility for educating them? ? Do we continue to provide unskilled workers for unskilled jobs, or train skilled workers and give companies incentives to deploy them in high performance organizations? ? Do we continue in most companies to limit training to a select handful of managers and professionals, or choose to provide training to front-line workers as well? (pp. 8-9) A second report, which also has been widely circulated among educators, indicates more specifically the types of skills that employers desire in employees in the 1990s. Entitled Workplace Basics: The Skills Employers Want and produced jointly by the American Society of Training and Development and the U.S. Department of Labor?s Em- ployment and Training Administration, the report was the result of interviews with employers throughout the nation. The report concludes that employers are looking for seven different skill strands: ? Employers want employees who can learn the particular skills of an available job?who have ?learned how to learn.? ? Employers want employees who will hear the key points that make up a customer?s concerns (listening) and who can convey an adequate response (oral communication).... ? Employers want employees who have pride in themselves and their potential to be successful (self-esteem); who know how to get things done (goal setting/motivation); and who have some 46 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT sense of the skills needed to perform well in the workplace (personal and career development). ? Employers want employees who can get along with customers, suppliers or coworkers (interpersonal and negotiation skills); who can work with others to achieve a goal (teamwork); who have some sense of where the organization is headed and what they must do to make a contribution (organizational effectiveness); and who can assume responsibility and motivate co-workers when necessary (leadership). (Carnevale, Gainer, and Meltzer 1990, p. 8) A third report that has also been reviewed and discussed by many school faculties, superintendents, boards of education, state legislators, and departments of education interested in reform was commissioned by the U.S. Department of Labor and entitled What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report for America 2000 (Secretary?s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills 1991). It identifies five competencies and a three-part foundation of skills and personal qualities that the commission described as necessary ?for solid job performance.? These competencies and skills are as follows: COMPETENCIES?effective workers can productively use: ? Resources?allocating time, money, materials, space, and staff ? Interpersonal Skills?working on teams, teaching others, serving cus- tomers, leading, negotiating, and working well with people from cultur- ally diverse backgrounds ? Information?acquiring and evaluating data, organizing and maintain- ing files, interpreting and communicating, and using computers to pro- cess information ? Systems?understanding social, organizational, and technological sys- tems, monitoring and correcting performance, and designing or improv- ing systems ? Technology?selecting equipment and tools, applying technology to specific tasks, and maintaining and troubleshooting technologies THE FOUNDATION?competence requires: ? Basic Skills?reading, writing, arithmetic and mathematics, speaking, and listening ? Thinking Skills?thinking creatively, making decisions, solving prob- lems, seeing things in the mind?s eye, knowing how to learn, and reasoning ? Personal Qualities?individual responsibility, self-esteem, sociability, self-management, and integrity (p. vii) THE WHYS OF EDUCATIONAL RESTRUCTURING 47 In even a cursory examination of these three reports, readers will be struck by the degree of congruence between what the business commu- nity says it wants from workers and the qualities many educators might say they want to cultivate in students. One interesting aspect of the current move to restructure public education is the degree to which the agendas of many neo-Progressives and elements of the business com- munity overlap, albeit in an inadvertent manner and for very different reasons. Both groups tend to advocate the following ideas: ? Curriculum that moves from a primary emphasis on rote learning and factual information to a greater emphasis on problem solving, application, and integration of knowledge and higher-order think- ing. ? Students who are actively engaged in learning, who are not being trained simply to do what they are told. ? Learning that is best assessed in terms of outcomes, not processes; the inadequacy of seat time as the primary means to demonstrate mastery; the ability to apply or demonstrate a skill or set of knowledge as the best way to assess whether learning has really occurred. ? Education that extends beyond the walls of the classroom; stu- dents who apply knowledge and acquire new skills, information, and insights in the larger community. ? Teachers who facilitate learning, not control it; one of the key goals of education being to create lifelong learners, to develop a student?s learning skills, not merely to transmit a body of informa- tion in a way that leaves the student with negative attitudes about learning. ? Students who learn to work in groups and as members of teams, not solely as individuals, and learn to work with students who are very different from themselves. ? The belief that each learner is valuable; no ?expendable? students; students who have positive self-images and the ability to define goals for themselves. ? ?Process? skills considered as important as knowledge of specific content. The business community can be seen as more interested in what I call ?generic work-readiness? skills, and less interested in specific job training. Schools seem unlikely to be able to offer much occupational training that is worthwhile in today?s economy in the same way that they have offered shop, business, and related classes throughout the twenti- eth century. Schools can, however, prepare students with the general skills needed to succeed in any work setting. These are the skills that are 48 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT outlined in the three reports, and that align in many respects with other efforts to redesign curriculum and instruction. There is an inherent tension when the business community becomes involved in determining the goals and methods of education. Even though some commonality exists between business and educational reformers, the effect of this should not be overstated. Business is pursuing a focused agenda based on the principle that well-educated people will be good citizens and productive workers. Educators are focusing on developing the individual so that he or she can have a fulfilling life. These are not mutually exclusive goals. But neither are they the same goal. The more educators and business leaders talk, plan, and understand each other?s perspectives and goals jointly, the greater the probability that educational restructuring will succeed. Currently, the business community is the most well-organized, sustained, and credible voice calling for fundamental change in public education. Should business leaders decide public schools cannot be successfully salvaged (as some have already concluded), their abandonment of educational reform will have significant repercussions in local districts and legislative bodies throughout the nation. It should be recognized at this point that what is occurring is a reexamination and refocusing of the basic purposes and goals of educa- tion, not merely the adaptation of existing practices and procedures within an unquestioned structure of values and goals. While education in America has always had a utilitarian dimension, it has also had a sorting dimension as well. Students were to learn things they could use, but education was also to distinguish between workers and managers, at the least. Educational restructuring increases the emphasis on the eco- nomic utility of education; everyone needs ?work-readiness? skills. At the same time, schools are being asked to prepare all students to reach a high level of performance and to avoid sorting them prematurely. The degree to which schools can redesign themselves to accommodate this challenge will affect this country?s economic productivity well into the next century. The issue of the goals and values of education is taken up in more detail in the next chapter, which suggests new ways of thinking about schooling that may be developing today and that have implications for the ways in which educational experiences are constructed, how schools are structured, and how people relate to one another within the institu- tion of school. CREATING NEW ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT SCHOOLS, SCHOOLING, AND STUDENTS CHAPTER 3 49 Changes in the values of society inevitably have profound effects on education. Although schools profess ?neutrality? on issues of values and morals, all schools possess implicit value and moral structures. To some degree, these structures generally mirror the community in which the school exists. Such an arrangement makes perfect sense. What happens, though, when value and moral systems are in flux or when the community has more than one value system? The compass does not point north with consistency. What are schools to do in an environment of conflicting signals? Much of the restructuring movement has concerned itself with changing the structures of education rather than examining its values. However, structural changes carry with them implied moral and ethical assumptions. It is worthwhile to examine some of these implicit as- sumptions embedded in the goals of school restructuring. Each of the six statements that follow was gleaned from a reading of the restructuring literature, what some have called the ?new conventional wisdom? (Olson, August 5, 1992). The list reflects values positions and social goals for schooling, in addition to specific structural changes. Educators and others can clarify their own goals for restructuring by carefully examin- ing these statements and the values embedded in them. 1. Essentially all students can be educated to some relatively high level of functioning. During the previous thirty-five years there has been a tendency by policy analysts to interpret change in education as the movement back and forth between forces favoring equity (equality of educational oppor- tunities for all groups) and those demanding excellence (high levels of performance by the most capable), with the additional dimension of efficiency being applied periodically (Lutz 1978, Marcoulides and Heck 1990). This model has been a useful construct for comprehending the turbulent forces to which public education has been subjected in the postwar era. 50 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT It may be that the polar relationship between these values is no longer the only or even the primary framework that should be applied to understand societal expectations for schooling. There is every indication that schools are now being expected to address both equity and excel- lence simultaneously, that schools will be expected to educate essen- tially all students to some relatively high level of functioning. Statistics on income growth indicate that over the past fifteen years, only those with more than two years of college have seen consistent increases in income. The notions that high school graduation is optional or that simply receiving the diploma itself is sufficient are obsolete. What is learned is now critically important, since almost all students will con- tinue in formal learning settings within the next five years following high school graduation. Nearly 80 percent will attend some combination of two- and four-year institutions during that period. To do so, these students must have reached some high level of knowledge and skill in the key areas needed to succeed in further education. Exactly what such a level might be, or what students will be able to do upon completion of such an education, is currently the subject of heated discussion and painstaking work by policy-makers, state depart- ments of education, university and school faculty, and the public at large. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that dropout rates of 25 percent are not acceptable, nor are rates of 20 percent, 15 percent, or even 10 percent. In addition, the model of keeping students in school, ?warehousing? them until they are old enough to work, will no longer work either. How will schools retain and educate those students who are likely to abandon education because they feel it has little meaning or value for them? How will schools adapt if there are no longer ?winners? and ?losers,? if all students are expected both to graduate and to achieve at relatively high levels? For starters, the notion of intelligence as a unidimensional construct that is distributed throughout the population in a way best described by a bell-shaped curve will have to be challenged (Gardner and Hatch 1989, Gardner 1983 and 1991). So long as this assumption is accepted as the basis for educational practice there must be winners and losers by definition. Much of generally accepted educational practice is based on this deep, unspoken, unquestioned assumption. Practices such as track- ing, standardized testing, grading on a curve, talented and gifted, and remedial education are all based on the notion that some are inherently more able, others less able and incapable of benefitting from the educa- tional opportunities offered to the more able. CREATING NEW ASSUMPTIONS 51 It is difficult to overestimate the pervasiveness of this mode of thinking or the difficulty of challenging its acceptance by educators. Gardner (1983) offers one alternative way of thinking about intelligence when he suggests that there may be (at least) seven intelligences: verbal, logical-mathematical, musical, bodily/kinesthetic, spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal. These notions help educators rethink what it means for students to be successful; success can occur in many different arenas yet still be validated by the school. The Japanese educational system, whatever its weaknesses, demon- strates that it is possible for essentially all students to reach some prescribed level of performance. This is a system in which 97 percent of the students graduate from high school, apparently at reasonably high levels of achievement.* Similar results can be found in some Scandina- vian educational systems. If this is true, then it presents an alternative to the notion of the normal distribution, or at least calls into question the level of performance most students are capable of achieving in public education. Denis Doyle (1991) states that ?depending on whose data sets you use, the top 5 percent of the Americans are at the Japanese average (by about grades 5 or 6)? (p. 16). There are (at least) two possible conclusions: one, that the Japanese are genetically superior, a rather unpalatable and wholly unsubstantiated assumption; or, two, that somehow they are able to avoid the phenom- enon of the normal curve. The notion that the Japanese, or any other Asian culture, is superior genetically is refuted by the research of Stevenson and Stigler (1992): The hypothesis that the academic weakness of American children is due to deficiencies in innate intellectual ability is without merit. American chil- dren obtained scores highly similar to those of the Asian children on a culturally fair test of intelligence, and we have found no sound evidence that American children?s academic problems stem from a deficiency in handling abstract concepts. (p. 50) Certainly there are cultural difference. Most important, perhaps, is the degree of cultural and economic homogeneity in the nations cited. This sameness makes it easier to hold common expectations and assume everyone can achieve them. However, it would seem logical to examine these systems to see how they attain consistently high achievement, rather than simply conceding that Americans cannot duplicate such 0000000000s *These figures refer to the public education system. The private ?cram schools,? or jukus, are primarily for the university-bound student. Therefore, the public system achieves these results with many students who are not attending the Saturday afternoon jukus. 52 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT performance. Stevenson and Stigler (1992) summarize this issue in these terms: The puzzle lies in trying to understand the poor performance of American children. If explanations that rely on innate endowment are unsatisfactory, then we must look to children?s everyday experiences. The most likely locales are those where children spend most of their time: home and school. (p. 51) The lesson to be considered is that it is possible to educate essen- tially all students to high levels of academic functioning. The impact on student achievement of the teacher?s expectations in American schools is well documented (Alderman 1990, Patriarca and Kragt 1986, Smey- Richman 1989, Whelan and Teddlie 1989). Sincerely believing that all students can achieve at high levels and designing schools in which this occurs may be the greatest challenge ever faced by the American educational system. 2. Learning is what students can do at the conclusion of educa- tion, not simply the processes in which they have participated. As mentioned in chapter 1, the Carnegie unit was established to ensure consistency and to institute some form of quality control among high schools for the purpose of college admissions. The Carnegie unit created consistency of process; all students spent the same amount of time in a classroom for the same amount of credit. It did not address performance?what students could do after spending that time in a classroom. Now the emphasis has shifted from the courses taken or grades received to what the student is able to do at the conclusion of an education. For educators this emphasis on performance translates into a move- ment away from evaluation (reaching some sort of summary judgment) to assessment (providing ongoing feedback based on the application of skills). Assessment involves more public demonstrations of skills. Cur- rently schools use public demonstrations in certain areas, primarily to entertain (music assemblies, sports events), not to show public account- ability for student learning. Interestingly enough, public demonstrations were part of public education in the 1890s when, at the end of each week, students recited their lessons to an audience of parents. It quickly became apparent which students knew their lessons and which did not. Unfortunately, this demonstration often resulted in humiliation for the less capable or less studious. Current methods of performance-based assessment contain safeguards against this type of humiliation by having several practices before any public demonstration, and by having clear criteria against which the performance is judged. The key concept here is that account- CREATING NEW ASSUMPTIONS 53 ability for learning and applying skills is enhanced with public-performance requirements. As teachers? conceptions of the goals and purposes of assessment change, they may come to view the process both as a component of learning and as the culmination of learning. This attitude stands in contrast to views of testing as a digression from the learning process, something standing separate from learning. To accomplish this integra- tion of learning and assessment, greater emphasis in teaching is placed on diagnosing and educating each student against clearly defined perfor- mance standards and tasks. To do this, students must know the standards and be capable of considerable self-diagnosis. Instructional opportuni- ties are somewhat broader to allow a wide range of students to meet the performance standards via differing instructional pathways. 3. Education has economic utility for essentially all students and for society. Some educators express resentment toward those who state that the purpose of education is to prepare students for the work force. Many, perhaps most, educators believe that education has purposes other than preparing people for employment, and that public schools should main- tain a healthy distance from business. Without discounting the validity of this perspective, it is important for educators to acknowledge that education plays an increasingly critical role in determining students? economic future. Gone are the days when a student could drop out of high school and enter a high-paying job with a secure future. Given this reality, the linkage between the needs of the work world and the structure, content, and outcomes of a public education is becoming more and more tightly intertwined. One can argue the appropriateness of this linkage. However, it appears that this trend will continue for the foreseeable future, in part because education, in the form of training and retraining, is becoming such an integral part of the workplace. As mentioned earlier, it appears that knowing how to learn will be as important as the specific factual information one pos- sesses. Pennar (1991) summarizes current thinking on the economic impor- tance of education: Today, economists agree that the widespread competitive and technologi- cal changes that occurred during the 1980s induced a sharp increase in the rewards for skill and education, thereby widening the gap in incomes. From 1980 to 1990, men with four years of high school saw their median incomes fall 15.5% in real terms. During the same period, men with four years of college experienced a gain in median income, after inflation, of 1.6%.... 54 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT ... ?We have to ask ourselves whether the macroeconomy is becoming permanently hostile to less-skilled workers,? says [Northwestern Univer- sity economist Rebecca M.] Blank. If so, there will be considerable costs. First, there are the costs of having to support a population that is barely making it economically. Next, there?s the potential cost of possible social disruption resulting from worsening income inequality and a population of persistently poor individuals. Finally, there?s the cost of consigning people to low-productivity jobs when they and society could do better. (p. 88) The challenge for educators centers on the way schools define and teach work skills. Since the 1920s, this has been done through a voca- tional track that taught specific trades to students. These trades either no longer exist or now demand skills that schools are not able to provide. As the results from the Workplace Basics survey indicate (Carnevale, Gainer, and Meltzer 1990), the line between a ?vocational? and an ?academic? education is beginning to blur, as all students are expected to acquire the skills of problem-solving, inquiry, team building, and oral and written communication. In addition, all students are expected to have high self-esteem, a love of learning, and a strong sense of personal efficacy. Compartmentalized or tracked programs of education will not be a productive strategy for achieving the desired level of performance from all students. These ?generic work-readiness? skills will be what schools will be expected to impart to students via career-exploration opportunities, career-pathway programs, internships, entrepreneur classes, onsite busi- nesses at schools, visits to local workplaces, and other exposures to work. These will replace traditional vocational-education classes and work-experience and cooperative-education approaches. However, teach- ers from the programs that are being replaced can be key leaders in the development of these new programs. Teachers in traditionally academic classes, those that serve the college-bound student, will be challenged as well to link learning to application, to problems in the world outside schools, to help the college-bound student develop these same work-readiness skills. Schools can be expected to be influenced by other concepts associ- ated with the work world as well, such as choice, service, niche market- ing, and competition. Whether (or how) schools adapt internally to oblige the press for greater accommodation of work-force needs is a critically important question for the nineties, with significant implica- tions for the social structure of the nation as well as the structure of schooling. 4. Learners participate actively in their own education in a variety of ways. Learning is not primarily a passive activity. CREATING NEW ASSUMPTIONS 55 One often hears from teachers and administrators that today?s stu- dents are not like those in previous generations. Although this lament can be traced back literally thousands of years, today?s educators might be right. This may be so because kids have changed?and because schools have not. Clearly, today?s student must be motivated in fundamentally differ- ent ways from children whose parents never questioned school authori- ties. In the 1950s, when corporal punishment was much more a norma- tive form of behavior management, it would not be unusual for a student to receive a whack at school, notify his parent of the event, and receive two more at home. Fast-forward to the 1990s, when the same student now notifies his parent, and the parent?s response is, ?Contact the lawyer!? While few people yearn for the ?good old days? of the paddle, it is illustrative of the changes that have occurred between teacher and student, school and home. The school is fairly isolated from the home and community, the result of a series of insulating barriers established during the past eighty years to ?depoliticize? education. These reforms were successful; one of their byproducts was to ?professionalize? edu- cation at the expense of community involvement and ownership. Educa- tors now find themselves looking for new ways to involve parents and community members in educational decision-making and to increase student motivation to learn. Motivation comes largely from the child, though the social context in which the child exists is also an important factor in determining the child?s interest in learning. In fact, writers on motivation argue that a teacher cannot ?motivate? students, that motivation is internally con- trolled. Today?s student seems less willing to perform tasks that lack clear meaning or purpose, that lack an inherent joy or sense of accom- plishment. Those students with clear sights on a college education still sub- scribe to the notion of delaying gratification and of doing the tasks that are asked of them. This creates the illusion for teachers that the system could still work, if only the other students had the right attitude. In the meantime, the remainder of the student body, or at least those in the ?general-education? track, may just go through the motions, frustrating teachers, creating discipline problems, and expending as little effort as possible. These differences in motivation often reflect different social, eco- nomic, racial, and ethnic backgrounds as well. In effect, certain groups are being disenfranchised from a public education in large measure because it is very difficult for them to become motivated to do the things 56 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT teachers ask in the absence of any clear reasons to do so (other than receiving the teacher?s approval). The degree to which this lack of motivation reflects racial, ethnic, and social-class distinctions should be of concern, since if particular groups are unable to reach desired perfor- mance levels, they will be unlikely to participate fully and productively in society and the economic system. An education that does not engage and motivate can inadvertently create a social underclass living on the fringes of society. The current method of motivation is based on the teacher?s input of energy. Teachers come to perceive themselves in Sisyphusean roles? pushing boulders up hills for most of the semester, only to watch them come rolling back down with depressing regularity. It is little wonder that teachers in such an environment are tired, frustrated, and often cynical. As they watch students at the end of the school year empty their binders of papers, each of which had been carefully scrutinized by the teacher, into large trash cans strategically placed in the halls for just this purpose, how can they help but become a bit jaundiced? Active participation in learning suggests more extensive use of student-set goals. It also requires a wider range of instructional tech- niques such as project-centered learning, inquiry learning, simulations, cooperative and team learning, and more opportunities for real-world experiences, such as apprenticeships, internships, and mentorships, and field-based assignments and projects. Teachers become to a greater degree diagnosticians and planners, tailoring and modifying educational experiences to student needs and interests. They develop strategies to overcome the many constraints on time, content of the curriculum, location of learning experiences, and methods of assessing learning that exist in schools today. This then allows more students to become actively engaged in learning. It is important to emphasize the difficulty of actually organizing and carrying off such programs. Schools are used to doing everything on campus in structured time blocks, and experiences of the type described are more demanding for both teachers and students. They require more hours, more work of a higher quality, and more accountability than many current classrooms, which feature endless worksheets, reading assignments, and tests, the contents of which are quickly forgotten (Goodlad 1984). Teachers do not subsidize this learning environment through their own energy. Instead, they often see their energy magnified as students respond to the guidance and direction provided. Teachers serve as catalysts, and their interventions energize learners, rather than frustrate them. More students succeed because there are more stimuli that engage CREATING NEW ASSUMPTIONS 57 them. In fact, it?s nearly impossible to be passive in such learning environments; it requires more energy not to participate than to partici- pate. 5. Education is a responsibility that extends beyond schools: Parents, employers, and community members have responsibilities for the education of the community?s young, along with a right to be included as partners in important decisions about education. As mentioned in the previous section, the partnership between the school and the broader community is in the process of seeking a new equilibrium point. Structural safeguards against arbitrary community intervention, such as tenure, curriculum and text-adoption policies, and formalized communication channels have been highly successful in constraining community influence on educational practice. The new challenge may be to define the proper relationship among various constituencies in schools and in the community. A balance must be struck between the professional responsibilities and prerogatives of teachers and administrators and the inherent rights of parents and com- munity members to see that their children receive a quality education consistent with their values. Some educators note that many communities are laden with pa- thologies?abusive parents, drugs, crime, lack of respect for authority. Other educators point to their community and warn of obsessive parents who push their children to achieve, special-interest groups supporting any number of programs, and a majority that cares little about what happens in school as long as it fulfills its warehousing function. These educators ask if they should be encouraging more involvement, and what the results would be. The degree to which these perceptions are accurate vary considerably from community to community. However, when educators feel they are incapable of success with students because these conditions exist, such beliefs can have the effect of self-fulfilling prophecy (Rosenholtz 1989a). Even if such perceptions are accurate, they may indicate a greater need to reorganize schooling and schools and a greater need for broader understanding and ownership of educa- tional goals. Changing the relationship with the community takes time and oc- curs incrementally. It requires trust and effective two-way communica- tion. Both sides are called on to abandon old stereotypes and suspicions. Such changes do not take place overnight. However, the increasing importance of education and the complexity and difficulty of raising physically and emotionally healthy children compel a reexamination of the roles and responsibilities each group has assigned to itself. This is a process of social reconstruction in addition to educational restructuring. 58 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT The institutions of an industrial society do not appear to be adequate in a postindustrial, global society. New ways of meeting the emerging needs of people in such a society are developing. In essence, the concept of community is evolving and being reinvented. As this process occurs, the role of school in the community?and its relationship with the community?also evolves. New governance structures and new methods of demonstrating accountability to the community will need to be considered. Specifi- cally, schools can be expected to have goals, to involve the community in setting the goals, to undertake systematic programs to achieve the goals, and to report to the community success in achieving the goals. Involving parents and community in activities such as goal-setting will be meaningless unless their input is respected and valued. Valued input is not achieved on a one-shot basis. Schools will get better quality participation by specifying clearly what is desired and providing infor- mation and a process that enables quality participation in decisions. Educators will continue to have a key role in this process, by virtue of their knowledge, expertise, and high interest level. They will not, in all likelihood, be unchallenged in these areas. It may be difficult for educators to relinquish their control over decision-making. It appears likely that participatory models of decision-making will be around, at least for the immediate future, and that noneducators will expect to be taken seriously when they participate in such models. Many employers are beginning to understand that the link between education and productivity is much more direct than they had assumed in the past. They are showing a willingness to do more than simply donate money, but are not always certain what to do (Segal and others 1992). Parents, often frustrated by their inability to influence their own children, are looking for help; they may not always know how to ask for it, but many are becoming more aware of the need to be open to help and support. These attitudes may facilitate the establishment of new rela- tionships focused on mutual concern for young people and their role in the community. Communities need to be ready to support a more gradual transition from the world of school to the world outside school. The community needs to be ready to offer young people a range of experiences that prepare them to leave home and school and to become independent, productive members of the community. Opportunities include mentorships, internships, visitations, and more indepth involvement, such as workshops, children?s museums, or laboratories onsite where students can learn. CREATING NEW ASSUMPTIONS 59 Some students will be ready before others. Even young children will be able to gain from a wider range of learning experiences with a broader range of adults than those encountered in school and at home. Having experiences with other adults provides children with new under- standing about themselves and their relation to a larger world. Such experiences also help young people develop the skills and self-knowledge necessary to make decisions about career paths and to develop the motivation and discipline to fulfill their goals. In a world where resources for education are likely to remain relatively constant at best, partnerships between schools and other segments of society will be necessary to keep education relevant and exciting for students and to cope with a more diverse and demanding student population. Those partnerships can also help sustain support for public education at a time when the proportion of families with children in the schools is below 25 percent. 6. Schools may be the only place where a sense of genuine community can be developed for young people. They should func- tion more like communities than factories. As the communities within which schools exist become less robust, educators are faced with (at least) two choices: (1) to lament the decline of support for education from home and community, and wash their hands of the responsibility to educate students who do not come to school with the desired background and attitudes; or (2) to accept that schools may be the only place in the student?s life where he or she is safe, valued, and supported, and embark on the process of redesigning schools based on the needs and realities of these students. The first response leads to a dead end. Schools can do little to directly affect the societal context within which education occurs. The existence of such a response within a school can help explain high levels of teacher frustration. Nothing could be worse than to be unable to teach successfully, and unable to effect the changes necessary to be success- ful. Stockard and Mayberry (1992), in a review of the research on effective learning environments, describe them as places where ?stu- dents and teachers have positive feelings about their work setting. High morale appears to bolster the self-confidence of both teachers and students and promote positive attitudes and expectations about teaching and learning ability? (p. 34). Other researchers (Fuller and others 1982, Lanier and Sedlak 1989, Rosenholtz 1989b) have stressed the impor- tance of teacher efficacy?the sense by teachers that they make a difference and that they have some control over their ability to be successful?as an important component of effective instructional envi- ronments. 60 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT Alternatively, if educators accept that the first response is self- defeating, then they will want to examine whether their own school is a genuine and healthy community for young people. In many cases, what they will discover will be less than totally pleasant. Most schools are organized after one or a combination of three models. The Factory- Management Approach, which was described in chapter 2, has the following major components: ? The purpose of a public school system is to provide students with training in a common, basic set of academic skills. ? Teaching is a relatively straightforward process. The situations that teachers face can be anticipated, and appropriate behaviors for handling those situations can be specified in advance. ? Except for age differences, students are a relatively homogeneous group. Differences in their needs and abilities within age groups are minimal or irrelevant. (Shedd and Bacharach 1991, p. 52) The Bureaucratic Approach is characterized by its emphasis on tailoring whole programs to groups of students.... the key question becomes how much specification is needed to guarantee that students are placed in appropriate channels and moved at appropriate speeds through the system as a whole. (Shedd and Bacharach 1991, p. 56) The Craft-Workshop Approach represents a third way of thinking about how schools are organized. Shedd and Bacharach describe the assumptions and practices associated with the model: The more teaching is perceived as a craft,... the more likely it is that students will be assumed to be sufficiently homogeneous to justify their placement in classes and curricula that are not tailored for those with particular needs or abilities (Bacharach and Conley, 1989). Heterogeneity of students? needs and abilities is a manageable problem, according to this line of thinking.... Thus, the craft model is most often associated with the pursuit of some relatively coherent, singular (some would say narrow) notion of excel- lence, rather than with the pursuit of either efficiency or equity. (pp. 58-59) Shedd and Bacharach express concern over the effect of these three models on teachers and students: Research on schools as organizations provides ample evidence of the apathy, passivity, minimal expectations, avoidance of responsibility, lack of innovation, and (what is most troublesome) impersonal treatment of students/clients that are typically associated with bureaucracies (Ander- son, 1968; McNeil, 1986; Goodlad, 1984; Sizer, 1984). (p. 65) Schools are based on structural designs adopted in an era when students were expected to have their needs for affiliation fulfilled CREATING NEW ASSUMPTIONS 61 primarily through other institutions in the community, including ex- tended family, church, and various social groups. In many cases, these institutions no longer meet these needs for young people. Youth are left to identify with the mass culture created by retailers and the media or, of greater concern, with gangs or cliques that embrace antisocial values. A large part of the problem is the decreasing presence of positive adult role models in the lives of young people (Stevenson and Stigler 1992). Schools with hundreds of students, where a child can attend several years and be known by only a handful of acquaintances and teachers, create conditions that support student alienation or identifica- tion with youth culture of varying types, including gangs. In such settings, young people have few adult role models at exactly the time they are most needed. High school students are left to look to one another for guidance on what it means to be an adult. The older children effectively socialize the younger ones, rather than adults controlling socialization. Television and the media do not help the process much. Young people in large schools have few opportunities to gauge their behavior against socially appropriate yardsticks that adult role models can present. One strategy is to restore schools to a human scale. Most communi- ties continue to assume bigger is better when designing schools, particu- larly as students get older. One reason for this infatuation with bigness is an assumed economy of scale. These assumptions should be reexam- ined. How ?economical? is it to house 2,000 students in one building if hundreds of them are dropping out each year due to feelings of alien- ation and a sense that no one cares about them? Each of them represents not only lost opportunities, but lost resources (in the form of state funds) for the school. Smaller schools, schools-within-schools, schools in various loca- tions in the community, more adults in schools in various roles, more events at school that have meaning and interest to people in the local community?these are all strategies that can contribute to a stronger sense of genuine community within schools. Stockard and Mayberry (1992), in a review of studies on school size, conclude that ?the most extensive and complete analyses... suggest that students benefit most when they study in smaller classes and in smaller schools.? They state that ?studies of elementary students sug- gest that small schools provide a more humanistic learning experience,? and that ?several studies suggest that students in small high schools are involved in a greater number and variety of activities, assume a greater number of positions of responsibility, are less alienated, and have a greater ?sense of belonging? to the group than students in larger schools.? 62 RATIONALE AND CONTEXT Extending this sense of pervasive caring and community to the faculty as well is an important consideration, since they will be model- ing community through their interactions with each other. Can they develop positive interreliance, identify their common beliefs and values, define what it is about their school as a community that makes it unique or gives it character, and unite to defend the school when it is under attack from external forces? These are behaviors that allow parents and students to understand what it means to be a member of the school community, that help them define their roles and responsibilities, and that enhance their sense of identification and affiliation. Through such strategies schools may become places where many diverse adults interact with a modest number of students (perhaps 150- 300) in ways that allow each student to feel part of some group with meaning, purpose, and direction, and to develop an identity in part by observing the behaviors of competent, healthy adults. These six new assumptions about schools, schooling, and students illustrate changes that educators may need to make in their underlying assumptions, given changes that have already occurred in society. As these assumptions change, it becomes much more feasible to develop new programs and structures to make the school more responsive to the needs students have for belonging and community. Energy can then be focused primarily on improving student learning rather than being consumed in political battles and in dealing with passive-aggressive behavior from those who see no need for change. The chapters in part 1 have presented an overview of many provoca- tive ideas regarding the reasons for changing schools. These ideas provide the grounds for thoughtful discussion and analysis of the ratio- nale and need for remaking schools. They offer a series of possible perspectives on these issues, but are not exhaustive in their content or breadth. There does not appear to be one compelling set of statements that serves to motivate faculties in all schools to perceive a need for funda- mental change in education. Individual school sites may find that one or two of the concepts presented here are all the reason needed to change; other sites may feel that none of these factors has great relevance to them. As will be considered in part 4, the process of changing schools appears to hinge on the ability of each school site to construct meaning and responses appropriate for that site. The materials presented here may help school personnel determine whether they need to examine current practice in greater depth. The chapters in part 2 discuss the ways in which the roles of a number of educational constituencies may be changing. P A R T 2 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 64 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 64 INTRODUCTION TO PART 2 Large-scale change alters the ways in which people define their roles within an organization. Change also alters the ways in which those outside the organization define their relationship to the organization. Herein lies one of the greatest challenges of restructuring. Adults develop their roles over time and, in professions such as education, come to equate their personal identity with their role. Periods of rapid change bring about restructured roles. The effect is intensely personal on those whose roles change. The chapters in part 2 are based on the assumption that the roles of everyone?those outside as well as those inside schools?will change, both as cause and result of educa- tional restructuring. During the past fifteen years of educational reform the participants have tended to stand in a large circle and point the finger of blame at whomever is standing next to them. The high school teacher blames the middle school teacher for sending students with inadequate study habits and poor content knowledge. The middle school teacher in turn blames the elementary teacher for not developing basic reading and mathemati- cal skills. The elementary teacher can only point to the parents and lament the lack of preschool preparation for their youngster. Parents then blame the administrators for allowing shoddy teaching and outdated curriculum. Administrators then blame the universities for producing inadequately trained teachers. Legislators, in their turn, be- moan the quality of test scores. Educators then excoriate first the test- makers for providing biased, irrelevant tests, and then the lawmakers for not providing adequate funding or flexibility to allow schools to succeed. And so it goes year after year, it seems. The blame game is a ritual that is becoming tiring and frustrating for all who participate in it or observe it. Clearly, responsibility for the success or failure of the public schools cannot be affixed easily and unambiguously. This does not mean that greater accountability for student performance cannot be established, however. What is occurring on a broad scale is discussion and reconsidera- tion of roles and responsibilities, from the federal government to the classroom and all levels in between. Joseph Murphy (1991) describes the centrality of role redefintion to school restructuring, what he de- scribes as ?work redesign?: One of the key ingredients of school restructuring is a redefinition of the roles and responsibilities of professional staff.... This includes the rede- sign of work relationships between the superintendent (district office) and FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS 65 the principal (school) and between the principal and the teachers. In general, restructuring work signals ?a major shift in how people in school systems think about roles and relationships. The shift is from a system characterized by controlling and directing what goes on at the next lower level to guiding and facilitating professionals in their quest for more productive learning opportunities for students? (David, 1989, p. 28). (J. Murphy 1991, p. 22) These changing roles and responsibilities, and the accompanying changes in accountability that are implied, are examined in the follow- ing chapters, first at the broad level of federal and state involvement in education, followed by the local school boards, central administration, principals, and teachers, and finally at the level of parents, community members, and students. 66 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS CHAPTER 4 66 The role of federal and state government in the local educational process has changed significantly during the past three decades, always in the direction of greater involvement and control. Every indication points to a continuation of these trends into the next century. Long a political backwater, education-related issues, and education budgets in particular, are receiving much more attention from legisla- tors, governors, Congress, and the executive branch of the federal government. Education is less a bipartisan issue than it has been histori- cally. Its movement into the partisan political arena signals its emer- gence as a topic for significant national policy. As presented in this chapter, the relationship between school districts and other levels of government is changing, perhaps profoundly and permanently. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT The federal government had very little involvement in public educa- tion before the 1960s. At that time, the federal government began to intervene primarily in an attempt to provide equality of opportunity through programs such as Head Start and Follow Through, and equality of achievement through Title I programs. The traditional ?hands-off? role of the federal government toward education may change significantly during the coming decade if the linkage between educational achievement and international economic competitiveness is more firmly established and reinforced. This linkage may provide a more compelling rationale for a heightened federal role in the name of ?national security,? an area of legitimate federal interest. A prime example of movement in this direction is the effort to develop a system of national education goals and standards. Although many have interpreted this as the beginning of a national curriculum, it has been argued that such a curriculum exists de facto already, as a result of textbooks, standardized-achievement tests, and college-entrance re- quirements (Tye 1987). FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS 67 Federal involvement took a different form in the early 1990s. Led by then-Governor Bill Clinton, the National Governors Association and President Bush agreed upon the notion of national education goals. Six goals were adopted initially. These included the following: 1. All students will start school each day ready to learn. 2. The high school graduation rate will increase by the year 2000 to at least 90 percent. 3. Students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 with demonstrated com- petency in challenging subject matter. 4. American students will be first in the world in mathematics and science. 5. Every adult will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills to compete in a global economy. 6. Every school will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning. What began as a bipartisan commitment to a vision of a dramatically improved education system quickly evolved into more predictably par- tisan form after Governor Clinton became President Clinton. He moved quickly to reshape the six goals and the attendant program surrounding them, a highly voluntary effort called America 2000, into a more activist model. America 2000 became Goals 2000, and the emphasis shifted from voluntary adoption of the goals at a local level to the formulation of standards at the national level. This effort was supported by a number of governors and business leaders. The Clinton Administration was successful in passing legislation in 1994 to authorize Goals 2000 along with a series of activities designed to create national educational standards in a number of subject areas. This standard-setting project was heavily influenced by the success experienced by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and the standards they released in 1989. Goals 2000 was to duplicate this effort throughout the curriculum. States were still free to adopt federal standards, create their own, or do neither. The federal government, through the National Educational Stan- dards and Improvement Council (NESIC), would review the federal and any state or local standards to determine if they met certain quality levels. The entire process was to serve as a sort of ?Good Housekeeping seal of approval? for federal, state, and local standards. The National Education Goals Panel (NEGP) would then review the work of NESIC 68 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES and ?certify? the standards. This quasi-voluntary system would not remove local control, but would have greatly enhanced the federal role in setting state and national curriculum and learning standards. The legislation also sponsored large-scale projects to develop model standards in subject areas where standards did not yet exist. The success of NCTM led standards enthusiasts to assume its work could be repli- cated. This did not prove to be the case. Standards development quickly became enmeshed in a series of technical and political obstacles. Some of the first reports from groups working on history standards were attacked in the U.S. Senate, and at one point repudiated by a 99-1 vote. This type of attention was a shock to educators and academics, accustomed to laboring in relative obscurity. What had been backwater pedagogic arguments became the fodder for debate on the floor of the U.S. Congress. Education standards quickly became a symbol of creep- ing federalism and the intrusion of ?big government? into the rights of the states and the lives of individuals. The controversy surrounding the history standards was followed by problems with the English standards. So difficult was it for experts to agree upon what should be expected in English that the effort was eventually refused additional funding. Following on the heels of these two frustrated projects, NESIC and the National Education Goals Panel never really got off the ground. The federal government was left casting about for its proper role. Most recent efforts have been in the opposite direction, including efforts to abolish the Department of Education, and to convert entitlement programs, such as Title I, into block grants that the states would admin- ister. This rapid gyration indicates a period of instability and flux. The federal government will not likely return to its pre-1960 role, given the linkage between education and economic productivity. However, the forces for a strong federal role and those for greater state authority continue their struggle in search of a balance. If education policy and funding are decentralized, the states stand both to benefit and be greatly challenged by the new balance of policy and program authority such a shift would entail. The national political scene is far beyond the control of local districts and individual school buildings and is an arena in which most educators are not used to playing. It appears that it, too, will have to be taken into account to an ever greater degree when educators consider how they are to respond to calls for improvement and fundamental change. FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS 69 STATE GOVERNMENTS The past two decades have seen a major increase in the willingness of states to use their power over their public education systems (Wirt and Kirst 1989). Ravitch (1990) describes this phenomenon as being ?a shift of major proportion [in which] the locus of educational policy- making moved from the federal government and local governments to the states? (p. 48). Mazzoni (1991) summarizes this shift in greater detail: In the 1980s, the ?entrepreneurial states? made improving schools their principal target for policy innovation (Van Horn, 1989). Their intense and pervasive activism, building on previous decades of more gradual state involvement-notably in the 1970s (Campbell and Mazzoni, 1976; Kirst, 1984; Mitchell, 1988), resulted in the ?full-fledged emergence of state educational leadership.? (p. 115) State governments will continue to play the pivotal role in restruc- turing. While much of the literature on restructuring focuses on the school site and the school district, evidence indicates that for restructur- ing to succeed educational policy must be consistent and coordinated at the state level (Fuhrman 1993). Smith and O?Day (1991) argue that ?what is needed is neither a solely top-down nor bottom-up approach to reform, but a coherent systemic strategy that can combine the energy and professional involvement of the second wave of reforms with a new and challenging state structure to generalize the reforms to all schools within the state.? They envision a more proactive role for the states in the process of restructuring?a role that ?can set the conditions for change to take place not just in a small handful of schools or for a few children, but in the great majority? (pp. 234-35). Most of the current restructuring literature focuses exclusively on the school and district levels of the system. When states are mentioned at all, it is usually in the context of providing waivers from various regulations cur- rently in force.... [D]uring the past 20 years, most states have gradually amassed greater authority and responsibility over their educational systems as their share of the educational budget has risen, as the economy and productivity of the state have been seen to be more and more dependent on its educational system, and as issues of equity and fairness in the distribution of resources and services among districts became an important part of the nation?s agenda. ... [T]he states are in a unique position to provide coherent leadership, resources, and support to the reform efforts in the schools. States not only have the constitutional responsibility for education of our youth, but they are the only level of the system that can influence all parts of the K-12 system: the curriculum and curriculum materials, teacher training and licensure, assessment and accountability. (Smith and O?Day 1991, pp. 245-46) 70 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES State government is where the statutory responsibility for education resides, based on the implied powers doctrine of the U.S. Constitution. The role of state government has varied considerably throughout the nation, in terms of the amount of state-versus-local control that existed. State involvement has generally been proportionate to the amount of funding for school districts that comes from state revenues versus local property taxes. As funding authority and responsibility accrue to the state level, so do influence and control over the instructional program and all other aspects of local school districts. The movement of funding from local to state level may be the largest underlying trigger mechanism for greater state involvement in educational policy generally, and restructuring-oriented legislation par- ticularly. Since 1970 over thirty-five states have revamped their finance systems, many under court order. In essentially every case, the changes have resulted in more funding from the state and less from local property taxes. The goal was to eliminate inequality in funding; the effect was to embolden legislatures to become more activist. Recent examples in- clude the upsurge of charter-school legislation, choice plans, institution of site councils or other participatory-governance models, and greatly enhanced accountability expectations in the form of state assessments and mandatory school-improvement plans. States have historically satisfied their need to establish standards for local districts through accreditation procedures, implemented by state departments of education or regional accreditation agencies. These procedures usually involve examination of a series of input measures (number of books in the library, minutes devoted to required elements of the instructional program, proper teacher certification for classes taught, and so forth) but do little to ascertain the quality of the outputs of education in forms such as observable or demonstrable student perfor- mance. Although some states have had programs of statewide testing for many years, the majority have not. Testing has been optional and has been conducted at the district level. It was not uncommon for a half- dozen different standardized-achievement tests to be used by different districts throughout a state, thereby making state-level summaries or district-to-district comparisons difficult or impossible. The reform movement of the 1980s brought about an upsurge in the number of states with formal, mandated programs of statewide achieve- ment testing whose purpose was to provide comparisons of some sort, either to other states, among districts in a state, or even between indi- vidual school buildings. In many cases these tests were lawmakers? first systematic attempt to assess educational effectiveness within their state. These programs have been controversial in many places (such as Ver- FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS 71 mont, Kentucky, and Maryland) and abandoned in others (California, Arizona, and Indiana). However, in nearly every state new accountability measures for schools are under consideration. Given the reluctance of legislators to fund large programs without some form of accountability, it is interest- ing that public education has escaped scrutiny for as long as it has. Traditions of local control have contributed to an attitude that student performance in schools was not the concern of the legislature, but of local boards of education. This tradition is gradually being abandoned. The Education Commission of the States, a nonprofit, nationwide interstate compact comprising forty-nine states and the District of Co- lumbia, has as its primary purpose helping governors, state legislators, and state education officials develop policies to improve the quality of education in their states. Its publication Exploring Policy Options to Restructure Education (1991) outlines strategies for state-level policy- makers to follow in their attempts to restructure education. The report states that ?the focus must be shifted to student learning outcomes instead of predominantly on the process of schooling.? Policy-makers should be actively engaged in establishing a vision ?of what students should know and be able to do, and how the education system should work.? Six policy categories needing attention by policy-makers are presented with recommendations for the types of policy changes needed: I. Leadership Policies.... Policies that support and encourage broad- based leadership are needed. Four particular types of policies needed are those that encourage the development of (a) shared vision and comprehensive strategic plan, (b) expectations that roles and re- sponsibilities need to be open to change, (c) exemplary practices from which others can learn, and (d) waivers to remove barriers. II. Learning Policies. Current learning policies?those related to curricu- lum, instruction, assessment and student learning goals?frequently focus on number of hours spent on a subject, amount or type of material to cover in a course, use of specific textbooks, credits earned and attainment of minimum skills and knowledge. Learning policies need to shift from these focal points to a commit- ment to: (a) prepare all students, (b) set high expectations measured by performance of desired outcomes and (c) establish instructional approaches that best teach essential skills. III. Inclusion Policies. Policies are needed to prevent certain groups from being underserved and to involve people traditionally excluded from significant roles in the education system. The policy options [must] address the need for (a) parental and community involvement, (b) interagency cooperation and (c) busi- ness partnerships. 72 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IV. Organizational Policies. Organizational policies must support greater responsibility and accountability by people at all levels in the system. In particular, more accountability and responsibility for learning by those closest to the students are needed to handle the diversity and complexity of student learning. Shared decision making among repre- sentatives of all groups in the school community is important if schools are to reach and implement the best decisions to improve student learning. Accountability processes must be in place to monitor the results of improved teaching and learning practices. Thus, policies that redefine (a) decision-making roles and (b) accountability are needed. V. Finance Policies. In the past, regulations and mandates tied to educa- tion processes have dominated finance policy. Attention now is being given to transforming finance policy to focus on outcomes and cause change. Finance policies need to recognize that restructuring involves up- front costs as well as reallocation of resources based first and foremost on higher student outcomes while maintaining equity. Finance policies need to (a) provide funding for restructuring, (b) encourage inno- vation, (c) promote a focus on learning outcomes, and (d) address federal involvement. VI. Renewal Policies. Given the increasingly rapid rate of change, states and districts need policies specifically designed to encourage renewal. Such policies need to support the continual growth and development of individuals and the system itself by effectively bringing the best knowl- edge, technology and ideas into the system. Barriers to renewal, such as contractual language, must be changed to promote focusing on student achievement. New ways to promote professional growth and recruit- ment of high-quality teachers and administrators must be identified. There must be an ample number of competent, culturally diverse teachers and administrators. Renewal policies (a) promote growth, development and renewal of individuals and groups, (b) ensure availability of quality future educators, and (c) encourage ongoing evaluation of progress to- ward the shared vision. (pp. ii-iv, emphasis in original) These model policies suggest the newly emerging role of state government as a change agent, standard setter, and judge of the efficacy of public education. At the same time, states retain the ability to set the basic groundrules for the system through means such as funding, teacher licensure, structure of the curriculum, requirements for teacher staff development, and methods by which schools must report their progress to parents and the community. States provided the impetus for local districts to experiment. On the West Coast, for example, Washington sponsored its ?21st Century FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS 73 Schools? program involving thirty-three sites. Oregon funded the ?2020 Schools? program with over 200 schools participating during the five- year program. And California sponsored 300 to 400 restructuring grants worth $6.5 million. All these initiatives were designed to provide seed monies to selected schools in the hope that they would develop innova- tive programs that can serve as models for other schools. Examples of other state projects include Arkansas? Restructuring for Higher Order Learning pilot, Indiana?s Schools for the 21st Century, New Mexico?s 21st Century Schools program, and Utah?s site-based management grants. Arizona supported sixteen schools to pursue re- structuring efforts. The state provided these schools complete regulatory flexibility and encouraged them to emphasize ungraded classrooms in grades 1 through 8. These schools made changes in the following areas: integration of technology, parental involvement, year-round schooling, and interdisciplinary education. Colorado identified fifty ?creativity schools? that are commissioned with promoting innovation and partner- ships (National Governors? Association 1991). The effect of these ?R&D? programs has been to create a cadre of schools each having a history of innovation and change. These schools are receptive to new initiatives, and know how to adapt. They can serve as invaluable resources for additional restructuring programs, since they are likely to participate and serve as ?lighthouse? schools, examples of how an innovation or structural change can be put into practice. Educa- tors and parents need such examples before they embrace a new educa- tional method. States will be the key players in educational reform into the next century due to their control of finances, their ability to set general direction for the entire system, their control over accountability mea- sures, their capacity to support innovation and demonstration projects, and, most important, their increasing willingness to use all these mecha- nisms to influence education policy and practice. If the federal govern- ment does devolve control of and resources for federal programs to the states, they will only become that much more powerful in shaping local educational programs. 74 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIESCHAPTER 5 SCHOOL DISTRICTS 74 In the U.S., local school districts, about 15,500 in all, are accustomed to operating with relative independence (when compared to educational jurisdictions in other countries). While some are more accountable than others, either to a local board of education, an active community, or a regulatory-minded state department of education, few are prepared for the type of scrutiny to which they are likely to be subjected during the coming decade. Expectations for improved student performance will likely increase, as will involvement by all groups in decision-making. The implications are profound for all groups that have a role in the delivery of public education. This chapter explores the impact on boards of education and central-office administrators. Subsequent chapters focus on changes at the site level in the roles of principals and teachers, and on changing roles of students, parents, and the broader community. BOARDS OF EDUCATION The local board of education is a cherished and unique institution in the American educational system. It embodies the principle of local control of education and facilitates the close relationship that is sup- posed to exist among home, school, and the community at large. However, the challenges it faces are such that its goals, purposes, procedures, and even its continued existence may be called into ques- tion. The school board was designed initially as a guarantee that the values of the community would be transmitted effectively to the young and that tax monies, raised locally, would be spent properly. The political role of the school board has gone through several transforma- tions. That role has evolved from being an extension of church and local values, to becoming highly political in a partisan sense in the 1890s as cities grew, to reflecting the best of the Progressive movement?s ideals for reforming government shortly after the turn of the century when SCHOOL DISTRICTS 75 much reform of boards occurred, to becoming increasingly political again in the 1960s and subsequently as it comes under siege by constitu- encies organized into highly effective interest groups. This evolution continues, as local boards see their power and discretion being chal- lenged from both the top and bottom. Wirt and Kirst (1989) attribute this ?squeeze? on school boards? power to three trends that have occurred during the past twenty years. Parents, who once loyally supported school professionals, now chal- lenge their authority and widely regard them as ?failing.? Also challeng- ing traditional authority inside the school are teachers, whose success in collective bargaining has further constrained school officials? authority. Finally, according to Wirt and Kirst, the increase in state control over education has been the ?most striking feature of state-local relations in the last twenty years? (p. 24). This politicization of education, combined with the tension between boards and state government, may be leading to a redefinition of the role of board member. From a job that was almost symbolic in nature, board members are now subjected to extreme pressures from organized groups of parents, teachers, taxpayers, and various special-interest groups. Today?s board members operate in a highly charged environment in which they are subject to intense criticism and receive little reward for their efforts. Thus it has become more difficult in many cases to attract competent people to a position that has not been coveted historically and seldom is a stepping stone to higher office. At the same time, the board is expected to provide leadership for change. The impetus and rationale for this change frequently emanate from the state, not the local, level. These often conflicting forces are exacerbating tensions in what Wirt and Kirst (1989) describe as an ongoing basic problem in the governance of American schools; that is the tensions between the community?s need for school leadership that can lead and be trusted and the same community?s desire to have its own will carried out by that leadership. (p. 10) A board of education increasingly is expected to be sophisticated and knowledgeable and to possess a perspective on education that extends beyond its district?s borders. Increasingly it is called upon to influence state policy decisions in areas other than funding. It faces the challenge of enabling schools to adapt to the demands facing them by developing unique responses locally, not viewed as part of the problem by erecting barricades to adaptation. It must attempt to do this in the face of a community that may be suspicious of change in its schools, and generally cynical of government?s ability to solve problems. 76 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Given that school sites will probably continue to gain decision- making authority, along with greater accountability, the local board of education might increasingly serve as a ?board of directors? that helps set a general direction for the organization, then reviews the plans, goals, and outcomes of the various organizational units. In such a role, a school board would spend less time on administrivia, on detailed re- views of the methods of instruction, and on supervision of decisions that could best be made by the professional administrative staff. In contrast, a school board that operated under the board-of-directors model would pay more attention to the ?strategic direction? of the district, to the performance of students, and to the development and periodic review of the knowledge and skills students in the district would be expected to attain at various stages of their education. School sites consistently unable to meet their goals (goals appropriate to their circumstances) would then be held accountable by the ?board of directors.? One intriguing notion, following the metaphor of school board as board of directors, is to have the board meet only two times a year, once to review and comment upon proposed goals for the district and indi- vidual buildings, and once to assess the degree to which school and district goals were achieved. Obviously, such meetings would have to be longer than regular board meetings, perhaps taking up a Friday evening and all day Saturday. And perhaps there still needs to be a meeting in which the budget is formally reviewed and approved. Most other deci- sions would be reallocated to management, augmented by the types of community appeal processes that have been developed by most districts. Such an arrangement might even attract more candidates to school board races. One recent trend has been toward single-issue candidates being elected to school boards. This new model might support candi- dates with more general interests in education. It might free the superin- tendent to run the district on something other than a crisis-management basis, and it might change the manner in which organized special- interest groups interact with the board. It could be one more step toward loosening schools from constant oversight, bureaucratic control, and micromanagement, which many identify as a source of organizational inflexibility and resistance to change. Given the increasing involvement of states in establishing student- performance and school-accountability measures, the role of the local board may move naturally toward issues of internal coordination and quality control. If decision-making continues to be decentralized, as many states are causing to happen by creating school site councils with considerable authority, boards may not mandate so much as coordinate, set parameters, and enforce consequences for a district?s failure to SCHOOL DISTRICTS 77 achieve performance goals. The board would likely continue, however, to be the screen for local values interfacing with this more state- dominated education system. This could be a very difficult transition for many board members, accustomed to viewing themselves as the final authority. To act as extensions of the will of the state government on the one hand and the desires of school site councils on the other may be a very challenging balancing act for boards of education in many districts throughout the nation. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATORS The role of central-office administrators may be more profoundly affected by changing expectations and structures than any other group. Some administrators seem to recognize the enormous challenges they face; others appear not to acknowledge the profound ways in which their role may be altered. The size of school districts? central administrative staffs soared during the sixties and seventies, particularly in urban areas, where the number of administrators continued to increase even as the number of students decreased. This trend has dramatically reversed itself in the nineties, with many central offices severely curtailed, even gutted. Those who remain in the central office are torn between their control functions, which are ever more difficult to maintain, and their leadership potential, which can maximize their impact on the district but requires changes in role, organizational structure, and personal style. The administrative structure present today in most school systems has drawn its inspiration from private-sector models and the military, which employ familiar concepts of ?line? and ?staff? authority to de- scribe positions and relationships within the ?chain of command.? This structure led to a significant increase in the centralization of authority in school districts in the fifties (a time during which many small districts were consolidated into larger ones), the sixties (with an interruption for many incidents of decentralization and experimentation that tended not to outlast the decade by much), and the seventies (with its emphasis on ?back to the basics?). This trend was in step with the basic belief of the scientific management school of thought in economies of scale. It also fit the general notion that educational processes could be directed and controlled in much the same manner as manufacturing processes. Just as school districts seemed to be mastering the implementation of centralized-authority systems, the rules of the game within the society at large began to shift. As early as 1981, the private sector began to adopt and extol the virtues of decentralized decision-making, worker involve- 78 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ment, and participatory management (?The New Industrial Relations? 1981). Meanwhile, education was putting the final touches on systems such as ?teacher-proof curriculum,? behavioral objectives, standardized and criterion-referenced tests, and collective bargaining, all of which emphasized the importance of centralized control. Many central offices are inhabited by people who were socialized into this system of management. They are used to having their ideas and orders carried out. They are not bad people or poor administrators; they simply have a single way of thinking about how an organization should be run in a time when the rules of the game are changing dramatically and new models of effective organizational management are emerging. Central administrators may be faced with a twofold challenge: (1) redefine their roles so that their contribution to the organization be- comes clear in the context of a different notion of educational gover- nance, and (2) develop the skills necessary to succeed in these newly defined roles. If trends of increasing decentralization coupled with cuts in the central office continue, central administrators may have to possess a new mixture of skills and responsibilities, including the following: assist in the development and implementation of an organizationwide vision and mission; plan and coordinate those aspects of the organiza- tion best conducted centrally; facilitate change and all the interactions that surround it; build linkages across institutional boundaries; commu- nicate effectively in a variety of ways; resolve rather than sublimate conflict and disputes; and enhance the efficiency of the organization. These and other responsibilities are explained in greater detail below. VISIONARIES One of the unanswered questions of decentralization is: How will people decide to do anything other than what they already know how to do in the absence of a vision of clearly superior alternatives? One of the key roles central-office administrators might occupy in decentralized systems is to help in the development of a vision of vastly improved, or different, educational outcomes and the transformations of the system necessary to achieve these outcomes. This role requires that administra- tors be aware of current trends and issues in education, to discuss, debate, and analyze on a regular basis key educational issues. Rather than becoming overwhelmed by the administrivia that currently seems to occupy their lives, these people would also be expected to function as educational visionaries. The difficulty of assuming both of these roles simultaneously should not be underestimated. SCHOOL DISTRICTS 79 Perhaps staff meetings might become places where the merits of the latest ideas in education are carefully discussed and critiqued, rather than environments devoted primarily to reactive crisis management. Perhaps notions of reflective practice (Sch?n 1983, 1989) can be incor- porated into the culture of the central office to a greater degree. Perhaps the ability to articulate a vision of education may become a key consid- eration in the appointment and retention of central administrators. PLANNERS Central-office administrators may expect to have more responsibil- ity to guide the organization through systematic-planning activities designed to establish the organization?s direction and purpose. In the absence of a common plan that establishes shared vision, mission, and goals, there is little reason for schools to remain in an organization such as a district, other than to obtain certain conveniences of scale. Identifying a common sense of purpose, or mission, and the unique roles the different elements of the organization have in accomplishing that mission are important skills for central administrators in environ- ments where systematic planning is practiced and institutionalized (Bryson 1988, Bryson and Roering 1988). To conduct such a process successfully requires knowledge of and skill with various planning models and with the interpersonal and political issues that surround planning. FACILITATORS To a greater degree, central administrators may become facilitators of change, of planning, of implementation, of dispute resolution, of interactions among organizational entities. Facilitation is the skill of supporting or enabling others to act on their own to solve problems or achieve organizational goals, as opposed to doing it for them (or to them). Facilitation works best when conducted within an environment where organizational goals are known and shared (Rosenholtz 1989a, Saxl and others 1987). Central-office administrators have many oppor- tunities to function in a variety of ways that facilitate change by indi- viduals or school sites toward the achievement of organizational goals. BOUNDARY SPANNERS Central-office administrators will continue to be able to move among the organizational units more freely than most of the people assigned to 80 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES any one unit. They also have more opportunities to interact with a broader cross-section of the community at large. They may be more able to take advantage of the potential presented by the unique insights and opportunities such a perspective provides. They may be critical agents in building political consensus within the community for change, and be the early-warning system that identifies possible problems or reactions that changes in the school are engendering in the community. This knowledge enables them to move the process of change forward in a productive manner. COMMUNICATORS The need for central-office administrators to communicate effec- tively, through the written and spoken word, seems likely to increase. While it is already an important ability for some central administrators, it may become even more important as these roles involve greater communication of a vision, resolution of problems, spanning of bound- aries, and many of the skills outlined above. Aspiring leaders may need to demonstrate their competence and knowledge through verbal and written forms of communication as one of the key ways by which others may judge their fitness to lead. DISPUTE RESOLVERS Rather than mandating behaviors and then manipulating people to create desired outcomes, central-office administrators may be called upon to mediate among different units of the organization where friction exists, between the organization and the outside world, and within individual units of the organization. They may take on the role of ?objective? external arbitrator, rather than that of a player with a clear vested interest. Particularly with the development of shared decision-making and participatory styles of management, increased conflict at individual work sites can be expected, as people begin to interact with one another around issues of power and resource acquisition and allocation. It is likely the organization will need people who can help move the process of self-governance along. This role, akin to an organization developer, exists now in a few districts. It may be needed in many more districts in the immediate future if current trends toward greater involvement and empowerment continue. SCHOOL DISTRICTS 81 EFFICIENCY ENHANCERS Since central-office administrators have presided over the establish- ment of a bureaucracy, there have been few incentives for them to make their organizations more efficient. In a bureaucracy, more attention may be given to empire building than to efficiency. Education, with its lack of clear outcome measures, is vulnerable to self-justifying and self- perpetuating organizational behaviors. This can lead to decreased effi- ciency and loss of organizational focus. Since it is hard to envision a scenario in which the amount of inflation-adjusted funding available to schools increases significantly during the coming decade, it is likely pressure will continue on central administrators to improve efficiency so that resources can be freed up and transferred to the school site and the classroom. Not only does this streamlined efficiency mean the loss of jobs from central offices, but it means that fewer resources will be available for performing many of the district?s functions. A central administrator in this role would have to be an expert on alternative forms of service delivery and organizational analysis in order to present options for making the bureaucracy less cumbersome while ensuring that the needs of school sites are met. COORDINATORS As suggested earlier, the different levels of the organization, such as elementary, middle, and high schools, need to develop some method of coordinating their efforts if school districts attempt to move toward integrated outcomes that are the result of cumulative educational expe- riences from kindergarten through grade 12, as a number of states are now beginning to legislate. In many, perhaps most, districts there is precious little coordination currently among different levels. Central-office administrators can expect to be challenged to main- tain a balance between the needs for some order and internal consis- tency, on the one hand, and for individuality and adaptation for school sites on the other. Decentralized decision-making tends to pull organiza- tions apart, while cumulative outcomes and accountability for achieving them necessitates cooperation across levels and school sites. Such a balance will be difficult to strike. STANDARD SETTERS One of the elements driving coordination is the need to have stan- dards for student learning. Central-office administrators can play a key 82 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES role in the identification of standards, stated in the form of key learner knowledge and skills, for which different levels (elementary, middle, high school, special education) will be responsible. Once these standards are set, central administrators are in the tick- lish position of assessing the degree to which the standards are met. While most districts currently have testing programs of one form or another, many forces tend to make it as difficult as possible for this information to be used to assess the performance of individual buildings against any preestablished standard or outcome. As state standards are established, it may become easier (or at least possible) for the public to measure the performance of schools against those standards. Given the increasing demands of state legislatures for accountability and a general public perception that schools are not ?getting the job done,? it seems likely that accountability will be measured in more specific terms than current measures. Standardized-achievement tests, for instance, have lost some credibility in part because of what has been called the ?Lake Wobegon Effect,? where all the children are above average. Because it makes little sense for each school to develop its own program of accountability independent from all other schools and from the state?s program, the central office is in the position of coordinating and integrating accountability methods and standards, with the under- standing that such programs might need to be adapted to the special or unique goals of each school. Sophisticated local assessment systems can collect data on student performance that allow better decisions to be made locally about what programs to continue and increase, and which to redesign or abandon. State assessment programs are unlikely to yield such data. Central-office administrators are uniquely situated to play a key role in developing and implementing districtwide accountability programs and information systems that are tools for school improve- ment. It is this sort of justification of the role of central-office administra- tors that can create greater legitimacy for the allocation of resources to central-office positions and help stop the evacuation of central offices taking place in many districts. The individuals who fill the positions can benefit by employing a new set of skills and attitudes as they define their relation to school sites. The previous hierarchical model of management may be evolving to include elements of a matrix style, where various decision-making ?nodes? in the organization report to or collaborate with other nodes. The nodes relate to each other sometimes as equals, sometimes in subordinate-superordinate relationships, sometimes with elements of both, depending on the specific task or responsibility. The central office is one more node, with its own areas of authority and SCHOOL DISTRICTS 83 responsibility, but it is not necessarily the top of the pyramid to which all information flows and from which all decisions emanate. This description of the newly emerging roles and duties of central- office administrators is very similar to the one offered in a report issued by the National LEADership Network Study Group on Restructuring Schools. This group was composed of representatives from projects in the national Leadership for Educational Administration Development network of federally funded programs to improve educational-leader- ship skills. The report described this new role as follows: Restructuring should entail changes in central offices as well as school buildings. District staff need to stress facilitation and enablement and de- emphasize control and compliance. Central offices might retain small troubleshooting staffs, competent in the specialties of plant management, personnel and bargaining, law, transportation, and other technical subjects, who would be detailed to work in trouble spots with administrators in charge. Field administrators might rotate on occasion into these slots, where they would develop and use expertise in the subject matter as well as in facilitation of problems of site administrators. (Mojkowski and Bamberger 1991, p. 51) A number of urban districts have undertaken reorganizations and downsizing of their central offices to try to accomplish some of the transformation of roles described above. The success of these efforts, which have been arduous, is undetermined at the moment (Ayers 1991, Clinchy 1989, Rebarber 1992). Considerable power will continue to reside in the central office for the foreseeable future, in part because superintendents will still have relatively broad discretionary power regardless of what authority states and local sites might accrue. Control over budget and daily operational decisions, access to the local board and to state policy-makers and implementers, and the ability to span boundaries between the district and the community will enable superintendents to retain central control. Some districts have seen conflict already between superintendents and individual schools over operational decisions. To date, the superin- tendents have won. States have also challenged local boards and super- intendents. Here the record is less clear. In some cases the state has moved to replace boards and superintendents. These occurrences are rare and taken only after all other options are exhausted. How will the superintendent use this power? The potential for symbolic leadership for a superintendent is great when many people in a district are participating in decision-making. They look for guidance and help in putting their decisions into a broader context. A superinten- dent who provides visible, clear, goal-oriented leadership can help 84 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES galvanize participatory decision-making in ways that take the district in a consistent direction. The superintendent will be challenged to enlist support for her or his agenda, not merely to articulate and mandate it. Although central-office administrators have been somewhat marginalized in discussions of school reform and state-generated legis- lation, they continue to occupy a key role. They stand challenged to adapt, to develop new abilities, and to change some of their conceptions of power and leadership. It is a difficult challenge for those used to being in charge. SCHOOL SITES CHAPTER 6 85 Substantive change in education doesn?t occur or doesn?t have much of an impact without changes in the roles of those at the school site. Teachers, students, and school-site administrators create the mean- ing of education through their daily decisions and actions. Roles define and direct those decisions and actions within schools. Restructuring means changing the roles adults and children occupy in schools. Corbett (1991) contends that ?a social system?s structure is its pattern of rules, roles and relationships. Restructuring, then, represents changes in these social relationships.? Such changes will be difficult for all involved, particularly adults at or beyond midcareer who are now being asked to radically reconceptualize their roles. As this chapter indicates, classical bureaucratic roles may change into relationships based on collaboration, colleagueship, facilitative behaviors, and community membership. PRINCIPALS In schools where considerable effort has been devoted to restructur- ing, the role of the principal is quite often very different from the role described in the effective-schools research, where the principal was characterized as a strong, forceful leader who provided the impetus for change and improvement within the school by dint of personality alone (Clark, Lotto, and Astuto 1984; Murphy 1983; Purkey and Smith 1983). Principals in restructuring schools demonstrate skills similar to those described previously for central-office personnel. They lead through and with others, not by dictating but by facilitating (Goldman, Dunlap, and Conley 1993; Louis 1992; Prestine 1991). Cushman?s (1992) dis- cussion of the ways in which principals in the Coalition of Essential Schools exercise power highlights the movement away from some of the tenets of the effective-schools research: Researchers within the Coalition of Essential Schools argue... that the Effective Schools model is less well suited for schools moving away from the existing system. They see that system as flawed, along with the 86 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES convention of one strong leader it depends on. (p. 2) An outline of what this emerging role of principal might look like can be gleaned from a study of Oregon?s ?2020 schools? (Goldman, Dunlap, and Conley 1991; D. Conley, March 1991). The 2020 program (named after the number that the bill creating the program was assigned as it passed through the legislature) was formally titled the ?School Improvement and Professional Development Act.? Its goal was to create numerous model sites where teachers and administrators together de- velop site-based programs of staff development and program develop- ment that result in improved educational practices. These schools were selected by the state through a competitive process and provided additional money to enhance the professional growth and development of staff while they experimented with new methods of education and leadership. Each school was required to have a site committee with substantial responsibility for developing and implementing the school?s program of improvement. The site commit- tee was responsible for developing ?a plan to improve the professional growth and career opportunities of a school?s faculty? and to improve its instructional program; that plan ?may reflect efforts to explore initia- tives in shared decision-making? (Oregon Department of Education 1990, p. 4). These schools served as ?laboratories? where insight was gained into the emerging role of the principal. A summary of what effective principals are doing in some of these schools follows. BEHAVIORS OF PRINCIPALS IN SCHOOLS UNDERGOING CHANGE A clear sense of purpose linked to the vision. Principals? actions and decisions are guided by a vision of education. Vision may reside in the principal as an individual, but more frequently it is created jointly with the staff; in all cases this vision is clearly and repeatedly articulated within the school. All important programmatic decisions are linked to the vision. It serves as a screen through which new ideas, proposals, and programs are viewed and evaluated. The use of data to inform decisions and create vision. Data are used to develop and implement this vision. These data take many forms, from profiles of the school?s performance on dimensions such as student achievement and attendance, to student discipline records and surveys of parents and students, along with information on the latest educational and societal trends gleaned from journals, books, and other sources. Principals frequently take the role of disseminators of information. They attend conferences, read voraciously, discuss ideas with col- SCHOOL SITES 87 leagues, copy articles, and distribute them to the faculty. They encour- age an examination of current practices and assumptions and the devel- opment of new ideas. Analysis of data provides a base upon which discussions take place and helps move decision-making about educational goals from the level of anecdote and unquestioned beliefs to examination of current assump- tions and practices. This has the effect of helping to neutralize some of the political factions within the school that can be counted on to oppose any substantive change. The appeal to objective evidence also deflects charges that the process is being manipulated by the principal to produce some predetermined outcome. Allocation of resources consistent with the vision. Having devel- oped and agreed upon a common focus or purpose in the form of a vision, principals facilitate the process by allocating resources in a way that moves the school toward its goals. This replaces a process of resource allocation dominated by political considerations, what is com- monly referred to as the ?squeaky wheel? method of management (D. Conley, March 1991). These principals allocate resources such as money, space, schedul- ing, and personnel in ways that help achieve the vision. These actions are not perceived as being ?top-down? when the staff has developed and endorsed a mission. In 2020 schools, principals have created common prep times, team meeting times, and opportunities for peer observations. They have moved personnel around in school buildings to create space for new programs, and they have reallocated staffing to support specific 2020 goals. Creation of new decision-making structures. As facilitators, prin- cipals have to work with existing decision-making structures, recogniz- ing their limitations. What many principals have chosen to do, rather than confront these existing structures and attempt to assign new duties to them, is to create entirely new structures and allow new leaders to emerge. Principals are not necessarily ?in control? of this process. In other words, having created a new leadership structure, they are willing to stand back and let people make decisions, and to relinquish personal control to a significant degree. The following quote from a principal in the study illustrates both the excitement and difficulty of letting go: I used to work more at getting people to go into positions when I thought they were ready. Now, people choose their own goals and move through the positions and committees with less direction from me. The current group, for example, is not a team I would have chosen for school leader- ship, but they are working hard to become as informed as they can be?the best informed in the building?and they are doing fine. 88 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES I am more comfortable working with whomever comes along. Part of that is the maturity of the process, part is the maturity of the staff as a group, and part of that is me. I?ve developed. Now I talk with people about the difference between being congenial and being collegial. (D. Conley, March 1991, p. 40) Another principal described the interaction with these new leaders: We try to get them to do the things they say they want to do. Our role has shifted. We?re not doing it. We don?t own the task any more. We need to constantly remind them because this is new behavior for them. You remind them they have money to manage, suggesting, not telling them, how they might go about this. There?s a lot of coaching that goes on with the committees. (D. Conley, March 1991, p. 40) Provision of information to teachers. Teachers have difficulty being involved in decision-making in any meaningful way if they do not have the information necessary to inform them of their options and the implications of their actions. Principals in this study provided informa- tion to teachers that enabled them to make decisions about budget, staffing, building schedules, and the curricular program. Principals also provide information about how the school functions internally, how money is allocated, what resources are available, and how decisions are made regarding staffing or class load. By moving these issues into the public light, suspicion is decreased. At the same time, the quality of decisions made by teachers is enhanced when they can see the impact of their decisions on other aspects of the school or can suggest solutions that acknowledge the complexity of the institution. Less direct leadership, more support of teachers. Part of the pro- cess of ?letting go? required principals to learn how to support decision- making from the sideline. Sometimes this requires them simply to remain silent in a meeting; other times it means trusting teachers to make good decisions and allowing them to do so. This is not easy, even for those principals who are committed to changing. A quote from one principal indicates how specifically these issues were dealt with by this individual: I try to do whatever I can do to remove barriers to successful implementa- tion. I?m constantly asking ways to do this. Every agenda of every meeting has [an agenda item from me] on barriers [to implementation]. I also refuse to be deferred to as the principal. If someone wants clarification, o.k., but otherwise I say, ?You had probably better talk to the chair of the committee about that.? I try to redirect the question so it does not come to me but to the responsible person or committee. That is important. Ego can impede the outcomes. You have to be ready to let go, and keep on letting go, so others know that they are really in charge of something and really take responsi- bility for it. (D. Conley, March 1991, p. 41) SCHOOL SITES 89 Prestine (1991) reached similar conclusions in a study of four schools participating in the Coalition of Essential Schools. She states that ?significant new demands on principals in schools attempting essential schools restructuring? fell into three categories: sharing power, participation without domination, and facilitation. As schools in this study began planning to restructure, there were clear expectations for the role of principal to change. Teachers in the schools Prestine observed and teachers in Oregon?s 2020 schools appear to share many of the same perceptions of the behaviors principals must demonstrate to facilitate change. CHALLENGES OF ROLE TRANSITION The preceding section illustrates some of the ways in which reform- ist principals attempt to facilitate rather than control change in their buildings. This new way of doing business can be fraught with difficul- ties for many principals, in part because they were selected for their ability to be ?strong leaders,? which has been interpreted to mean someone who is able to impose his or her will on others. Essentially, these people are being asked to modify their personalities. To shift one?s conception of the exercise of power and influence 180 degrees is a tremendously difficult thing to expect of any adult, particularly of those who believe they are currently doing a competent job and see little reason to change. A second challenge inherent in this role transition derives from the likelihood that principals will bear the brunt of responsibility for the achievement of goals as schools become more accountable for student performance. Many may worry about ending up in the position of a manager of a baseball team that is losing; in most cases, the manager goes and the players stay. Those principals who adapt their behavior to the changing rules may see the advantages of working through others and may reap considerable reward. This outcome, however, is far from guaranteed. TEACHERS When restructuring is attempted with some success, the role of teacher also undergoes redefinition. Schools that define themselves as being involved in restructuring generally operate in ways that tend to ?professionalize? the role of teacher (Lieberman and Miller 1990). Teachers are often charged with making many more decisions and are given the wherewithal to implement programs based on these decisions. 90 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES They spend more time discussing the goals, purposes, and methods of education as colleagues, and they interact around issues of instruction to a greater degree. Rosenholtz?s (1989a) study of teachers? workplace concluded that a number of factors were associated with schools where teachers were more effective, more satisfied, and more amenable to change and im- provement. These factors included high consensus on shared goals, significant teacher collaboration, ample opportunity for teacher growth and learning along with an abundant spirit of continuous improvement, some certainty or agreement about what constitutes effective practice, and a strong sense of the possible, along with a commitment to make things happen and to solve problems. When teachers have an organiza- tional environment with these characteristics, changes in the way they approach teaching are much more possible and likely. It appears to be almost impossible for teachers to transform their teaching in isolation or in the context of the current factory/bureaucratic model of schooling (Lieberman 1990, Lieberman and McLaughlin 1992, Little 1982). Obviously, structural changes are needed to allow teachers to work together and to have adequate time to develop and practice new skills. At the same time, teachers need structures that provide opportuni- ties to become more involved in teams of varying compositions? sometimes with other teachers, perhaps with paraprofessionals of differ- ing levels of technical skill, often with volunteers from the business community as well as the home?if they are to develop the interaction patterns that accompany collegial environments. Rosenholtz (1989a) makes clear that in schools that are meeting the needs of a wide range of youngsters, teachers cannot do whatever they define personally as effective teaching and operate in isolation from their peers. Opening up the classroom and the instructional process may not be easy for many teachers. If teachers are to have greater decision-making authority, they will need to be able to use human-relations skills such as communication, negotiation, consensus, goal-setting, and conflict resolution to a greater degree than they do currently. The old norm of isolation, which allowed a teacher to reject new ideas and decisions, is challenged by such behaviors (Rosenholtz 1989b, Rosenholtz and Kyle 1984). The devel- opment of more professional environments will support or necessitate greater teacher discussion about what constitutes effective practice and what practices are detrimental to children. Administrators have an important role to play in this process; they help to implement the decisions of the group and assist in overcoming obstacles mounted by individuals by referring to the decisions of the SCHOOL SITES 91 whole, rather than to the dictates of the administration. They help teachers deal with situations that are beyond their control or that are particularly complex or conflict-laden, but attempt to do so without taking total control. They enable teachers to continue to develop neces- sary group-process skills successfully (D. Conley, March 1991). When restructuring efforts are successful in helping teachers de- velop new roles, the organizational structure changes in ways that support teachers? ability to develop a broader perspective on their role in the organization (David 1989, 1991; Lieberman, May 1988). As they begin to make more complex decisions, they come to grips with the implications these decisions have for the organization as a whole. They deal with issues such as the allocation of resources within the system, legal and contractual constraints, the political effects of their decisions, and the reactions of their colleagues (Goldman, Dunlap, and Conley 1991). For many teachers this broader view is new and somewhat uncomfortable. What seemed so simple before suddenly becomes very complex. This challenges teachers to remain involved, to address the ramifications of their decisions, and to direct decision-making to issues that have the potential to have a positive impact on student learning. Along with greater authority over learning conditions can be ex- pected to come greater accountability for results. Such a change can cause considerable consternation among teachers, accustomed to clos- ing their doors and doing more or less what they please without respon- sibility for any particular outcomes. Meadows (1990) points out the conflict that exists as decision-making responsibility is shared more widely: I have discovered that, as long as decisions are successful, a leader runs little risk in sharing decision making. However, if a decision proves unsuccessful, the leader will be held accountable; the leader, not the group, must accept the blame for failure. (pp. 545-46). If teachers come to accept more authority for decisions that affect student learning, they will have to be prepared for increased expecta- tions that these decisions will result in improved learning. This linkage between decision-making authority and outcomes does not yet exist in many of the initial attempts at shared decision-making. If such linkages begin to develop, the ways in which teachers interact with one another and how they define their roles will change significantly. The partnership between teacher and parent also changes in the context of a restructured school (Davies 1991b; Henderson 1987; Moses and Whitaker 1990; Oakes and Lipton 1990). Many schools limit the role of parents today to doing what they are told to do by the teacher, who wants parents to support whatever activities and behavior system 92 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES the teacher may have established for the class and for each student. While parental support for teacher decisions is important, there are additional dimensions to this relationship that develop or are enhanced as schools move toward partnership models. In effective schools, parents may become partners in more meaning- ful ways (Mortimore and Sammons 1987). To facilitate this partnership, teachers share more information with parents on what the teacher is trying to accomplish. The teacher?s expectations for the parent are spelled out more clearly. In addition, the teacher solicits information on the student?s interests, personality, and other factors that might affect performance. The ritualistic parent-teacher conference may be replaced with more genuine interactions, perhaps in the home of the student, that lead to an exchange of perceptions and a greater understanding of the goals of each party (Love 1989). A true partnership requires teachers to be willing to modify their instruction to some degree based on the realities of a child?s support system and to validate and respond to the views and concerns of parents. Parents, and students, have additional implied responsibilities that will be discussed in more detail. The chang- ing roles of parents are the subject of chapter 7, and the responsibilities of the student are considered next. STUDENTS Sizer (1991) has described the role of the student as worker and the teacher as coach. In the restructuring school, students undergo a role transition?it may be implied or stated explicitly?from passive to active participants in their own learning (Beane 1991, Brooks 1990, Brophy 1992, Leinhardt 1992, Newmann 1991a). This shift will not be easy, particularly for those students who have already spent many years in the system and have developed successful coping strategies. Newmann discusses this challenge: Teachers face the persistent difficulty of engaging students in serious academic work in schools as we know them. Except for a few highly motivated students, most young people complete school only as a ritual. This pervasive disengagement creates massive problems of crowd control for educators and wastes the time of students and staff members alike. (1991a, p. 459) To engage students more effectively, Newmann states, more time will be needed for teachers to communicate with individual students through sustained talk and writing and for students to talk with one another. Substantive conversation also entails major shifts in the roles of teachers and students. Teachers will function more as mentors and SCHOOL SITES 93 coaches, less as depositories of static knowledge to be reproduced. Stu- dents will function more as constructors and producers of knowledge. They will rely on teachers for help, but they will not be mere absorbers or consumers of everything the teacher says. Students will also have to take on the new roles of seeking help from and giving help to one another as they learn. (p. 462) To become actively engaged in learning, students need to have some control over and input into what they learn. They need opportunities to make more decisions about their learning. They need structures that ensure that they accept the consequences of those decisions. With choice comes accountability. The extensive use of personal-learner goals, coupled with public assessments and demonstrations, is one strategy that helps promote this linkage. Such a method can create personal accountability in front of parents, peers, teachers, and commu- nity members. This removes the anonymity most students are able to maintain in schools today. In addition, students need opportunities to collaborate, to work together to solve real problems, to demonstrate what Newmann (1991a) calls ?authentic student achievement.? To do so, students will need to exercise ?some control over the pace and procedures of learning; over opportunities to ask questions and to study topics deemed important; and over constructing and producing knowl- edge in one?s own language, rather than merely reproducing the lan- guage of others.? Students who are now drifting through school will need to be challenged to become much more aware of their personal strengths and weaknesses. They will have to be willing to accept, even demand, formative feedback that enables them to assess their skills more accu- rately against any of a number of external standards. They will need to be willing to set longer term goals, longer than ?pass the test,? and to think about how the skills they are choosing to develop relate to one another. They will start to think about the relationship between what they are doing in school and what they will be doing when they leave school. They will begin to think of their behaviors in terms of their life goals. And having made these linkages, they will have to be willing to work much harder and produce much higher quality work than they do currently. Their expectations of themselves will need to rise, along with teachers? and parents? expectations of them. College-bound students will be called upon to reexamine the cyni- cal transactional relationship they frequently develop with teachers, counselors, and administrators, wherein every activity is judged accord- ing to its utility as a means to college admission. Newmann (1991a) describes the reaction to restructuring of those who may be on the 94 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES college-bound track: ?Teachers, parents, and students who have experi- enced only the conventional version of education?especially those who have been successful?cling tenaciously to it, even when they have the opportunity to make substantial changes.? While these students surely should be encouraged to pursue their ambitions, they should also be involved in educational experiences that enable them to learn more about themselves; they, too, need to partici- pate actively in constructing their own learning in addition to following the advice of teachers and counselors. They should be able to take courses that are challenging and that help them develop their intellect, even if there is risk of not getting an ?A.? They should see experiences in the world of work as valuable. Thus they would welcome opportuni- ties like internships, apprenticeships, shadowing experiences, and other chances to understand how what they are learning relates to the world they are entering, to see that cooperative teamwork is as important as individual achievement, to understand what quality work is, and to be more aware of the need to think critically, solve problems, and develop skills to make themselves successful lifelong learners. These are all skills identified by many as being associated with success in the workplace of the future. College-bound students may inadvertently neglect the development of these skills if they remain in an educational environment that stresses individual achievement and con- formity to teacher-structured and -initiated activities as the primary criteria of success. Furthermore, high school students in particular can benefit from a learning environment that causes them to reassess the appropriateness of holding a job that has no relation to their program of study while attending school full time. The jobs, often for minimum wages, offer little future for most students, while reducing substantially the time they have to devote to school work. If schools become more successful in offering students a range of experiences in the world of work, these experiences, though not necessarily paid positions, could help displace students? short-term needs for money, if they were structured so that they ultimately led to higher paying jobs for students, particularly during summers and after graduation. The role of principal, teacher, and student changes in schools where restructuring is attempted. The ultimate effect of these changes of student learning is still to be determined, since few schools have gotten to a point where the roles described here have been successfully institu- tionalized on a widespread basis for enough time to enable the results to be assessed systematically. Anecdotal evidence, particularly from teachers and students, is encouraging (Hayes 1992, Meier 1987, Ratzki and SCHOOL SITES 95 Fisher 1989/1990, Richmond 1974), along with studies of learning environments (Stockard and Mayberry 1992) and particular teaching techniques that involve students actively and allow them to make choices (Joyce, Showers, and Rolheiser-Bennett 1987; Rothman, October 30, 1991; Slavin 1988, 1991). 96 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES PARENTS AND THE COMMUNITY CHAPTER 7 96 A school cannot educate children in isolation from the community in which it exists. As forces cause educators to move from thinking of their school as a ?closed system? that is not affected much by the world that surrounds it toward more inclusive ?open systems? conceptions that acknowledge the effects the external environment has on learning, the role of parents and of the larger community as well changes substan- tially. Many schools are already moving actively to rethink the ways in which they involve parents and community members. This chapter provides a rationale for such changes and describes these new roles and relationships. PARENTS Over time the responsibility for educating the young has gradually been transferred from the parent, the extended family, and the commu- nity at large to professional educators, what Seeley (1989) has called the ?delegation model? of education. The structure of public education has evolved over the past 150 years based on much the same rationale used to develop common fire, police, sanitation, and public-welfare systems. In many communities, citizens have come to believe that once govern- ment creates a system, they have only to pay taxes and hold elected officials accountable for the efficient and effective delivery of the services. Well-trained professionals are to make the day-to-day techni- cal decisions that drive the system and ensure provision of high-quality services to all. Individuals have few responsibilities for the collective good in this model. The limits of this delegation model seem to have been reached in many areas other than education. Police protection, for example, once relied on strong neighborhoods that enforced behavioral norms for most residents. With the breakdown of such neighborhoods and the social institutions associated with them, local police departments have discov- ered the same thing that educators have: The safety of the community PARENTS AND THE COMMUNITY 97 cannot be delegated to a few trained professionals who are not a part of the neighborhood or community. Many rural communities function in ways that acknowledge the importance and necessity of community involvement in and responsibil- ity for civic survival, often because these communities have no other alternative. Volunteer fire departments are only one example of how lay people acknowledge they must participate actively in the maintenance of their community. Interdependence and a strong sense of personal responsibility are essential to civic viability. One other example of how the delegation model has begun to be replaced or redefined is in the arena of health. Not so long ago, many people would ascribe responsibility for their health to their doctor. In essence, the doctor?s job was to make them well when they were ill or injured. In between these visits, the individual had few responsibilities for maintaining well-being. This has changed. Now more people accept greater personal responsibility to be knowledgeable about health-related behaviors and to alter their behaviors based on the information they have. In this conception of individual wellness, doctors are seen more often as resources who help confirm or question the individual?s own tentative diagnosis, who have access to specialized knowledge and equipment, and who deal with extraordinary cases or situations where expert training and knowledge are truly needed. Health is based on personal decisions; doctors are there to help when something goes wrong or when support is needed. They are not solely (or, in some cases, even primarily) responsible for personal wellness. In fact, many people are becoming much more comfortable questioning a doctor?s diagnosis or seeking additional information them- selves. The model of doctor as all-knowing and the patient as relatively helpless recipient of professional treatment is evolving as patients be- come more knowledgeable and willing to question physicians. Public education is nowhere near this point of having parents under- stand their responsibility to participate in their child?s education, or to be knowledgeable about effective methods of learning. When a principal or teacher contacts a parent regarding a problem his or her child may be having, it is not unusual for the parent to reply, ?You?re the educator. You deal with the problem.? This attitude is very frustrating to educa- tors, yet they may have contributed inadvertently to its development. The public-school system has put into place over the past fifty years a series of protective buffers, including teacher-tenure laws, restricted access to classrooms, due process for teachers, the tendency of teachers (especially in urban areas) to live outside the communities in which they teach, the emergence of the principal (and the central office) as a barrier 98 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES and buffer between teachers and parents, and a whole series of measures to ?professionalize? teaching, many of which also served to enlarge the gap between parents and teachers. Since many parents have in essence relinquished the education of their children to professional educators, and since the schools have put in place many of the barriers to parental involvement, only the schools can effectively begin the process of reaching out (although some legis- latures are mandating more parent involvement). Educators can provide information to and foster communication with parents, as well as in- volve them in setting goals for their children that the school and home can jointly attempt to achieve. Student learning will be enhanced if parents see education as a shared responsibility (Henderson 1987, Stevenson and Stigler 1992, Watson and others 1983). Just as the health-care community has come to emphasize the importance of the patient as a partner in maintaining personal health, the educational process will benefit from increased parent and community involvement. Parents who devote more time to their children?s education?not just helping them do their homework?have a positive impact on the children?s attitude toward school and their subsequent achievement (Stevenson and Stigler 1992). However, the ways in which parents devote time to education are important, and schools often do not utilize parent time very effectively. In many places, parents are invited to school to be told what to do, to be entertained, or to contribute money. This time and involvement could be used more effectively to pro- vide parents many more opportunities to participate in their child?s education. Here are some examples of possibilities: coming to school to see their children demonstrate their skills; assisting in the development of student projects; receiving briefings on the status of school goals and student performance; assisting in decision-making and goal-setting; and coming to perceive the school as a focal point for their social activities and as a center of newly developing conceptions of community. These methods of involvement can be made as applicable in the innercity as in the suburbs with adequate attention to the different contexts and chal- lenges of each environment. Several examples of ways in which the role of parents can be redefined follow. Becoming knowledgeable about learner outcomes. As schools move to programs designed around the things a child can do and around the performance standards that specify required knowledge and skills, parents need to know what these standards are and how they will be measured. They will then be in a position to review their own child?s PARENTS AND THE COMMUNITY 99 work to determine how well he or she is proceeding toward achieving the standard. This knowledge helps the parents set more appropriate expectations for their child: For example, should the child work harder in certain areas, going beyond merely completing homework assign- ments? When parents have a standard and examples of acceptable work against which to review their own child?s work, or attend a demonstra- tion by their child, they are able to determine the level of performance their child has reached. Such knowledge is better than a letter grade, since it allows comparison not just with other children, but with an absolute standard as well. However, parents must be included in the development of the standards and given ample opportunity to under- stand them in concrete terms. Setting learning goals with the teacher and child. Education that is adapted to the child?s needs and interests allows parents to have a means to participate more actively in the learning process. For example, they can be involved in the development of supplemental learning activities that support achievement of the chosen learner goals. Use of such goals is one strategy that creates a focus for dialogue among parents, student, and teacher. The goals build on the child?s interests, while allowing the teacher to keep the activities directed toward achieving the required performance standards. Communicating with teachers about child?s interests and learn- ing style. Most parents feel comfortable talking about their children?s interests. This topic provides a natural starting point for the develop- ment of a helping, supporting relationship, but only if the teacher is knowledgeable enough about learning theory to describe how each child learns, and is capable of showing how the teacher will incorporate or build upon these interests and strengths. The teacher can help parents become more confident observers and diagnosticians of their own chidren. They can be taught about learning styles (and learning disabilities), and they can use their understanding to communicate with teachers using the ?jargon? of education when appro- priate, or at least not being intimidated by it when it is used. Through this interaction, they will become more sophisticated in their knowledge of the learning process generally, and of their child?s strengths and weak- nesses as a learner specifically. Becoming involved in site-based decision-making. Many new op- portunities for parents to be involved in decision-making at the school site are being created. For these processes to work effectively, parents will need to be provided enough information to understand their role, responsibilities, and authority, and to form opinions on crucial issues. 100 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Parent involvement of this type has tended to be carefully controlled by educators (Malen, Ogawa, and Kranz 1990; Malen and Ogawa 1988). This type of controlled involvement results in many talented, conscientious parents occupying multiple roles within the school. These individuals should be commended for their dedication and commitment, and their participation in decision-making bodies should be encouraged, if only for the continuity they bring. At the same time, the challenge is to involve a cross-section of the community in decisions. This requires school personnel to reach out to the community and include some individuals who may ask difficult questions or bring up issues the school would rather not think about. However, it is just this process that is the most valuable aspect of community participation in decisions. Advocating and supporting change in schools. Most parents are unaware of what is occurring in their child?s classroom, or of the need to change education to bring it into the twenty-first century sometime very soon. The first reaction to change by many parents is to be concerned or opposed. They may have little faith in educators, who they view as being subject to fads and too willing to experiment on their children. They may also be concerned that the schools will change in ways that make the parents unable to help their child or to understand what is being taught or learned in school. Parents are familiar with school; they all have memories of it. Any change that runs counter to these memories (or assumptions) may be threatening. Such attitudes can be overcome only by providing parents with much more of the information they need to be aware that change in education is necessary. Educators are often reluctant to offer such information, since it implies that schools are doing something wrong. If parents are to become advocates, they first need to be given the oppor- tunity to become knowledgeable, both about the need for change as well as the options available to the school. At the very least, educators need to do a much better job of reminding parents that almost every other aspect of society is changing. Most parents witness this in their work- place or their daily interactions. They know the world is changing. School personnel should not avoid their responsibility to help parents make the linkages between changes in society and requisite changes in schooling. For their part, parents must be willing to spend the time necessary to understand the myriad ways that education must be redesigned if it is to adapt to the changes that have already taken place in the world that surrounds schools. Given the demands on parents? time currently, this is a significant challenge for all involved. PARENTS AND THE COMMUNITY 101 Schools need to be flexible in the options and strategies they employ to increase parent involvement. Many programs under way currently explore these options in a variety of neighborhoods and settings (Bauch 1989; Chrispeels 1991; Cross, LaPointe, and Jensen 1991; Davies 1991b; Dornbusch and Ritter 1988; Jennings 1990; Lueder 1989; Olson, April 4, 1990; Silvestri 1989; Williams and Chavkin 1989; Wolf and Stephens 1989). Finding time to become involved in their children?s education. As busy as most parents have become, current involvement options are nonoptions for many of them, who find it difficult to attend meetings at the school during the day or evening. To deal with this problem, the school can establish higher expectations for parent involvement and provide a menu of options for parent involvement. This involvement cannot be mandated, but as it becomes more pervasive it helps strengthen the bonds of community; people encourage each other, and participation becomes more of a community norm. New arrivals in the community are socialized into an expectation of participation. Parents then can be given support and assistance in choosing from among a range of options. Those parents who do not choose to partici- pate can be contacted not by educators, but by their peers, who can help find ways for these parents to be involved successfully and produc- tively. These ideas will require changes in the structure and organization of the school day and in the teachers? contract as well, conceivably, if we ask teachers to work with parents across a broader time spectrum. Expanded use of videotape can allow parents to see their children in action at school. Outlines of expectations for parental involvement in assignments and projects throughout the year can be sent home for review. In a followup meeting, the specific skills necessary to assist on the project or task (along with necessary materials and equipment) can be explained and reviewed. The home visit, once a fixture of most social-service agencies and now nearly nonexistent, can be revived as an option. Parents will need to know how and when to request a visit in situations other than crises resulting from inappropriate behavior. A home visit can and should be a time to show the parent how to be involved in the child?s education. Accepting education as a shared responsibility. Education and parenting are two intertwined activities. Teachers and parents can sup- port, but not replace, one another. This message cannot be sent if educators lecture parents as if they were children and restrict involve- ment to narrowly defined arenas controlled by the educators. At the same time, parent behaviors that abdicate the responsibility for child rearing and nurturing cannot be ignored or condoned. Nor can single- 102 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES issue parents be allowed to enforce their values on the entire school. Parent apathy, however convenient politically, cannot be allowed to be the institutionalized norm of the school community. Educators are the ones who will need to take the lead in redefining this relationship, but parents will be called upon to rethink their expectations and assumptions for public education, as well. This is a dialogue that, if successful, will spread beyond teachers and parents to include the broader community. Perhaps programs that allow parents a choice of the school their child attends will be a mechanism by which parent involvement is enhanced. As parents consciously select a school or program, it is possible to establish clearer expectations beforehand for them and their children. But even if choice is not employed, schools can expect much more of parents than what they do currently and can provide them with much more information than they receive currently about expectations for student performance and parent involvement. If schools provide varied opportunities for parents to be involved, they can begin to expect greater involvement. If educators are persistent and patient, they can institution- alize this expectation for involvement over time. Involvement is a critical first step toward redefining the roles and responsibilities of parents in the educational process. THE COMMUNITY Educators often take a somewhat calculating perspective on the obligation community members with no children in the schools have to support public education. These people have traditionally been consid- ered in terms of their potential support for or opposition to requests for funding: How can they be encouraged to vote for bond and other tax elections? Other segments of the community have often been perceived from an equally transactional perspective: How can donations be procured from businesses, and how can community agencies provide services the public schools deem supportive of the schools? mission? The relation- ship between the schools and the community is likely to be much more substantive. Schools have great difficulty succeeding in dysfunctional commu- nities, though success in such environments is not impossible (Purkey and Smith 1983). Many schools attempting to restructure recognize the need to develop more interdependent relationships between themselves and the institutions that surround them (Davies 1991b, Liontos 1990, MacDowell 1989). Although schools cannot make communities func- PARENTS AND THE COMMUNITY 103 tional, they can serve as a nucleus for the nurturing of new conceptions of community. For schools to adapt to changes in their communities, they will need to be involved during this period when many communi- ties are being forced to reinvent themselves to survive. Schools will be challenged to participate in the process of making communities more functional. Perhaps they can provide more opportunities for people to affiliate with one another in ways that satisfy their mutual self-interest and that motivate them to work together for an enhanced common good. Admittedly, this prescription for the involvement of schools in the reinvigoration of communities is perhaps a bit overoptimistic. Schools do not have the power to bring about change in environments where issues of economic deprivation, racism, substance abuse, and lack of resources and opportunities are the dominant themes. Schools can en- counter resistance from other governmental agencies and get caught up in ?turf battles? when reaching out into the community. Nevertheless, many schools are actively restructuring their relationship with their community because they perceive no other alternative if they are to be successful with the young people they are charged to serve. When they are successful it is because they are not attempting this alone; they are working in close concert with public and private community agencies, governments, and business groups (Chrispeels 1991; Cohen, January 23, 1991; Payzant 1989). Several suggestions of how different groups might be involved in education and in the redefinition of community follow. Providing learning experiences in the world of work. To succeed with all young people, particularly with those who have been disen- chanted with traditional academic environments, schools may have to extend learning beyond the school site and bring many more adults into classrooms (Glatthorn 1991). For this to occur, the community must become an active partner in education. Community here is defined broadly to mean all institutions, public and private, that have a stake in a well-educated citizenry and that may contribute to the educational experiences of young people. Many community agencies and businesses may be asked to mentor students in their workplace, often as interns or observers, rather than as work-study students. They may be expected to help students learn, not just put them to work. This will be a new and, for some, a problematic responsibility. Support, guidance, and financial incentive will need to be offered to those in the private sector to induce large-scale participation. The movement to provide learning experiences outside schools may have to be developed gradually. But such programs offer a potentially powerful strategy for making school more relevant to students and for 104 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES easing the transition from school to work while simultaneously enabling the community to reexamine its involvement in education. Recent reports and writings from the business community show a much greater awareness of the difficulties involved in changing public schools. Many of these reports are beginning to outline in much more specific language the kind of involvement business will need to be prepared to commit to if it is to influence public education (Akers 1990, Cowan 1989, Nancy 1989, National Alliance of Business 1989, Segal and others 1992, J. Smith 1991, Weisman 1991, Widell 1991). These writings suggest that it may be possible to begin the very basic and difficult changes in the relationship between schools and the community suggested here. Providing loaned expertise to schools. Community members can assist in education within schools on a more regular basis. Many citizens possess content knowledge that is much more up-to-date than that of the teacher. They can bring real-life problems into the school for students to solve. And they infuse greater diversity into the school, making it more likely that a student will connect with an adult. Reviewing student credentials and linking hiring or pay to school performance. The high school diploma is not a functional form of quality control anymore. Social promotion, grade inflation, and dra- matic variance among teachers in their grading methods result in gradu- ates about whom little can be said that applies to all of them. Not all can write, read, do simple math problems, get along with others, work on a team, solve a problem, or continue to learn to meet the challenges of new situations. Employers, however, need employees who can do these things. Several states are working on ?certificates of mastery? that students could earn only after demonstrating specified skills. These certificates hold the promise of much better quality control. But employers will have to value these certificates, review them, and reward students who have them or do well in the work required to receive one. Only if employers do this will students accept the more challenging and de- manding certificates and do the added work necessary to receive one. Letting teachers and administrators work in noneducational set- tings in structured ways. Many educators have spent their entire lives in schools of one sort or another. They may have difficulty relating student learning to the world outside schools. Teachers need many more oppor- tunities to leave their schools for periods of time to participate in and come to understand other work environments. Programs where students are provided opportunities to learn about the world of work are becoming much more commonplace (see, for PARENTS AND THE COMMUNITY 105 example, Waltner 1992). Teachers, however, have fewer opportunities. Schools and noneducational organizations can work together closely to provide structured programs of visitation and internship for teachers, both during the school year and the summer. These programs can allow teachers to rotate through several roles in a business, or to complete a particular project from beginning to end. One such program asks teachers to work at all levels of a large company, then present a report with recommendations for improving the organization to the company?s president at the conclusion of the internship. Another gives teachers opportunities to do curriculum devel- opment jointly with high-tech experts. Such programs invigorate teach- ers and enable them to align their curriculum and teaching methods more closely with the needs of society. Sharing, coordinating, and combining resources. One example of an area where resources can be shared is facilities construction. Cur- rently, each agency that serves young people constructs its own facility, at great expense. These facilities are scattered throughout the commu- nity and may be located inconveniently for the clients to be able to move among them. A first step is to begin to construct these facilities collaboratively, or at least in a coordinated manner. This can be a difficult first step if the schools and agencies do not have a history of collaboration. However, some communities have essentially insisted that local governmental agencies get their building programs together if they are to be funded. Other opportunities for sharing resources exist. Sometimes person- nel can be shared among agencies, as between schools and parks and recreation departments. Similar arrangements with social-welfare agen- cies are possible, though infrequently explored. Sharing space on a more limited basis, where one agency rents from another, is becoming more commonplace, as is coordinated scheduling, so that students have some- where to go and something to do when they are not in school. Releasing workers to support education. Business owners can be encouraged to support education by allowing employees to be released from work, perhaps once a month, to visit the public schools, to adopt a school, to provide tutoring, or to visit their children?s classrooms more regularly. Such adjustments in work schedules (not additional vacation time) can often be accomplished with relative ease and minimal ex- pense. Among the many benefits of such programs is that many more people can experience the positive feelings associated with helping children to learn. A growing number of employers, large and small, have already adopted such programs. 106 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Creating pressure for fundamental change in education. Educa- tors cannot be expected to transform schools without support and lead- ership from those outside schools. The role of parents as supporters of change has been mentioned. The larger community has a responsibility as well to be aware of the changes that are needed to transform school- ing. A great deal of written material has been prepared that would help employers and employees understand the implications of educational change, or the lack of it, for the business community. Employers can make such materials available in the workplace. Business Roundtables in many states have such materials available.* Chambers of commerce and civic-service clubs can devote time not just to understanding the crisis in education, but to becoming aware of its possible solutions and the role they can play. Leaders of local government can be given the opportunity to understand schools in terms other than viewing them simply as another governmental unit competing for resources. The net effect of these efforts can be to create broad-based aware- ness and acceptance of the need for educational change. Such a climate makes it more possible for local boards of education and school admin- istrators to support, sustain, and be encouraged to initiate programs that radically reshape education and its relationship to the community. Being involved in site-based decision-making. Qualified members of the community can be valuable participants in processes such as decentralized decision-making. Site-based decision-making will tend to have less impact on the basic assumptions and practices of schools if energetic, diverse, and imaginative voices from outside schools are not included. Serving as judges for student demonstrations and assessments. For those not inclined to participate in governance or other formal structures, there can be many more opportunities to contribute to schools without making a long-term, formal commitment. As more alternative- assessment practices are instituted, and as the movement to outcome- based education continues in many states, there will likely be more widespread use of senior projects, capstone experiences, portfolio re- views, public demonstrations of skills, and other techniques that require students to demonstrate publicly their ability to meet certain standards and to apply certain skills successfully and competently. These can be judged by others in addition to educators, partly to lend added credibility 0000000000 * See, for example: Zimmerman and others (1990), Associated Oregon Industries and The National Association for Schools of Excellence (1992), National Alliance of Business (1989), National Business Roundtable (1988), Berman and others (1988), Melaville and Blank (1991), Segal and others (1992). PARENTS AND THE COMMUNITY 107 and gravity to the activity and partly to help keep educators ?honest,? in the sense of helping them maintain their perspective and standards. Becoming more aware of education as a shared responsibility. If businesses and corporations continue to believe that there is a relation- ship between the educational level of their employees and their ability to succeed in the marketplace, more partnerships and working relation- ships are likely to develop. It behooves both groups to explore ideas such as donations of equipment to schools, movement of school pro- grams to work sites, provision for workers or executives to be ?on loan? to a school district, and other innovative ways of strengthening the knowledge and ownership of public education within the total commu- nity. Many programs of this type exist and will need to be expanded. Many more will likely be created. This redefinition of roles and respon- sibilities will take place gradually, in much the same way that the reinvention and redefinition of community are occurring. These types of collaborative relationships generally require some sort of impetus and ongoing management. This generally involves creating some sort of council at the regional level. These structures, sometimes called partnerships, are forums for the heads of organizations to explore possibilities and reach agreements that allow their staffs to begin the much more complicated work of making the concepts opera- tional. Many communities are just now learning how to have all the partners communicate. Their next challenge is to move beyond conver- sation and general goodwill to collaborative relationships that benefit students and the community as a whole. SUMMARY This chapter brings to a close the discussion of the new roles and responsibilities that educational restructuring will require of people inside and outside schools. Chapters 1-7 describe some of the ways these new roles and relationships may emerge. The frameworks pre- sented in these chapters contain many suggestions for the ways the roles will evolve. Rarely will all these examples occur at one time in one district or school. Schools are changing incrementally, even as they restructure. Roles are evolving. This book is designed to present the emerging shapes and forms of educational restructuring, and these are the kinds of changes in roles and responsibilities that are, in fact, being actively pursued in various places throughout the nation. Changes of this magnitude do not take place easily or smoothly. They are uneven in their emergence and impact on 108 CHANGING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES practice. They are not necessarily amenable to direct control, particu- larly by school people. I believe it?s important for educators who attempt to change their schools to be aware of the impact internally and externally the shift to greater interaction with the outside world will have for schools. People?s assumptions about the role of schools and their relationships to them are powerful forces in determining their behavior as they interact with schools. This interplay between education?s role in the broader social con- text and the specific views that individuals hold regarding their relation- ship to public education tend to limit and guide restructuring efforts at the school, district, state, and national levels. This is a particularly difficult set of interactions to control, and for that reason alone it may be somewhat frightening to educators. But acknowledging the need for changes in roles and changes in relationships with external constituents helps educators to guide, channel, or direct the development of these new roles in relationships to some degree. The discussion now turns from the broad context for educational restructuring to the more specific programs being attempted by schools, what might be thought of as the ?content? of restructuring. In part 3, I describe these strategies for restructuring schools in twelve areas. It should be borne in mind that without a reconsideration of the roles and responsibilities of all those associated with the enterprise of schooling, it is unlikely that any of the structural or programmatic modifications described in the next part will, in and of themselves, transform school- ing. Many of the ideas and strategies discussed in the coming chapters can provide the impetus for teachers, parents, administrators, and others to alter their view of education, but only if the implementation of these programs is accompanied by a reconsideration of the roles and respon- sibilities as discussed in the preceding chapters. P A R T 3 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING INTRODUCTION TO PART 3 As educators approach the task of restructuring, the first question many ask is: Where do we begin? Parts 1 and 2 help to establish the broad context for restructuring. Parts 3 and 4 provide more detailed and specific description of the projects, programs, and processes that are being undertaken in the name of restructuring. The chapters in this part, Dimensions of Restructuring, outline many of the activities and pro- grams schools are defining as restructuring. As I have studied educational restructuring I have asked myself whether schools can change quickly and comprehensively enough to stay in synch with their surrounding environments. Most of the changes I see occurring in schools are incremental; they take an existing practice and adapt it to new circumstances. A second approach, discontinuous restructuring, attempts to reinvent education. A number of experiments in this vein have been launched recently, including large-scale demon- stration projects that encompass multiple schools (New American Schools Development Corporation, Edison Schools) and more decen- tralized approaches (charter schools, Annenberg grants, Next Century Schools). Even these ambitious programs have had mixed success in their efforts to depart from the traditional educational mold. Over time, the powerful mental images people have regarding education may cause even the most radical attempts at restructuring to begin to resemble traditional beliefs and practices. This raises an important question: Can schools engage in discontinuous change? Can they, in fact, restructure themselves by means of radical transformation? The evidence to date is not heartening on this count. This then raises the inverse question: Can schools transform them- selves sufficiently through incremental change? Will a series of incre- mental adjustments be adequate to enable schools to retain their institu- tional legitimacy and the funding that accompanies it? Do schools that take the incremental route have the capacity to sustain the large number of separate, independent projects that will be necessary to achieve the types of radical improvement in student learning being called for from many quarters? In the next section I examine many of these incremental approaches to restructuring. Not every trend or approach is included, for obvious reasons. Nor is there an attempt to distinguish elementary from middle- level and high school efforts. This stance is taken in part because many activities and strategies spill across levels (alternative assessment, project- 110 centered learning, teacher leadership, technology, and interdisciplinary curriculum are a few examples). Similarly, while the agendas of urban, suburban, and rural schools are not necessarily the same, the activities presented in the following chapters are possible in all settings and are being discussed by at least some schools in all three environments. It is still too early to define completely an urban or suburban or rural restructuring agenda completely separate from the others. It should be noted that these varied activities in and of themselves do not necessarily represent or cause restructuring in schools. Whether these activities result in restructuring depends on the ways in which they are implemented and conducted. For example, cooperative learning can be used as a strategy to practice the old math curriculum or to help children develop team problem-solving skills in science; a site-based governance council can simply replicate the inept decision-making of an administrator whom the council replaced or it can make decisions of higher quality and broader ownership. The reader should bear in mind that the examples of trends and activities presented in the following twelve areas are not necessarily individually or in total ?restructuring.? Rather, they are a synthesis and summary of the range of strategies educators are considering to respond to external demands and pressures for change. They should be consid- ered tentative and possibly transitory responses. Public schools are in a period of rapid and extensive experimentation. No doubt the ideas and trends described here will develop and permutate. It is also critical to note that many schools are talking about these innovations more than they are implementing them, and in the cases where schools implement them, they may be doing so without changing basic relationships and structures. Restructuring is simultaneously exciting and a bit terrifying for educators. Given the tendency of school personnel to look to one another for models or programs before launching any new effort them- selves?what DiMaggio and Powell (1983) call ?institutional isomor- phism??this rapidly changing landscape offers little comfort to the faint of heart who are looking for ?the answer? or ?the restructured school? to emulate. Meaning is being created at the level of the indi- vidual school site based on needs and goals defined within a particular school. In this context, the twelve dimensions of restructuring are offered not as a manual but as a ?roadmap? of restructuring. INTRODUCTION TO PART 3 111 112 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING PREVIEW OF THE TWELVE DIMENSIONS CHAPTER 8 112 Activities and programs designed to bring about a remarkable array of changes are taking place in many schools today. In addition, numerous schools that have not necessarily changed their practices or structure have engaged in serious discussion, self-examination, plan- ning, and pilot projects. Keeping track and making sense of all these initiatives is difficult for the average educator. The twelve dimensions introduced here and described more fully in chapters 9-20 provide a convenient roadmap to many of the major trends and themes in each of these areas. My intent is not necessarily to critique these ideas and strategies, but to explain their rationale and goals. Some are supported by a body of research, while the efficacy of others remains to be demonstrated. Some respond directly to challenges faced by many schools, challenges brought on by changes in families and societies. Others are more idealistically conceived and expressed. I would caution the reader to consider each initiative with a discern- ing eye. I hope to make it easier for the reader to understand the major directions restructuring is taking while encouraging continued analysis of each dimension by those interested in changing their schools. Much of what is occurring under the banner of restructuring can be categorized as what Lindblom (1959) described as incrementalism?the gradual process of changing dimensions of organizational functioning to improve goal achievement. In theory, the net effect of these myriad small adjustments would be to remake the institution of schooling over time?and without the political disruption associated with more funda- mental, rapid change. Kirst (1991) has called this approach to restructur- ing ?project-itis,? because schools generally respond by developing a new program or project that becomes defined as the ?restructuring project.? Upon its completion, the school is considered ?restructured.? This notion that schools can be improved incrementally toward some ultimate ideal has been described by Tyack and Cuban (1995) as ?tinkering toward utopia.? Implicit in this strategy is a desire to avoid the upheaval and conflict that inevitably accompany more fundamental PREVIEW OF THE TWELVE DIMENSIONS 113 change. Also implicit is the idea that schools should pursue improve- ment for moral, idealistic reasons, rather than in response to shifting social conditions, economic realities, or customer and client expecta- tions. While the vision of a restructured educational system that schools pursue may be idealistic, the motivation and support for change may derive from shifts in the surrounding social and economic systems. The question to be asked is as follows: Can schools remake themselves (and retain control of the process) in an incremental fashion quickly and profoundly enough to remain in sync with the environment within which they exist, and to respond to the needs of the clients they serve? It is difficult to make sense of the multitude of activities being undertaken by schools in their attempt to tinker toward utopia. A previous publication (D. Conley, February 1991) offered a framework designed to make some sense of the myriad projects occurring in public education. This framework grouped restructuring activities into eleven broad dimensions, ranging from curriculum to personnel. Although there is considerable overlap, the act of identifying some distinct catego- ries seems to be a useful way to help people understand what might best be described as ?incremental restructuring? in public education. If the term incremental restructuring sounds a bit like an oxymoron, that?s because it is. This phrase highlights the challenges faced by public schools in their attempt to bring about fundamental change with this approach. Can schools remake themselves fundamentally through a series of projects or programs, however radical, that allow the basic structure and culture of the organization to remain intact? Do schools have the political will and the resources necessary to sustain these incremental changes until the point where cumulatively they have rede- fined the school as an institution? The evidence at this point has not been encouraging, as one reads descriptions by practitioners and researchers of the difficulty schools have had putting relatively simple programs or changes into place (Brickley and Westerberg 1990; David 1991; Dwyer, Ringstaff, and Sandholtz 1991; Glickman 1989; C. Murphy 1991; Strauber, Stanley, and Wagenknecht 1990; Westerberg and Brickley 1991). Similarly, more ambitious projects such as the New American Schools Develop- ment Corporation?s program to create a series of ?break the mold? designs for new schools have run into problems both at the design and implementation stages (Bodilly 1996). It is worth restating that the act of presenting this framework should not be confused with an affirmation of its use as the sole means or model by which to restructure schools. Rather the framework is designed to make sense of the multitude of activities that schools call restructuring. 114 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING The model leaves unanswered the larger question of the interaction effects that occur when practices in one or another of the dimensions are altered without regard to the implications for or unintended outcomes on the other dimensions. The twelve dimensions are grouped into three subsets?central, enabling, and supporting variables?to identify their relative impor- tance and the relationship between and among them. Four dimensions that focus directly on student learning are categorized as central vari- ables: learning standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Four dimensions that enhance the learning process are categorized as en- abling variables: learning environment, technology, school-community relations, and teaching and learning time. Four additional dimensions hold the potential to restructure educa- tion but are more removed from the classroom. This final set of dimen- sions are categorized as supporting variables: governance, teacher and principal leadership, personnel structures, and contractual relationships. Figure 1 portrays the relationships among these three sets of dimen- sions. This chapter presents a general introduction to these dimensions and their three categories. The next twelve chapters offer more detailed discussions of each dimension. CENTRAL VARIABLES OF RESTRUCTURING Learning standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment com- prise the central variables of this framework. Changes in these areas are at the heart of the teaching and learning process, what Elmore (1990) describes as the ?core technology? of teaching. These dimensions in- clude everything teachers do that relates to instruction: what they teach, how they teach it, how it is measured and evaluated. These activities are, after all, supposedly the raison d??tre of public education. If change is occurring in these areas, it is reasonable to state that education is experiencing fundamental change. As might be expected, change at this level is the most difficult to achieve. Examination of early restructuring strategies (Lewis 1991, David and others 1990, Lewis 1989) revealed that they rarely reached these central variables, since this is where teachers ?live.? Teachers? identities are often closely associated with what, who, and how they teach. When developing ?restructuring? strategies, most educators ap- pear to prefer to look first at change in almost anything other than these variables. PREVIEW OF THE TWELVE DIMENSIONS 115 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING SUPPORTING VARIABLES Governance Teacher and Principal Leadership ENABLING VARIABLES Learning Technology Environment CENTRAL VARIABLES Learning Standards Curriculum Instruction Assessment School-Community Teaching and Relationship Learning Time Personnel Structures Contractual Relationships FIGURE 1 116 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING When educators identify performance standards, they are determin- ing what it is that students should be able to do as a result of the education they receive. Standards are statements that delineate those behaviors, knowledge, and skills most valued in the educational pro- cess. They indicate the goals students and teachers should pursue and provide a reference point against which student performance can be measured. Standards can be stated in terms of the content students are to master or in the form of broader intellectual processes that cut across subject areas. The creation and use of performance standards suggest a new relationship of teacher to learner and learner to learning; it is not enough simply to offer learning experiences if the learner cannot demonstrate the ability to apply the learning at some point in a meaningful way. Failure cannot be an acceptable result of teaching; the system has to be designed to ensure that essentially all students are capable of reaching the specified standards. Changes in curriculum call into question what is worth knowing and how knowledge should best be organized. Much of the traditional structure and content of the curriculum is being closely reexamined, from the national to the state to the local level. Many national subject- matter organizations and state departments of education are issuing new curriculum guidelines. Teachers are becoming more involved as cur- riculum developers. There are substantial changes occurring in the general education and vocational tracks of high schools. Even the traditional core curriculum for the college-bound is being reassessed. Curriculum change is difficult, given the conflicting policy signals schools receive and the material they use. Such signals are often not congruent with the goals schools pursue. The variable instruction entails all the strategies used to engage students in learning and the assumptions educators have regarding the relationship of the child to the learning experience. Instructional strate- gies are beginning to include the learner to a greater degree. Learners construct meaning from the experiences presented to them; not every- one learns the same thing from the same experience. There is a greater emphasis on developing the ability to think, reason, and solve problems, rather than simply to memorize information. Moreover, the unique needs of at-risk students are being considered to a greater degree as instruction is reconceptualized. Assessment encompasses the strategies by which teacher and learner determine the results of the learning process. The goal of assessment is to ascertain the student?s performance in relation to standards and to enable learners to take more control over their learning. The trend is PREVIEW OF THE TWELVE DIMENSIONS 117 toward forms of assessment that serve two purposes simultaneously: providing data that allow the student and teacher to know what remains to be learned and mastered by the student, and demonstrating when the student has reached a prescribed level of performance. Assessment is linked to standards, so that everyone?parent, student, and teacher? knows what is expected of the student in any given learning setting. By almost any measure, the range of methods and techniques for assess- ment is increasing tremendously beyond traditional teacher-constructed paper-and-pencil tests. ENABLING VARIABLES OF RESTRUCTURING The ability to bring about changes in the central variables often requires, or is aided by, alterations of other practices closely related to instruction. These variables, called the enabling variables, are learning environment, technology, school-community relations, and teaching and learning time. This is not to suggest that, in practice, schools proceed to plan for changes in the central variables, then consider how to modify the enabling variables in a way to support changes identified in the central variables. Quite the contrary: In many cases it appears that schools are limiting their focus to these enabling variables and hoping that changes here will ultimately lead to changes in the central variables. The assumption seems to be that if these structural dimensions within which learning occurs are altered, it will cause the methods and content of teaching to change as a result. While this may, in fact, occur at times, there is no guarantee that alterations in the structure and organization of the school automatically translate into changed behavior within class- rooms by individual teachers. The learning environment encompasses ways in which the relation- ship between learner and teacher is structured, such as the number of years an elementary teacher remains with a class of students, the group- ing of students by ability or otherwise, the use of schools-within- schools, or the extension of learning beyond the four walls of the school. Technology is considered as a separate dimension, since it can be used in any number of ways, some of which support restructured learning, others of which do not. In this sense, technology can enable restructuring to occur if used in ways that empower learners and en- hance the quality and quantity of student learning, or it can simply replace one form of drill-and-practice with another. Technology is defined broadly to include many different forms of information-pro- cessing devices. Some of these devices, such as computers and video 118 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING equipment, are commonly associated with restructuring, but others, such as the telephone, are often overlooked. School-community relations includes the role parents have as part- ners in the educational process, as well as the ways the broader commu- nity generally and the business community specifically can be involved in the education of young people. Various organizations from the busi- ness community have proposed remedies or models to transform public schools. This dimension also encompasses the newly emerging collabo- rative relationships between schools and social-service agencies. Fi- nally, educators in restructuring schools are experimenting with strate- gies to involve and communicate with parents. The teaching and learning time dimension refers to altering the school schedule in some way, either in terms of the way time is allocated within the school day or in terms of the length of the school day or year. A variety of options and models have been proposed. Some educators have succumbed to the temptation of thinking that by making changes in this single dimension, they are engaged in restructuring. A great deal of energy is being devoted to programs focused on these variables. Programs in these dimensions can have the appearance of being significant changes without engendering the political opposi- tion that changes in the central variables tend to arouse. In secondary schools in particular, changing the scheduling of time is especially popular, but it is not necessarily accompanied by the changes in class- room teaching that must occur for any new schedule to affect student learning. Elementary schools may favor the introduction of a computer lab to demonstrate that they are keeping up with the times. Closer examination may reveal that the lab is staffed by an aide and that teachers drop off their classes at the lab to do repetitive drills on the computer; because the technology has not penetrated the classroom, it has not had an impact on the central variables. Apparently, some reform-minded educators hope that by changing the schedule, developing schools-within-schools or multiage elemen- tary classrooms, creating technology labs, or involving parents more in the education of their children, sufficient pressure will be created to induce change in the central variables. The assumption?a big one?is that teachers will be compelled to alter basic practices in the face of changes in the structures that surround their classroom. It is worth noting that there is little evidence at this point to support this assump- tion. PREVIEW OF THE TWELVE DIMENSIONS 119 SUPPORTING VARIABLES OF RESTRUCTURING There is another level at which changes are occurring that are being labeled as ?restructuring.? By and large, these address organizational conditions of teaching and schooling. These variables are the furthest removed from classroom life in their immediate impact and are, para- doxically, being touted by some reformers as the prerequisites to any change in classroom behaviors. These variables include governance, teacher and principal leadership, personnel structures, and contractual relationships. All initiatives to decentralize decision-making in schools fall under the category of governance, be they site-based management, participa- tory management, school-based decision-making, or any of the varia- tions on this theme. These attempts were among the initial remedies offered to restructure schools (Clinchy 1989, David 1989, Elmore 1988, Guthrie 1986, Mertens and Yarger 1988). They are threatening and difficult to implement successfully because they force administrators to redefine the ways in which they exercise power, and they are often greeted with suspicion and cynicism by teachers who may be particu- larly concerned about new governance models that require significantly more time on their part. Many site-based management schemes do not require all teachers to do anything new or different. Other than being asked to attend a meeting of a ?site council,? the teacher may continue in his or her isolation, and change can be left to those who have an interest in it. Not surprisingly, the focus of such site-based decision-making structures often becomes teacher working conditions, not teacher performance in the classroom or student learning, since there are no parameters that clearly focus the process on teaching and learning. Issues of choice in public education are also included in this cat- egory. There are at least three types of choice: choice within a school, choice among schools in a district, and choice between public and nonpublic educational options. Choice continues to surface in many policy proposals and appears to be gaining credibility among policy- makers at the federal and state levels. Among the public, broad philo- sophical agreement regarding choice is reflected in the 1995 Gallup Poll, which found supporters outnumbered nonsupporters by more than a two-to-one ratio among virtually every major segment of the popula- tion, including parents of public-school children (Elam and Rose 1995). Nevertheless, the specific programs offered to operationalize this emerg- ing support of choice continue to disappoint. 120 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING The evolving sense of teacher professionalism has led to a prolifera- tion of new programs of teacher and principal leadership. Some of the new roles being created are familiar, such as the role of mentor teacher; others, such as site team leader or teacher researcher, are less familiar. Many schools are experimenting with roles for teachers such as teacher- as-reflective-practitioner, in-building staff developer, lead teacher, or team leader. Many of these roles blur the boundary between ?labor? and ?management.? Teachers are undertaking many tasks that have been considered at least quasi-administrative. They are also exercising more control over working conditions through site committees and other governance structures. These new leadership roles can threaten the existing leadership (and social) structure present in a school, as new leaders emerge and traditional ones are displaced. Principals play a key role in restructuring through their leadership. They are challenged to develop new styles of leadership that facilitate involvement, development of leadership in others, communication, and consensus decision-making. Principals who lead schools that are re- structuring span boundaries, seek resources, and coordinate more than direct the school?s various change activities and new relationships. The way personnel are employed to staff schools is another dimen- sion along which restructuring may occur. The current personnel struc- ture has two categories: (1) professional, or certificated, staff in the form of administrators and teachers; and (2) classified staff, generally in roles such as instructional assistants, secretaries, custodians, and food-service workers. In terms of education, training, salary, and responsibility, the gap between certificated and classified staff is generally quite large. Given a future that seems to indicate no major increases in funding for public education, it seems likely that public schools will need to con- sider reallocating existing resources as part of any attempt to restructure. Since close to 90 percent of a typical school district?s budget is allocated to personnel costs, it seems clear that an examination of how these resources are employed will occur. In addition, the roles of many certified support staff within schools are being reexamined. Counselors and library media specialists, for example, are working as parts of teams to improve student learning rather than as isolated workers with bounded responsibilities who do their jobs oblivious to the rest of the school. The dimension contractual relationships refers primarily to teach- ers? unions and their relationships with administrators and boards of education. Changes in contracts can support restructuring in classrooms and schools, but rarely cause it. Many changes in this dimension involve the addition of what is called ?permissive language?; individual sites are PREVIEW OF THE TWELVE DIMENSIONS 121 permitted to receive waivers from the contract if certain procedures are followed (such as a majority vote of the faculty), but, once again, no site is required to do so. Other changes include the development of Policy Trust Agreements and the use of collaborative-bargaining techniques to build trust, im- prove problem-solving abilities, and enhance communication. The in- tent of changes in contractual relationships often appears to be to create a more ?professional? working relationship between leaders of the teachers? organization and the administration, which is considered a precursor to more substantive change. These twelve dimensions help capture and categorize the thicket of projects and programs currently under way in schools. Some of these ideas have originated in schools or districts; others have come about as the result of state mandates. In either event, they offer a picture of the daunting challenges facing schools attempting to remake themselves. Where and how schools can be expected to get the resources and energy necessary to attempt changes of this magnitude and complexity will be examined in a later chapter devoted to the process of restructuring. For now, suffice it to say that schools involved with restructuring face a Herculean task, described by Schlechty (1990) as akin to changing a flat tire on a car that is moving down the highway at sixty miles per hour, or rebuilding an airplane while it?s in flight. 122 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING LEARNING STANDARDS CHAPTER 9 122 No other single change has promoted as much excitement (both positive and negative) as has the notion of learning standards. In short, learning standards are any set of measures against which students are assessed. Although individual teachers can and often do have standards, the term as used here refers to standards that are consistent across schools in a district or state. Individual teachers do not develop their own standards, though they are responsible for applying the district?s or state?s standards. Standards-based systems generally require students to meet the performance level specified in the standard in order to proceed or be certified. This differs dramatically from the current system, where students put in a specified amount of time, then move to the next learning level or experience with no assurance of the knowledge and skill level they have attained. The method of assessment, or required level of performance, is also set external to the individual teacher?s classroom. The teacher may or may not have a role in determining whether the student meets the standard. The implications of a standards-based system are profound. So are the concerns it has raised. On the surface it would seem that few would disagree with making education more accountable to ensure students actually have learned what they have been taught. In practice, disagree- ment has been sharp over this approach. The reasons for disagreement are manifold and often go far beyond the technical aspects of a perfor- mance-based learning system to include philosophical views on the proper role of the school and the family in child rearing. Many types of learning systems have been labeled as standards- based recently. However, a standards-based system must meet the following criteria to be included in this discussion: 1. It must be teachable. 2. It must be assessable given current assessment technology. 3. It must represent a higher level of achievement than students generally reach in the current system. LEARNING STANDARDS 123 4. It must be in a form that is communicable and comprehensible to students and parents. 5. It must cause teachers to adapt instruction to ensure students meet standards, rather than simply overlaying standards onto existing curriculum and instruction with little change in content or methods. 6. It must provide support for students who are not able to meet standards initially. TYPES OF STANDARDS Making the discussion even more complicated is the variety of types of standards. There are at least four primary types of standards: (1) academic-learning standards, (2) intellectual and social-skill standards, (3) generic work-readiness standards, and (4) industry-skill standards. An additional type of standard commonly mentioned, the performance standard, is included as one element in the description of the compo- nents of a standard. Curriculum, or program, standards represent one more type of standard. However, these standards ?are best characterized as descrip- tions of what should take place in the classroom; as such, they address instructional techniques, recommended activities, and various models of presentation? (Kendall and Marzano 1995). They do not meet the criteria listed above for being included in this discussion. These four categories of standards provide a more precise descrip- tion of expected student performance and help to eliminate some of the confusion that accompanied initial attempts to specify student learning in terms of performance. In the sections that follow, I consider these four basic types of standards and provide examples of each. ACADEMIC-LEARNING STANDARDS As their name implies, academic-learning standards focus on stu- dent academic knowledge and skill generally in areas familiar to par- ents, teachers, and students. Academic-learning standards are organized into disciplinary categories such as math, science, social sciences (or history, civics, economics, geography, sociology, psychology, anthro- pology), foreign (or second) languages, English (or humanities and literature), and visual and performing arts. Within these categories the knowledge and skills a student must retain and apply are clearly delineated and appropriate assessments are 124 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING developed. The assessments may take the form of traditional paper-and- pencil tests or may involve more application of knowledge in the form of problem-solving, for example. The standards can be interdisciplinary in nature, requiring students to apply information learned in one disci- pline to problems generated in another. Academic-learning standards generally have two dimensions: con- tent knowledge and cognitive skills. Content knowledge is identified clearly. Can the student factor a polynomial, specify the components of a theory, identify geographical locations and features, use basic vocabu- lary to answer questions, apply several writing styles as appropriate, critique a piece of art by identifying the styles and influences present in it? Process skills cut across content areas and are embedded within academic-content knowledge. Can the student solve a problem in math, science, or social sciences? Can the student analyze divergent points of view or seemingly conflicting information in science or literature to reach an independent conclusion or verify someone else?s conclusion? Can the student construct an argument in writing to defend a point of view? Can the student use a variety of sources appropriately to research a topic and present conclusions in writing? These skills are key to understanding academic content but are not necessarily specific to a particular discipline. INTELLECTUAL AND SOCIAL-SKILL STANDARDS This category includes areas that are more difficult to specify but are extremely important complements to the more content-oriented aca- demic-learning standards. The first wave of ?outcomes? tended to em- phasize these more generic skill categories over content knowledge. Although these skills are critically important, many of the initial advo- cates of outcome-based learning perhaps overlooked the fact that all intellectual processes can only be demonstrated in the context of chal- lenging content. For example, problem-solving as a skill has no meaning without a content framework within which to solve problems. The linkage of content and process is inextricable. Therefore, to identify separate process skills is somewhat arbitrary. However, identi- fying them does indicate their importance. The following examples delineate many of the commonly cited intellectual and social skills. Accompanying each skill is an extended definition that helps teachers and students understand better the nature of the skill and suggests how it should be taught, developed, and extended as challenging content is mastered. Furthermore, the extended LEARNING STANDARDS 125 definition suggests many things that should be built into any assessment of content knowledge, thereby allowing these process skills to be as- sessed in the context of challenging content. ? Reading is the process of decoding abstract symbols to understand their underlying message or meanings. Effective readers employ a variety of strategies to improve comprehension, to self-correct, and to discover meaning in many types of text. A fluent reader can interpret a writer?s literal and inferential meaning, recognize the differing goals of different types of writing, use all the features of a written document (for example, tables, index, appendices, footnotes), vary the method of reading (skim, review, survey, analyze), and make connections between texts and personal experiences. Reading is undertaken for a variety of reasons, including enjoyment, information acquisition, comprehension, and critical analysis. ? Writing is a tool for learning, for communication, and for self- reflection. Writing may serve to inform, stimulate, and challenge a variety of audiences. The writer organizes and clarifies her or his thinking so that it is comprehensible, informative, moving, or entertain- ing to others when read. Conventions of writing, including grammar, syntax, spelling, structure, and voice, must be understood and mastered. The writing process contains a number of recursive dimensions, includ- ing prewriting, drafting, organizing, revising, editing, and critiquing. Effective writers employ a variety of written forms (for example, sto- ries, essays, journals, technical reports, poetry, research papers) and can evaluate, monitor, and critique their own writing to produce a coherent and polished result. ? Communication competence includes both the skills of listening and speaking. Competent oral expression comprises the ability to ask clarifying and extending questions, express generalizations discovered through investigations, debate, persuade, initiate and sustain conversa- tions, present feelings and emotions, share and exchange ideas and opinions, give directions, and critique oral presentations. It involves verbal and nonverbal behaviors and the ability to employ and to decode each appropriately. ? Analytic thinking is the ability to apply deductive and inductive thinking; make and test conjectures; follow logical arguments; judge the validity of arguments; construct simple valid proofs; understand and apply reasoning processes; develop appropriate criteria for analyzing data or opinions; distinguish fact from belief; identify cause and effect; and respond to multiple perspectives. Analytic thinking is necessary in all areas of study from the fine arts to mathematics. ? Problem-solving is a series of skills, some systematic, some intuitive, that are developed over time as the result of attempting many 126 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING complex, nonstandardized problems. Problem-solving may be induc- tive, deductive, or nonlinear. Effective problem-solvers employ many of the following techniques: identifying the critical elements of the prob- lem; developing multistep solutions in a nonroutine fashion; generaliz- ing familiar solutions and strategies to new problems and situations; generating alternative solutions and strategies for familiar problems and situations; conducting systematic observations and investigations to collect data; and considering the implications and unintended effects of proposed solutions. ? Technology as a learning tool means coming to view any technol- ogy as an extension and enhancement of the human mind, not as a separate mechanical system. While the use of technology requires con- tent knowledge, a vital key is the process ability to integrate the technol- ogy to facilitate inquiry, understanding, and production of knowledge. Using technology includes such skills as knowing how to operate and when to employ computers, online databases, telephones, fax machines, electronic mail and bulletin boards, and calculators. It also includes operation and use of audiovisual and multimedia tools, including video cameras and recorders, projection systems, LCD panels, CD-ROMs, sound-recording devices, and slide projectors. There is a hardware and software dimension to many technologies. Competent learners master both, with greater emphasis on the potentialities of the software dimen- sion. ? Teamwork encompasses the social dimensions of learning and doing. A learner who is proficient at learning socially works well with others to create products, solve problems, reach consensus, negotiate, and cope with conflict. Effective team members understand the diver- sity present in any group and how it affects performance and goal attainment; demonstrate an understanding of the various roles present in groups; show the capacity to lead and follow, depending on the situa- tion; understand the balance between individual and group contributions and responsibilities; understand both individual and group accountabil- ity; and show awareness of the role and potential uses of humor when people work together. ? Integrative thinking requires an understanding of the interactions within, between, and among natural, social, organizational, and techno- logical systems, and the relationship of the individual to such interac- tions. Integrative thinking uses or combines information from a variety of disciplines in an integrated fashion to demonstrate understanding of the world, and to solve problems or create products. Integrative thinking requires the ability to synthesize and integrate information and observa- tions from the parts to form a new pattern or framework for compre- hending the whole. LEARNING STANDARDS 127 ? Quality work is the relative degree of excellence present in a student?s work as compared to defined standards or criteria. Quality work may be evaluated along any of a number of dimensions, including its content, structure, presentation, insights, conclusions, or entertain- ment value. To assess quality, students must be capable of comparing their work continuously to internal and external standards. Schools striving for quality create an ethos in which the nature of quality is discussed and standards for achieving quality are identified. Quality work involves ongoing critique and evaluation of products as they evolve. Students with an understanding of quality can describe the nature of quality and of standards and can critique and evaluate the quality of products as they are being developed and when they are completed (Conley and Tell 1996). GENERIC WORK-READINESS STANDARDS Whereas employment-skill standards are industry-specific, generic work-readiness standards cut across all lines of work. They describe what a student must learn to be successful in the work world, regardless of chosen or preferred occupation. A number of national studies have sought to determine what employers identify as generic work-readiness needs of prospective employees. Perhaps the two most influential have been Workplace Basics: The Skills Employers Want (Carnevale, Gainer, and Meltzer 1990) and the SCANS Report (Secretary?s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills 1991). Their recommendations were pre- sented in detail in chapter 2. Employers are not asking schools to prepare workers via the old vocational or business-education model, where schools train students to use very specific equipment in very specific ways. Instead, they ask schools to ensure workers can do the following types of things, summa- rized from the two reports, in a highly competent manner: ? Read, write, speak clearly and accurately, listen and follow directions appropriately and safely, perform basic mathematical operations without error. ? Think creatively, make decisions, solve problems. ? Know how to learn, expect and continue to learn throughout their work life. ? Demonstrate personal responsibility; set and achieve personal goals; have pride in themselves, their work, and their ability to be successful. ? Possess the interpersonal skills necessary to work as a team member to achieve a goal, teach others, and serve customers. 128 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING ? Develop the ability to assume responsibility and motivate coworkers when necessary. ? Perceive their role within the organization, understand the organization?s goals and their contributions to those goals. Workers are also expected to have additional competencies, includ- ing the following: ? Ability to allocate time, money, and materials wisely. ? Ability to acquire and evaluate data, organize and maintain files or other information systems, use computers to interpret data. ? Ability to select and operate appropriate equipment and tools safely. ? Ability to remain free of alcohol and drugs and be punctual and properly prepared for work. INDUSTRY-SKILL STANDARDS These standards are related to specific categories of employment and attempt to define what skills a student should be mastering to enter a particular field of employment. Industry-skill standards can apply to a category of work, such as industrial manufacturing, tourism, or business management, or to a specific industry, such as printing. They fill the gap left by the demise of union-apprenticeship programs and by the inability of school-based vocational-education programs to keep pace with a rapidly changing work world. These standards identify the new skill mix required to work in a particular occupation and suggest what students should be doing to prepare accordingly. More specific than generic work-readiness stan- dards, they suggest the types of preparatory experiences students should seek if they have an interest in a particular field. Such information is particularly useful when developing career-awareness programs and, for older children, school-to-work opportunities. The development of industry standards began during the Bush Administration when the U.S. Departments of Labor and Education mounted a collaborative effort to develop a national system of voluntary industry-based skill standards. This activity involved representatives from twenty-two industries and industry groups. Grants were awarded in industries such as electronics, printing, biotechnical sciences, and metals. These grants required the industry group to produce a clear set of skills needed by workers to enter the industry and perform successfully. LEARNING STANDARDS 129 Since many industries have numerous types of entry-level positions, the process was complex. The Clinton Administration continued this effort through the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994). This act established a twenty-eight- member National Skill Standards Board to review, endorse, and further implement the standards. States have begun the process of adapting the detailed industry skill standards to the more general educational programs that characterize high schools. In this process, states attempt to balance the types of generic work-readiness skills listed previously with the more specific competencies needed in a particular occupation or job cluster within an industry or industry group. For example, the National Retail Federation (1994) identified a series of ?modules? that characterized the skills needed for retail sales. Each module contains more detailed specifications of the behaviors necessary to do this type of job successfully. The modules are like standards with proficiencies and indicators. Here are the standards identified for Professional Sales Associates. Full detail is provided only for the first proficiency and its associated indicators: Module 1: Provide Personalized Customer Service 1.1 Initiate Customer Contact 1.1.1 Determine customer?s needs by listening and asking questions 1.1.2 Make shopping experience enjoyable for customer 1.1.3 Give customer appropriate greeting 1.1.4 Direct customer to additional services such as delivery, alterations, gift wrapping 1.1.5 Refer customer to another department/store 1.2 Build Customer Relations Module 2: Sell and Promote Products Module 3: Monitor Inventory Module 4: Maintain Appearance of Department/Store Module 5: Protect Company Assets Module 6: Work as Part of a Department/Store Team (Schray 1995, pp. 41-46). 130 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING These standards embody a task analysis of the behaviors an em- ployer would expect from a worker in this area of employment. While they may suggest some learning activities that would help students develop such skills, most people, educators and business leaders alike, would agree that schools are not the most appropriate place for such specific job training to occur. At the very least, it would be impractical for schools to address the complexity present in the economy through specific training programs. Gone are the days when wood shop, auto shop, metals, drafting, business classes, and home economics were adequate to prepare students for most categories of employment. In Oregon, Schray (1995) reported on proficiency standards from a state-level development process in the area of business and manage- ment. These standards were generic to all business and management positions; at the same time, they were referenced to more detailed standards such as those of the National Retail Federation. The result was ten general proficiency standards, each with more detailed ?extended definitions? that function as proficiency indicators. This project went further to provide suggested instruction, curriculum, and assessment models along with instructional strategies and curricular suggestions. The ten proficiency standards follow. Extended definitions are provided for two of the standards: the first standard, to suggest the structure of all ten, and the seventh standard, to show its link to the business-skill standards above. 1.0 Understand and apply economic principles The student will be able to analyze, interpret, and communi- cate the application of economic principles at local, state, regional, national, and global levels. Extended Definitions: 1.1 Supply-and-demand principles 1.2 Business cycles and competition 1.3 The role and impact of government and regulations in economics 1.4 Monetary and fiscal policies 1.5 The impact of cultural and environmental issues and conditions on economics 1.6 Personnel practices; management, employee, and labor- union issues 1.7 Economic history, research, and forecasting techniques 1.8 International trade LEARNING STANDARDS 131 2.0 Implement standard business practices and procedures 3.0 Develop business-career potential 4.0 Communicate effectively in a business environment 5.0 Manage business records and documents efficiently 6.0 Analyze and interpret business trends and operations 7.0 Promote products and services convincingly Extended Definitions: 7.1 Identify audiences and potential customers for company products and services 7.2 Plan strategies for the presentation of products and ser- vices that promote sales 7.3 Evaluate the following influences on products and ser- vices: competition and changes in economic, legal, po- litical, social, cultural, environmental, and technologi- cal factors 7.4 Organize various methods of presenting products that meet the needs of different audiences and customers 7.5 Promote product and service benefit to customers 7.6 Utilize professional selling techniques to gain customer acceptance of products and services 7.7 Assess the effectiveness of presentational, promotional, and selling activities 8.0 Collaborate for business problem-solving and strategic plan- ning 9.0 Utilize time, personnel, and material resources effectively 10.0Understand and comply with legal, health, and safety re- quirements (pp. 21-40) These standards would also guide development of ?contextual learn- ing experiences,? where all students, regardless of their career aspira- tions or postsecondary plans, would be able to share a common learning experience, then apply it in terms of their future aspirations. Students might engage in a simulated business experience, for example, then produce different products depending on whether they intended to go directly to a four-year college, to community college, or to the world of work. The standards would also frame ?school-to-work? experiences in which students would receive firsthand exposure to an actual work site 132 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING through avenues such as job shadows, mentoring, and project-based learning. COMPONENTS OF A STANDARD Academic standards generally have several distinct components, each of which is designed to provide successively greater clarity and detail to permit teacher, student, and parent to know what is expected of them, and to allow appropriate assessments to be developed. Without adequate clarity, teachers do not know what to teach, students do not know what to learn, and no one knows what to assess. Therefore, most standards contain the following eight elements: 1. Performance area: The performance area is a general statement of the field of study or skill to be mastered. 2. Extended definition: This statement gives a more detailed explana- tion of the performance area, indicating the desired emphases to be given within the field of study and often defining the area more precisely. 3. Proficiencies or competencies: These statements describe the knowledge or skills students are expected to master. A proficiency or competency is not a detailed description of the curriculum to be taught or a list of everything the student should know after completing a course of study. Instead, it may identify key ?capstone? skills that can only be demonstrated if a series of prerequisite skills have been mastered. The proficiency may also define skills or knowledge that would only be gained in the context of more exhaustive study. 4. Proficiency indicators: Specifying the proficiencies in more detail, the indicators are the bridge to the design of curriculum and assessment. They provide enough detail to allow teachers to know what to teach and to permit assessments to be designed. 5. Performance standards: This component designates the level of performance students must attain to meet the standard. Each standard must have a level that is designated ?adequate,? ?proficient,? or ?accept- able.? This standard tells the learner and teacher what must be demon- strated for the standard to be designated as achieved. Performance standards specify ?how good is good enough.? They relate to issues of assessment that gauge the degree to which content standards have been attained.... [T]hey are the indices of quality that specify how adept or competent a student demonstration must be. A performance standard indicates both the nature of the evidence (such as an essay, mathematical proof, scientific experiment, project, exam, or combination of these) required to demon- strate that the content standard has been met and the quality of student performance that will be deemed acceptable. (Wurtz 1993) LEARNING STANDARDS 133 6. Performance levels: The performance levels designate the behav- iors, skills, knowledge, and demonstrations that precede and exceed adequate performance. The performance levels combined with the per- formance standard compose a rating scale for the standard. This scale may take the form of numbers (1-5), role descriptions (novice, profi- cient, expert), development levels (emergent, fluent, advanced), other more ?judgmental? categories (minimal, acceptable, outstanding), or even letters (A-F). The performance level and assessment method are very closely interrelated. Sometimes the reporting method of the assess- ment and the performance levels are synonymous. 7. Knowledge domain: This component states the total amount of knowledge and information the student is expected to master, regardless of what specifically is assessed within the domain. Stated differently, the knowledge domain represents the assumed knowledge students have, both for the purpose of assessing that knowledge and for con- structing further learnings. 8. Assessment method: A method of assessment is used to determine whether the standard is achieved. Each proficiency might have its own assessment method, or one assessment might provide information on multiple proficiencies. In some cases the assessment method and perfor- mance level will be the same. In others, the assessment will allow for multiple levels of performance. EXAMPLE OF A STANDARD The following example of an academic-skill standard contains the elements listed above, except the knowledge domain and performance levels, which have not been included here because of space limitations. It is drawn from Oregon?s Proficiency-based Admission Standards System (PASS). Students will be required to demonstrate their skill on forty-nine proficiencies at prescribed levels to be eligible for admission to college. This example is one of ten proficiencies in mathematics where students would be required to demonstrate knowledge and skill: Mathematics Proficiency E Proficiency: Utilize probability and statistics in the study of various disciplines, situations, and problems; understand and apply valid statistical methods and measures of central tendency, variability, and correla- 134 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING tion in the collection, organization, analysis, and interpretation of data. Indicators: 1. Extract and interpret descriptive statistics from data. 2. Prepare graphs and charts such as histograms, scattergrams, and box plots. 3. Analyze and interpret statistical graphs and charts. 4. Compare sets of data in terms of variability, measures of central tendency (e.g., mean, median, mode, standard deviation), and correlation. 5. Determine experimental and theoretical probabilities, compare probabilities, and use either, as appropriate, to represent and solve problems involving uncertainty. 6. Understand and apply the concept of a random variable to generate and interpret probability distributions. 7. Recognize and utilize valid sampling techniques in drawing inferences. 8. Use probability and statistics to examine the validity of a claim, test a hypothesis, study a problem, or make defensible predic- tions based on data. Performance Standard: Proficient performance consists of the following elements: Criterion 1: using probability concepts and models to represent and interpret a situation or problem The student: ? selects and uses appropriate probability concepts, models, or simulations ? uses appropriate and exact diagrams, tables, lists, fractions, and decimals to represent probabilities ? utilizes probability concepts to ensure appropriate investigative design, sampling, data analysis, and/or interpretation/conclusions Criterion 2: collecting data through statistical investigations, ex- periments, simulations, or surveys The student: ? poses a question, hypothesis, or prediction which can be investi- gated through the use of statistical methods, and/or probability simulation LEARNING STANDARDS 135 ? plans, tests, and critiques investigative designs (and/or surveys), considering issues of randomization, appropriate data, and effec- tive data-gathering techniques ? develops an investigation of reasonable complexity, depth, and importance to the discipline or context ? collects and organizes a reasonable size database, identifying appropriate variables and fields Criterion 3: summarizing, presenting, and analyzing data The student: ? uses appropriate mathematical symbols, terms, calculation meth- ods, and technology to compute and represent statistics accurately ? selects and uses appropriate tables, plots, and graphical displays to accurately represent and study data; reads and interprets graphi- cal displays correctly ? correctly applies concepts and statistical measures of frequency, central tendency, variance, and correlation in the representation and analysis of data Criterion 4: interpreting data and developing conclusions related to the question, claim, hypothesis, or prediction and the discipline or situation being investigated The student: ? clearly and correctly explains information represented in sum- mary statistics, tables, and graphs ? draws inferences or makes predictions that are related to the original question/hypothesis and that are supported by the data collected ? reviews and critiques the investigative design, data collection, and analysis for sources of error and bias ? develops conclusions appropriate to the situation investigated Criterion 5: reporting the investigation and interpretation: repre- senting data, using statistical evidence appropriately, expressing ideas The student: ? represents data, mathematics, and thinking clearly and completely ? uses statistical evidence appropriately, considering the situation and audience ? develops and expresses ideas coherently 136 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING Assessment Methods: Mathematics Proficiency E requires that students know fundamental con- cepts of probability and statistics and be able to use those concepts in the investigation of various disciplines, situations, and problems. Demonstra- tion of the proficiency implies demonstration of understanding, applica- tion in original investigations involving data analysis, and application in more than one context. Understanding of the mathematical concepts and skills represented in the Domain of Knowledge chart could be assessed through tests, classroom exercises, or projects in which those concepts must be used and exhibited. The student could design and conduct investigations, simulations, experiments, or surveys. Students could demonstrate their abilities through a series of activities or a longer term project involving either group or individual investigation, but each student must be held accountable for and assessed on her/his own representation, analysis, and interpretation of data. A teacher verification of this proficiency implies the combining of infor- mation from multiple assessments. Because the proficiency stresses varied disciplines and situations, it lends itself to cross-curricular demonstrations, particularly in science and social studies (see Science E and Social Sciences K). Demonstration of the proficiency should also involve the demonstration of process proficiencies in Analytical Thinking, Problem-solving, Technology, Quality Work, and other process or content proficiencies. (PASS Project 1996) This sample proficiency illustrates various elements of an academic standard. In doing so, it not only suggests the possible rigor or challenge that can be achieved through the use of a standard, but also the tremen- dous distance most schools would have to travel to be prepared to expect such performance from most or all students, to teach in ways that allowed students to reach this level of performance, and to assess students in a reliable and valid fashion to determine if they meet the standard. ANOTHER TYPE OF STANDARD: OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN Opportunity-to-learn standards are frequently discussed at the policy level in states and in the federal government when performance-based learning systems are being considered. The Council of Chief State School Officers (1995) states that opportunity-to-learn standards describe the circumstances and conditions provided to ensure that each student has the quality of personnel, courses, curriculum, materials, tech- nologies, instructional time, working space, financing, procedures for placement, provisions for special aid, and other services necessary to achieve content and student performance standards. LEARNING STANDARDS 137 Opportunity-to-learn standards relate not to student learning but to the conditions that surround student learning. They are among the most controversial standards, in part because they are seen by some as a possible excuse educators could use if students did not achieve stan- dards. However, they are important to consider in situations where the standards applied to students have high stakes, in other words, if achieve- ment of the standard by the student is the prerequisite for something of value (diploma, college admission, promotion to the next grade). In such cases, considerations of equity demand that all students have roughly the same opportunity to learn. This principle is relatively easy to agree upon; it is much more difficult to translate into practice. But at its most basic level opportunity-to-learn has come to mean that students have access to the rudiments necessary to perform to the expected standard: teachers who know the material, adequate physical resources, and a learning environment that can conceivably prepare them to reach the standard. Unfortunately, far too many students cur- rently lack access to even these rudimentary elements and will never be able to reach high standards. Opportunity-to-learn standards remind policy-makers that setting standards alone is not enough; simply putting the responsibility on the student does not solve the problem if the student is not given a reasonable opportunity to learn what is necessary to master the standard. The system has some responsibilities as well. TWO EXAMPLES OF SYSTEMS BASED ON LEARNING STANDARDS Learning standards are used in several areas already. Although few American schools have managed to institute a system that is fully standards-based, many students already are being judged against exter- nal standards. Advanced Placement Program. The College Board?s Advanced Placement (A.P.) program is an example of a standards-based system. While A.P. teachers are free, and even encouraged, to teach in the ways they find most appropriate given their students and their own teaching methods, all students who take A.P. classes eventually take the same test if they wish to receive an A.P. score from The College Board. The A.P. exams are developed centrally by The College Board, generally under the supervision of Educational Testing Service, and administered na- tionally. Teachers do not score their own students? exams. Instead, exams are returned to The College Board, which organizes the scoring process. Trained scorers are assembled who then review the exams and rate them 138 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING against a common scoring system on a 1-5 scale. Safeguards exist to ensure interrater reliability and validity for the scoring. Students then receive a score from 1 to 5 on the exam. Victorian Certificate of Education. The state of Victoria in Australia converted to a standards-based system in 1990. This system, known as the Victorian Certificate of Education, or VCE, applies to all students in the state. The VCE relies on Work Requirements and Common Assess- ment Tasks (CATs) that change regularly to determine student profi- ciency. Teachers are sent detailed information on new CATs as they are developed. The teachers and their students then work together to de- velop the knowledge and skills needed to perform well on the CAT. The teacher serves as a guide and coach, providing regular feedback as well as instruction. As the student?s work approaches a stage where it is ready to meet the specified criteria for the CAT under study, the intensity increases. Students submit their final work, which may be judged by their teacher, by other teachers in the school, or by teachers at other schools. Quality control is maintained through administration of the General Achievement Test, a traditional paper-and-pencil standardized-test for- mat developed specifically to provide validation of the scores Victorian students receive on their CATs. If the scores students in a particular school are receiving on their CATs are out of line with the scores predicted by their GAT scores, the work from that school is rescored en masse, and a student?s score may be adjusted upward or downward. Such quality-control measures help ensure high fidelity of interpretation of standards by Victorian teachers (Victorian Board of Studies 1995). INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL STANDARDS International comparisons of educational systems were the basis for much of the original criticism of American schools. They were found lacking when ranked against other industrialized countries in areas such as math and science. The initial frame of reference, then, for standards was that they be ?world class,? that they enable American students to compete with other children in an increasingly global economy. Setting aside for the moment the issue of the accuracy and even the significance of such rankings, standard-setters encountered a host of problems trying to develop comparable standards among national educational systems and across cultures. As Linn and Baker (1995) observed: It is relatively easy to set arbitrary cutscores on an international assessment such as the identification of selected percentiles in leading countries (e.g., LEARNING STANDARDS 139 the use of the 25th, 75th, and 90th as minimal, acceptable, and outstanding levels of achievement). However, such cutscores cannot be expected to correspond to performance standards that are derived from established content standards and a consensus judgment that the assessment evidence supports the conclusion that students have achieved at an acceptable or outstanding level. Resnick and others (1995) conducted extensive analysis of math- ematics standards in France and The Netherlands to determine both the issues involved in comparing performance between the countries and the lessons America might learn from the approach to standards taken by these two countries. They concluded it is feasible to make comparisons among countries, but that such an ?international benchmarking model? calls for a set of common questions to be posed of educational systems in comparison states: What is the structure of schooling in other countries? What are students expected to know and be able to do? What kinds of performances are used to demonstrate competence? What counts as ?good enough? in these performances? What portion of students is meeting the standard? What reform efforts are underway? Responses to these questions are used to display defining features of different systems in social, institu- tional, and cultural contexts. Other questions will have to be posed about strategies for ongoing professional development, engagement of parents, school size, and moti- vation of students to achieve. While Resnick and others are optimistic about the ultimate feasibil- ity of comparing national performance to international benchmarks, their work points out the complexity of the process. Politicians and the public have been more interested to date in ?cutscores,? simple numbers that tell which country is doing ?better? than the others. Creating comparisons that can be used in policy-making processes and public discussions will be challenging, particularly in subject areas that are inherently more culturally dependent, such as social sciences. For the time being, most of the judgments about how well students are reaching standards will likely be in the form of comparisons among states within the United States. NATIONAL STANDARDS Standard-setting in this country began in earnest at a meeting con- vened by then-President Bush and the National Governors? Association in Charlottesville, Virginia, in September 1989. The NGA, chaired at the time by Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, reached consensus with President Bush that the nation should set goals for improving the 140 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING educational system. From this bipartisan process was born in March 1990 America 2000 and its six goals, the first national goals for educa- tion. This was a voluntary approach whereby the states would be free to adopt their own standards, but the federal government funded national curriculum organizations to create model standards in seven commonly taught areas including science, geography, history, civics, English, foreign languages, and the arts. In four other areas, curriculum groups proceeded without federal funds. These goals were very general in nature and were as concerned with the processes and context of learning as with learner competencies. Only goals 3, 4, and 5 contained reference to enhanced skills and implied performance levels. The original six were: 1. All students will start school each day ready to learn. 2. The high school graduation rate will increase by the year 2000 to at least 90 percent. 3. Students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 with demonstrated com- petency in challenging subject matter. 4. American students will be first in the world in mathematics and science. 5. Every adult will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills to compete in a global economy. 6. Every school will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning. The role of national goals became more elaborate and ambitious when Governor Clinton became President Clinton. He reshaped America 2000 into Goals 2000 and created mechanisms for creating model national standards. The National Education Goals Panel had released recommendations in 1991 for a system to measure progress toward the National Education Goals. It recommended creation of ?a national assessment system to measure student achievement in key subject areas, a ?child-development profile? to gauge children?s readiness for school- ing, and a student-identification system to track students across districts and states? (Rothman, April 3, 1991). Goals 2000 continued funding for model standards begun under America 2000. It also included provisions for creating the National Education Standards and Improvement Council and an expanded Na- tional Education Goals Panel. These groups would have statutory au- thority to review standards from federal projects, states, publishers, LEARNING STANDARDS 141 local districts, and others, and determine whether to ?endorse? them or not. This plan for a federal ?Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval? for standards never came to fruition because of concerns raised about the possible creation of one set of national educational standards. STATE INITIATIVES State efforts had been initiated around the same time many of the national standard efforts were undertaken, so that by August 1995 twenty-five states had content standards developed in at least some subject areas, and nineteen states had projects in progress (Council of Chief State School Officers 1995). These projects vary in quality and level of ambition. They represent the first time states have attempted to specify the results their educational systems will achieve in terms other than test scores. Most states had curriculum objectives or frameworks, but these did not make clear what students were to be expected to know, only what was to be taught. Standards projects often translate these curriculum documents into student-performance terms and define or imply new assessment methods necessary to ascertain student skill and knowledge in the designated areas. OBSTACLES FACING SCHOOL DISTRICTS Many local school districts have developed their own standards over the past five years. These efforts have proved to be somewhat transitory for the most part. It is exceedingly difficult for one school district to enforce higher standards than other districts. Parental support may dwindle if some parents are told their children do not meet the standard, or if children bring home ?report cards? that do not contain the familiar A-F markings. Parents will be unable to compare their child?s performance to their own when they were in school, or to that of children of relatives or friends from other school districts. Many parents worry that their children will be at a disadvantage for college admission if their progress is reported in any form other than course-based grades. So, while some districts make concerted efforts to implement systemwide standards (for example, the Thompson School District in Loveland, Colorado), such efforts are difficult if they do not occur in a broader context within a state that requires districts to adopt local standards or comply with state standards. As of mid-1996 only a few states had completely implemented statewide standard-and-assessment systems, and few local districts had made the transition to standards, 142 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING except on a limited scale. Large-scale implementation remains the next challenge for standards-based education. THE FUTURE OF STANDARDS Educational standards face an uncertain future. The idea is attractive on the surface, but the reality of developing them and instituting prac- tices to support them has proved problematic. Who, then, supports standards? Legislators often do until specific groups object to specific standards. Educators may support them until they realize the amount of change required to have all students achieve them, and the possibility that schools (and teachers) might be held accountable for students not achieving the standards. Parents support them in the abstract, for other people?s children, but often become concerned if it looks like their children might not reach the standard, or if the changes required by a standards-based system might affect their children?s access to higher education. Students can hardly be expected to be the advocates for higher standards. As bored and unchallenged as some are, few see more demanding school work as the answer to their disaffection. Where can advocates look for a constituent group to serve as the champion of standards? To date, business is the primary advocate of educational standards, the group that has provided the most consistent support, from David Kearns (Kearns 1988, Kearns and Doyle 1988), former CEO of Xerox, to Louis Gerstner, former CEO of RJR Nabisco (sponsor of the Next Century Schools program) and CEO of IBM. Business has several reasons to support standards. First, the language of standards is familiar to business. American industry has had to embrace standards and quality over the past two decades to remain competitive. During this time, many industries have grown accustomed to the language and culture of standards. They have little difficulty applying these concepts to education. Second, business sees itself as a ?consumer? of the ?products? of the education system. Graduates become employees. Many business lead- ers point to the amount they spend on remediation of entry-level workers as justification enough for higher educational standards. Third, though less frequently stated, many industries simply need smarter consumers and workers to function at all. The joke about VCRs that flash 12:00 for years after they are purchased only begins to describe how products have often become more complex and consumers less competent. Companies now spend more and more on 1-800 services to explain to consumers how to use their products. A more highly LEARNING STANDARDS 143 educated consumer would be more capable of reading and understand- ing instructions, using product features, understanding what to do if simple problems arise with products, communicating with a customer representative about the nature of problems they encounter with prod- ucts, and providing feedback on how to improve products. Some Ameri- cans are certainly able to do these things, but many are not. Intelligent consumers will support intelligent products. Similarly, workers must follow more complex safety and produc- tion procedures and rules. They must be more cognizant of their actions and the implications of any errors they make. They must think, solve problems, and anticipate breakdowns for the organization, whether it is production- or service-oriented, to function effectively. Well-educated workers are now a key variable in the productivity equation. A potential third constituent group has shown only peripheral inter- est in the standards movement to date (Conley 1996). The nation?s colleges and universities have long decried a perceived decrease in the knowledge and skills that each successive class of freshmen seems to bring with it. Grade-point averages have increased more or less continu- ously since the mid-1960s, while other measures of knowledge and skill have held constant or have decreased over the same period. Grades increase but performance does not. One side effect is an increase in the proportion of students who are admitted to college as being fully qualified, but must immediately enroll in remedial courses to participate in the required program of study. It is not unusual for half the students in many colleges throughout the nation to need remediation in mathematics and nearly as many in writing. The California State University system, which by law must draw from the top one-third of the graduating class, has seen remediation rates top 45 percent. This phenomenon not only lowers the academic expectations that colleges can have for their students, but it lengthens the time students must stay in college to graduate. The cost of a college education continues to rise, and with it the expectations students and parents have of success. And as enrollment in most public colleges remains relatively constant, legislators will expect a larger proportion of admitted students to move quickly (and successfully) through the system, rather than building new campuses. Moreover, legislators find it hard to understand why college students are learning (and receiving credit for) exactly the same material they were taught in high school a year before. These forces may converge to see higher education institutions support standards as a consistent quality-control tool that does what 144 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING grades no longer do: ensure that a student is prepared to do college-level work successfully (Conley 1996b). Will the support of business be enough to sustain standards? Prob- ably not. Much depends on educators both in the public schools and in colleges and universities. Will they come to view standards as tools that make them more effective, that enhance their ability to hold students to high expectations and performances? Will teachers perceive standards as tools that help them engage students in challenging learning? Standards can provide a rationale and justification for curriculum material and tests. Furthermore, standards can provide a basis for grades that cannot be challenged or manipulated by students (or parents). If educators come to see these benefits as warranting all the difficulty involved in adopting standards, at least two constituencies will then support the implementation of standards in American schools. Educa- tors and businesses leaders may then be able to assuage nervous parents and inconsistent legislatures. If the standards movement is abandoned altogether, the future of American education is less clear, with more than 15,000 school districts, 110,000 schools, and 2,000,000 teachers essentially setting their own standards. Few other public educational systems in the world are allow- ing such variability in student performance at a time when national boundaries offer little protection from competition and comparison among nations, and the need for an educated citizenry and skilled work force within each nation is increasing dramatically. CURRICULUM CHAPTER 10 The importance of changes in curriculum may seem to be self- evident, but restructuring has yet to have a dramatic effect on this core area of schooling. Having made this statement, I also recognize that changes in curricululm take time and that the early results of curriculum- development projects begun over the past five years are just now beginning to be seen. Educational restructuring, which began with changes in governance structures, has matured into a movement that attempts to change the material students learn. Smith and O?Day (1991) discuss the centrality of changes in cur- riculum and instruction as a component of any systematic program of restructuring and the challenges that accompany attempts to restructure curriculum: Although restructuring literature stresses the critical importance of devel- oping complex problem-solving and higher order thinking skills in our youth, achieving this goal requires a major reorientation in content and pedagogy as well as in the structure of the educational enterprise. Perhaps more importantly, it requires a reconceptualization of the knowledge and skills we expect our children to learn, and of the teaching and learning process. This in turn will require that existing elementary and secondary teachers learn, and learn to teach, considerable amounts of new material in the physical and social sciences, humanities, and mathematics. (p. 234) Meaningful, long-term change in education does not occur without curriculum reform. Lewis (1991) reports results from a study of urban middle schools involved in reform or restructuring. She uses the follow- ing excerpts from an interview with Joyce Epstein to make the point that curricular reform is central to school restructuring. As Epstein points out, reform of the curriculum is a challenging, critical component necessary, but often lacking, for the transformation of urban schools: The hard work of making urban middle schools successful lies in the curriculum. This is not where schools usually begin when they consider reforms. Too many never get to this point at all and instead become enmeshed and discouraged with organizational change. Joyce Epstein of The Johns Hopkins University, studying the effects of curriculum offer- 145 146 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING ings on eighth graders, observes: ?The core?the essence?of any school is its curriculum and instruction. No matter what else is improved in the name of school reform or restructuring, if the curriculum does not chal- lenge the students or if the instructional approaches are inappropriate, the students will not learn as much as they might, nor will they develop a love for learning.... Schools usually work first on mechanical changes that are immediately visible, such as creating teams of teachers who work in wings of schools; or establishing seven-, or eight-, or 16-period days; or schedul- ing a teacher-group advisory period to discuss students? concerns and development. These are important but not sufficient reformations for improving middle grades education and increasing the success of early adolescents.? (Lewis 1991, p. 61) Underlying many of the changes in curriculum are changing as- sumptions regarding knowledge itself. One basic assumption underly- ing much curriculum?that knowledge is objective and exists indepen- dent of human thought and action?is being reexamined. ?Learning is a social phenomenon,? argues J. Murphy: New views about what is worth learning are emerging in restructuring schools. In these classrooms, the traditional emphasis on content coverage and rote learning of basic skills is being challenged by more in-depth treatment of topics and a focus on higher order thinking skills.... The teacher-centered instruction that is at the heart of the factory model of classroom instruction is giving way to growing demands for learner- centered pedagogy. (J. Murphy 1991, pp. 19-20) To examine curricular changes under way in each of the academic disciplines, in technical preparation, in school-to-career and school-to- work programs, and in various interdisciplinary models is beyond the scope of this book. However, it is possible to discuss some general trends. These include: ? attempts to strike a new balance between coverage and depth in the curriculum ? efforts to balance subject-specific information and knowledge with more general, cross-disciplinary skills ? efforts to achieve greater balance between subject-area content and intellectual processes through infusion of tasks that generate higher-level thinking ? extensive experimentation with curriculum integration ? changes in the way curriculum is developed ? the role of various national reports suggesting new conceptualizations of particular subject areas or disciplines CURRICULUM 147 ? new structures for vocational education, including technical prepa- ration and school-to-work programs ? the challenge for traditional core academic courses COVERAGE VERSUS DEPTH IN THE CURRICULUM Reformers agree that curriculum restructuring needs to address (or redress) the balance between coverage of material and depth of under- standing of material (Sizer 1984, Wiggins 1993). Howard Gardner (1991) describes the limited ability of college students majoring in physics to apply basic Newtonian principles to problems not structured like those they encounter in the classroom, or of students? compulsion to apply mathematical algorithms, to find numbers to ?fill in the equation,? to solve problems, rather than demonstrating comprehension of appro- priate and applicable mathematical concepts. While few American schools can identify an overt curriculum theory that underlies their program, most are heavily influenced by the products of textbook publishers, who, for good reason, include as much as possible on as many topics as possible. Teachers often talk of ?covering? the curriculum, perhaps not pausing to reflect that ?to cover? can mean ?to hide from sight? as well as ?to provide instruction.? As long as a school?s theory of curriculum remains unstated, teach- ers will most likely continue to cover as much as possible in as little depth as possible, since this is how effective teaching is judged. As long as this is the operative design model and norm in schools, it will be very difficult to achieve the depth of understanding it appears students will need to function in the workplace and society in the future. The debate over coverage versus depth begins with the crucial, and controversial, issue of what is worth knowing and what is the school?s rightful role in the intellectual development of the learner: The aim of precollegiate education is not to eliminate ignorance. The view that everything of importance can be thoughtfully learned by the 12th grade?notice I did not say ?taught??is a delusion. Those who would treat schooling as designed to educate students on all important subjects are doomed to encounter the futility that faced Sisyphus: the boulder of ?essential content? can only come thundering down the (growing) hill of knowledge. ...The inescapable dilemma at the heart of curriculum and instruction must, once and for all, be made clear: either teaching everything of importance reduces it to trivial, forgettable verbalisms or lists; or schooling is a necessarily inadequate apprenticeship, where ?preparation? means something quite humble: learning to know and do a few important things 148 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING well and leaving out much of importance. The negotiation of the dilemma hinges on enabling students to learn about their ignorance, to gain control over the resources available for making modest dents in it, and to take pleasure in learning so that the quest is lifelong. An authentic education will therefore consist of developing the habits of mind and high standards of craftsmanship necessary in the face of one?s (inevitable) ignorance. ...The task is to reorganize curriculums more than to add or subtract from them. The aim is to establish clear inquiry priorities within a course, around which facts are learned. (Wiggins 1989, pp. 44-47, emphasis in original) Wiggins goes on to point out that if high standards are applied consistently, not all students need to learn exactly the same thing. He also asserts that an understanding of the outcomes sought by the teacher, rather than the material to be covered, must be the starting point for determining essentials, and that ?the essentials? are not synonymous with ?the basics.? The essentials recur in different guises and levels of difficulty within a course of study and over the term of a child?s education. Wiggins also points out challenges that are arising as the goal of the curriculum changes and teachers exercise more control over curriculum development: The implication for curriculum design in all of this is profound: if the students? questions partially determine the direction of the course, it will no longer be possible to write scope and sequence lesson plans in advance. The teacher and the students must have the intellectual freedom to go where essential questions lead, within bounds set by the general questions, themes, and concepts of the syllabus. The teacher must have access to material that offers a variety of specific inquiries to pursue, with sugges- tions on how to deepen student responses and to use the text as a more effective resource. The textbook, instead of being the syllabus outline and content, would be a reference book for student and teacher questions as they naturally arise. (p. 47, emphasis in original) If curriculum reform means injecting more higher order cognitive tasks into the existing fact-based, basic-skills curriculum, this may result in even greater gaps in achievement between the ?haves? and the ?have nots?: What is particularly disturbing is that, with regard to the higher-level cognitive goals now proposed,... basic skills models may further disadvan- tage those students already at risk in our schools. While an emphasis on isolated facts and skills is unlikely to foster complex thinking skills among students generally, less-advantaged students often lack a surrounding environment that helps them fill in the gaps and draw the connections CURRICULUM 149 necessary to construct complex meaning in such situations (Peterson, 1986). (Smith and O?Day 1991, p. 240) It is difficult for many in education to rethink their assumptions about the curriculum (and their role in delivering that curriculum) at the level Wiggins and Smith and O?Day suggest. Curriculum reform is made all the more difficult by the ?fragmented policy system [that] makes substantial, widespread change in instructional practice and cur- riculum virtually impossible? (Smith and O?Day 1991). However, there are a number of attempts at significant curriculum revision already under way in several subject areas. These projects will be discussed briefly later in this chapter. Their effect on practice is yet to be deter- mined, but their impact on policy discussions has been substantial in many instances (Viadero, September 23, 1992). BALANCING CONTENT AND PROCESS As new curriculum is developed, some ask: Should students really use their time learning things they will most likely simply access electronically throughout their lives, or should they concentrate on developing the cognitive habits and skills that cut across subject areas. If the answer is the latter?the curriculum would emphasize cognitive process?then should students be exposed to a wide range of content knowledge, without being expected to know the same things? Many schools that moved first into ?outcomes-based education? have already confronted the challenge of creating a balance between transmission of content and development of intellectual processes. Some pioneering schools have encountered resistance because their communi- ties have interpreted an emphasis on cognitive skills as an abandonment of content knowledge (Davis and Felknor 1994). Attempts at statewide frameworks based on intellectual processes such as ?interpret human experience,? ?deliberate on public issues,? and ?quantify? have engen- dered similar reactions. However, at the same time, public schools are sharply criticized for failing to produce students who think. Most of the existing curriculum developed during the seventies and early eighties, the heyday of behav- ioral objectives and ?back to the basics,? is heavily oriented toward discrete, observable, measurable behaviors and competencies. This fo- cus, combined with measurement technologies and techniques that are more amenable to capturing information about low-level cognitive skills, helped ensure that classroom teaching in the eighties emphasized content knowledge, often presented in an unconnected manner. Lewis (1990) explains the impact on the curriculum of the educational reforms 150 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING of the early eighties and quotes Clune and others to support her assertion that the addition of more required courses did not necessarily lead to enhanced student thinking: The cheap, easy policy of requiring students to take more core academic subjects passed over the nation?s classrooms with hardly a ripple. Higher requirements resulted in more students, especially middle- and low-achiev- ers, enrolling in basic academic courses, according to William Clune and others [1989] in a study for the Center for Policy Research in Education. However, higher requirements ?failed in getting students into the most rigorous possible courses, in producing a reasonably uniform education for all students, and, probably, in conveying the higher-order skills necessary for a competitive economy.? (Lewis 1990, p. 534) The conception of knowledge as a tool for intellectual development and even social justice has tended to be downplayed in the decades following the sixties, when it was emphasized in some curriculum, perhaps to the neglect of more specific content knowledge. The abilities to think critically, solve a problem, present a rationale for a choice, argue convincingly for a point of view, or research an issue were not necessarily emphasized or tested extensively in the program of instruc- tion offered to the vast majority of students in the late seventies and throughout the eighties. A subset of students, generally those who were college-bound, received a program of instruction that encouraged them to develop these abilities. But the performance of these students did not seem to improve over time as they were admitted to college. In fact, the reverse seemed to be taking place throughout the seventies and early eighties. This lack of emphasis on process skills may have contributed to the fragmentation of knowledge into ?infobits,? or ?factoids? as one cable-television network calls them, and to the inability of high school and college graduates to apply much of what they had learned to real- world situations. The results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) seem to verify this conclusion. A report on the NAEP results states: The curriculum is treated as a collection of discrete content areas in which teachers move from one topic to another in lockstep fashion. As a result, lessons are often developed in isolation from one another and fail to help students relate their new learnings to what they already know. (Applebee, Langer, and Mullis 1989, p. 33) Lewis (1990) elaborates on the lessons the NAEP reports teach about the content and structure of the curriculum: The NAEP reports have been consistent in their findings about the inability of students to go beyond basic skills?their inability to elaborate, to CURRICULUM 151 synthesize, and to solve problems. While this failing is certainly related to uncreative instructional strategies, dull content is considered equally at fault. The pattern begins with the minimalism of basal readers, say the curriculum reports, and continues through secondary texts and the mini- mum competency testing that emphasizes discrete, unelaborated skills. (p. 535) One of the challenges curriculum developers in the nineties have embraced is how to use content knowledge as the framework for devel- oping key intellectual processes. How can students be motivated, first to identify the information they need for the particular learning at hand, and then to apply that information in ways that result in the information being retained and integrated into more general thinking strategies? This will be a formidable task in schools where students have fared quite well simply by reciting a minimal amount of factual information. CURRICULUM INTEGRATION Many middle schools and elementary schools have been experi- menting with increased integration of curriculum across traditional subject-area boundaries. Numerous permutations exist. In fact, the com- binations being attempted to breach the boundaries of the disciplines are too numerous to mention. Almost any combination of subject areas can be found if one looks at enough schools. A recent example of integration between art and biology at the high school level illustrates this diversity. The vigor and creativity behind this movement to develop integration of knowledge at the school level is impressive. Integrated curriculum can take many different structural forms. Vars (1991) identifies three distinctly different strategies: all-school themes, interdisciplinary teams, and core curriculum. These strategies exist along a continuum of increasing collaboration among staff on teaching duties and consensus on core elements of the curriculum itself. As agreement is reached about what students should know in broad terms, collaboration and integration can increase. If a school allows each teacher to determine individually what his or her students should learn, integration is nearly impossible. Fogarty (1991), providing even greater detail, describes ten ways to integrate curriculum: Beginning with an exploration within single disciplines (the fragmented, connected, and nested models), and continuing with models that integrate across several disciplines (the sequenced, shared, webbed, threaded, and integrated models), the continuum ends with models that operate within learners themselves (the immersed model) and finally across networks of learners (the networked model). 152 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING The fragmented model, the traditional design for organizing the cur- riculum, dictates separate and distinct disciplines.... ...The connected model... provid[es] a close-up of the details, subtle- ties, and interconnections within one discipline. While the disciplines remain separate, this model focuses on making explicit connections within each subject area.... The key to this model is the deliberate effort to relate ideas within the discipline, rather than assuming that students will auto- matically understand the connections.... ...The nested model... takes advantage of natural combinations. For example, an elementary lesson on the circulatory system could target the concept of systems, as well as facts and understandings about the circula- tory system in particular.... ...[In] [t]he sequenced model..., [a]lthough topics or units are taught separately, they are rearranged and sequenced to provide a broad frame- work for related concepts. Teachers can arrange topics so that similar units coincide.... ...The shared model... [uses] overlapping concepts as organizing ele- ments, [and]... involves shared planning or teaching in two disciplines.... ...The webbed model... usually use[s] a fertile theme to integrate subject matter, such as Inventions. Once a cross-departmental team has chosen a theme, the members use it as an overlay to the different subjects. ...The threaded model... threads thinking skills, social skills, study skills, graphic organizers, technology, and a multiple intelligences ap- proach to learning throughout all disciplines. The threaded model super- sedes all subject matter content.... Using the idea of a metacurriculum, grade-level or interdepartmental teams can target a set of thinking skills to infuse into existing content priorities.... ...The integrated model... [uses] a cross-disciplinary approach [to blend] the four major disciplines by finding the overlapping skills, concepts, and attitudes in all four. As in the shared model, the integration is a result of sifting related ideas out of subject matter content. The integration sprouts from within the various disciplines, and teachers make matches among them as commonalities emerge.... ...The immersed model... filters all content through the lens of interest and expertise. In this model, integration takes place within learners, with little or no outside intervention. [For example, A]fficionados, graduate students, doctoral candidates, and post-doctoral fellows are totally im- mersed in a field of study. They integrate all data by funneling them through this area of intense interest.... The networked model..., [l]ike a three- or four-way conference call, provides various avenues of exploration and explanation. In this model, learners direct the integration process. Only the learners themselves, know- ing the intricacies and dimensions of their field, can target the necessary resources, as they reach out within and across their areas of specialization. (pp. 61-65) CURRICULUM 153 Heidi Hayes Jacobs (1989) discusses interdisciplinary curriculum design and implementation. At one extreme are discipline-based designs where little if any integration occurs. The first stage with any functional integration is the parallel-discipline design. For example, if the social studies teacher teaches a World War II unit in the beginning of spring semester, then the English teacher will reschedule her autumn book, My German Soldier, to coincide with the social studies unit. (p. 15) Parallel-discipline design is one way to create some potential link- ages between what students are learning in one class and what they are learning in another. However, in this approach, students must integrate the material on their own after the teachers from each discipline present their lessons independently. Complementary discipline units or courses bring together related disciplines in a formal unit or course to investigate a theme or issue. This method allows curriculum to diverge from the expected or required scope and sequence associated with each individual subject area. Teach- ers plan lessons together in a much more conscious and deliberate fashion than in the parallel-discipline model. This approach can help teachers learn how to work and plan together without requiring them to move beyond their comfort level in regard to collaboration. Interdisciplinary units or courses synthesize all disciplines in the school?s curriculum. The main point is that the designers attempt to use a full array of discipline- based perspectives. The units are of specific duration: a few days, a few weeks, or a semester. This option does not purport to replace the discipline- based approach; rather, they are mutually supportive. (Jacobs) This model makes significant demands on teachers? time, on the school?s schedule, and on the overall design of the curriculum. Unless designed carefully, such experiences might inadvertently reteach con- cepts or information students have already been exposed to elsewhere. Furthermore, by and large students and their parents are unaccustomed to integration, so they will need to be educated about the value of such approaches. Integrated-day models are full-day programs based primarily on themes and problems emerging from the child?s world. This approach is seen more often in the primary grades in this country. It requires the ability to capture a large block of uninterrupted time during the school day, and often involves learning that occurs outside as well as inside the school. Each day presents its own challenges and problems. Such 154 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING approaches must be carefully planned; usually they develop over time as integrated activities expand and take on greater complexity from year to year. Rarely do they spring full-blown from a school that has little experience with integration. Completely integrated programs are rarely found in public-school settings. One of the most prominent examples is Outward Bound, where the world becomes the curriculum, and the students learn the lessons that arise as they interact with their environment in some structured, goal-oriented fashion. Needless to say, this approach requires a particu- lar kind of teacher (and student). However, for certain populations and in certain situations, this approach can work as a supplement to tradi- tional teaching and learning. Some schools have summer programs where students perform ser- vice work, perhaps in another country. These programs have the poten- tial to function as completely integrated models with careful planning and attention to appropriate learning goals. Jacobs recommends that schools combine the design options, both over the course of the school year and throughout the day and week. Schedules can accommodate a wider range of learning than single- period classes. Special times can be set aside for integrated activities. Teachers can have choices about how much integration they participate in, or at what rate they become comfortable with the notion. Rarely can schools convert to integrated models in a short time. Curriculum integration is not without its problems. Particularly at the secondary level, it generally requires collaboration between two or more adults who are expert in specific content areas. This collaboration includes joint development of curriculum (or translation of an existing curriculum into appropriate lesson format), joint planning of instruc- tional activities, agreement regarding what students will be expected to know from each discipline individually and in combination, coordinated assessment strategies, and, in some cases, joint instruction within the classroom. Creating the conditions for this level of collaboration to occur requires many adjustments in the organizational structure of most schools. It also requires adults who are inclined to operate in close collaborative relationships. This may be why there is more integrated curriculum in elementary schools, where one teacher generally delivers most of the instructional program, thereby eliminating some of the need for collabo- ration. The differential expectations of teachers for the level of special- ized content knowledge in elementary versus secondary schools may also be a factor. CURRICULUM 155 CHANGES IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT More players are becoming involved in curriculum development, once the domain primarily of textbook publishers, federally funded projects, universities, states, and large school districts. Restructuring efforts have helped stimulate renewed interest in developing and adapt- ing curriculum locally to meet the needs of students as perceived by their teachers. Rather than relying solely on textbook publishers or national efforts, such as the National Science Foundation programs of the sixties, state departments of education, small publishers, and school districts are embarking on curriculum-development projects large and small. The scope of some of these projects may turn out to be beyond their reach; however, a tremendous amount is likely to be learned about curriculum development as a result. Smith and O?Day summarize some of the problems associated with today?s textbook-based curriculum: Diffuse authority structures and multiple goals within the system foster mediocrity and conservatism both in the publishers? supply of curricular materials and in the demand generated by local educators. On the supply side, publishers respond to the lack of consistency and the market-driven approach to materials development in two ways. First, they attempt to pack all the topics desired or required by different locales into the limited space of the typical textbook. As a result, in content areas like science, literature, and social studies, textbooks end up merely ?mentioning? topic after topic, covering each so superficially that the main points and connections among them are often incomprehensible to the student. In addition, and... particu- larly in history and social studies texts, publishers deal with conflicting demands and controversial issues by watering down content, evading sensitive areas, and choosing the least common denominator among the various viewpoints. This approach often leaves the student with so little information or context that he or she is unable to construct his or her own analyses or form his or her own judgments (Tyson-Bernstein 1988, Newmann 1988). (Smith and O?Day 1991, p. 239) California and Texas signal the changing role of the textbook publishers, though each state takes a different approach. Both states have at one time or another rejected all the books submitted by publish- ers for adoption (Viadero, January 22, 1992). In Texas a conservative watchdog group uncovered numerous errors in texts. The mistakes ranged from incorrect dates to more serious errors. For example, Sput- nik was described as ?the first successful intercontinental ballistic mis- sile.? After the text publishers reviewed their books and certified them as error-free, reviewers found an additional 160 errors, including state- ments that the Emancipation Proclamation took effect in 1963 and that Britain owned parts of Mexico in 1753. 156 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING The rapid rise of computer networks and the Internet in particular is allowing curriculum development to take on a cast it has never had before. Teachers can now easily and conveniently communicate with one another and with rich resource databases. Some methods of instruc- tion require teacher-generated curriculum, such as problem- or project- based learning. As the overall education and preparation level of teach- ers continues to rise, and as high-quality staff development becomes more commonplace, more teachers are both capable of and interested in developing curriculum. This is a fundamental change from forty years ago, when teachers often entered the profession without a bachelor?s degree and expected to be told how and what to teach. THE ROLE OF NATIONAL SUBJECT-AREA REPORTS, STANDARDS DOCUMENTS, AND STATE CURRICULUM FRAMEWORKS Within the past decade, many national reports have been produced on the need to reform core subjects. These reports have stimulated a great deal of discussion among policy-makers and others in education, particularly in state departments of education, with limited impact so far at the school-site level. A notable exception is the Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, issued in 1989 by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, which has been adopted in many states as an outline for curriculum development or frameworks. Other examples of the first wave of reports from national curriculum organizations included: ? Report Card on Basal Readers, National Council of Teachers of English, January 1988 ? Democracy Through Language, English Coalition Report, 1989 ? Everyone Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Math- ematics Education, National Research Council, 1989 ? Science for All Americans: A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology, American Asso- ciation for the Advancement of Science, 1989 ? The Reform of Science Education in Elementary School, National Center for Improving Science Education, 1989 ? Essential Changes in Secondary Science: Scope, Sequence, and Coordination, National Science Teachers Association, 1989 ? Charting a Course: Social Studies for the 21st Century, National Commission on Social Studies in the Schools, 1989 CURRICULUM 157 ? American Memory: A Report on the Humanities in the Nation?s Public Schools, National Endowment for the Humanities, 1987 All these reports had one thing in common: They recommended reconceptualization of the organization and presentation of key curricu- lum elements of the various disciplines. Some went further and hinted at new models for structuring the knowledge base of traditional disci- plines, and most assumed different goals of teaching that suggested vastly different skills teachers would be expected to master. They were significant for two reasons: first, they helped generate a tremendous amount of discussion among educators within each discipline, and, second, they served as the precursors for standards documents in a number of disciplines. These reports served to provide the conceptual framework within which a number of standards projects operated. From these reports evolved documents that attempted to identify more precisely what students should know and be able to do. This second wave of documents moved from advocacy of change to specifi- cation of desired learning, an ambitious step. This meant the organiza- tions had to define what the results of their reforms would be in terms of student knowledge and skills. These documents included both standards and curriculum. Some identified what students should know and do; others described how teachers should teach these things. Some were broad outlines; others, extremely detailed documents. Kendall and Marzano (1996) review and analyze these reports and many others in a comparative fashion. They reference the first-wave reports and focus on the second wave, comparing documents prepared in widely diverging formats and styles. They review the evolution and current content of all the central standards documents available in mid- 1995. The following sections briefly summarize their analysis of work completed and work in progress as of mid-1996 on curriculum standards nationally in twelve content areas. MATHEMATICS The Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (1989) by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) ushered in a new era relative to the role of national organizations in the practice of schooling. Through the Standards document, NCTM helped to form a new perspective on how national subject-area groups can contribute to the improvement of education when it delineated, for three levels (K-4, 5-8, 9-12), a consensus on what students should know and be able to do and how that might best be demonstrated in the classroom.... This document organizes the subject area into five sections, each section provided with up 158 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING to a dozen statements presented as benchmark indicators; material identi- fied by the grade at which it should be introduced and when it should be assessed at both informal and formal levels. In addition, NCTM has recently published Assessment Standards for School Mathematics (May1995), which is organized around six standards that focus on important mathematics, enhanced learning, equity, openness, valid inferences, and coherence. The publication also provides guidelines on the use of assessments for different purposes such as to make instruc- tional decisions, monitor student progress, evaluate student achievement, and evaluate programs. (Kendall and Marzano, p. 3) SCIENCE Several important curriculum documents have been produced in science recently, including the National Science Education Standards (1995) produced by the National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. This document contains extensive materials related to the recommended standards. Additional chapters address science teaching standards, professional development, and standards for assessment, for programs, and for systems. The American Association for the Advancement of Science has produced an influential document that is somewhat different in content and structure from many other standards documents. Expanding from the framework the organization created with its 1992 document Science for All Americans, Project 2061 contains over sixty science ?literacy? goals. The report also contains goals for mathematics, technology, and the social sciences as they relate to and integrate with science. Entitled Benchmarks for Science Literacy (1993), the document includes a pre- sentation of the research base used to support the recommended goals. The goals are presented for four levels (K-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12). In addition, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) has published Scope, Sequence, and Coordination of National Science Edu- cation Content Standards (Aldridge 1995) as an addendum to The Content Core: A Guide for Curriculum Designers (Pearsall 1993). This organization has also released A High School Framework for National Science Education Standards (Aldridge 1995), which contains generali- zations in physics, chemistry, biology, earth and space sciences, and other areas organized into a framework. Each generalization is described in some detail with a list of the relevant concepts, empirical laws, and theories or models that students will need in order to acquire a solid grounding in the topic. These subsections are presented in grade sequence (9, 10-12) and include a recommended learn- ing sequence. (Kendall and Marzano, p. 4) CURRICULUM 159 HISTORY History standards have been beset by controversy. They were even attacked from the Senate floor and condemned by a 99-1 vote at one point. Criticism focused on the teaching examples contained in the document rather than the actual performance standards. The three docu- ments produced by the National Center for History in the Schools are National Standards for History for Grades K-4, National Standards for United States History, and National Standards for World History (Na- tional Center for History in the Schools 1995). LANGUAGE ARTS Efforts to produce national standards in language arts have not been successful to date. Kendall and Marzano review the history of those efforts: In the language arts, the Standards Project for the English Language Arts (SPELA) was initially funded.... Beginning in September of 1992, SPELA was designed to be a three-year collaborative effort of the Center for the Study of Reading (CSR), the International Reading Association (IRA), and the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). SPELA produced one complete draft of its standards entitled Incomplete Work of the Task Forces of the Standards Project for the English Language Arts. That draft contained five strands (Reading/Literature, Writing, Language, Real World Literacy, and Interconnections), each listing two or three standards de- scribed at a general level. This draft was to go through a number of iterations until a final document was produced. However on March 18, 1994, the U.S. Department of Education notified SPELA that it would not continue funding for the project. According to NCTE, funding for the project was halted because of a number of ?philosophical differences? between SPELA and the federal agencies. These differences included a disagreement over the inclusion of delivery standards, which was sup- ported by SPELA, and the lack of attention to specific canon of children?s literature, which was not supported by SPELA. However, the primary reason for cessation of funding appears to be the federal government?s assertion that SPELA was not attending to the basic task of identifying what students should know and be able to do in the English language arts. As noted by Janice Anderson, interim director of FIRST [the federal funding agency] at the time funding was halted, SPELA has not made ?substantial progress toward meeting the objectives? of the project. The proposed standards, she stated, ?are vague and often read as opinions and platitudes,? focus too much on process rather than content, and lack ?a coherent conceptual framework? (?NCTE/IRA Say Standards Effort Will Continue,? The Council Chronicle, June 1994). (pp. 5-6) 160 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING The NCTE and IRA continued their development efforts without federal funding, eventually producing a document along the lines de- scribed above. This project demonstrates the difficulties and tensions involved in creating standards in areas where the content knowledge is not clearly defined, where cultural values come into conflict with teach- ing methods, and where the measures of success are diverse. GEOGRAPHY The Geography Education Standards Project published Geography for Life: National Geography Standards (1994). This document is organized around eighteen standards for grades K-4, 5-8, and 9-12, in six areas: The World in Spatial Terms, Places and Regions, Physical Systems, Human Systems, Environment and Society, and The Uses of Geography. Standards are defined at each grade level by three to six activities, with accompanying exemplary ?learning opportunities.? THE ARTS Arts standards were published in 1994 by the Consortium of Na- tional Arts Education Associations. The document, prepared by the National Committee for Standards in the Arts and entitled What Every Young American Should Know and Be Able To Do in the Arts, contains standards for dance, music, theater, and the visual arts at three levels: K- 4, 5-8, 9-12. Each field has from six to nine content standards that span grade levels. CIVICS The Center for Civic Education (CCE) published National Stan- dards for Civics and Government in 1994. Standards organized around grades K-4, 5-8, and 9-12 organize major areas into over seventy content standards with associated indicators for each standard. The standards are in five areas: civic life, politics, and government; the foundations of the U.S. political system; the values and principles of U.S. constitutional democracy; the relationship of U.S. politics to world affairs; and the role of the citizen. Each area is presented as a question, and each of the five outermost questions (e. g., What is government and what should it do?) has more specific questions that organize the content standards beneath them (e.g., What are major ideas about the purposes of government and the role of law in society?). The CCE has also produced a source book of impressive scope CURRICULUM 161 and detail, Civitas: A Framework for Civic Education (Quigley and Bahmmeller, 1991), which contains more than 600 pages of information about civics. (Kendall and Marzano, p. 8) ECONOMICS As of mid-1996, work on economic standards was still under way. In April 1995, the federal government decided not to provide funding support to the National Council on Economics in Education, but NCEE chose to continue with funding from private sources. Its 1995 document, A Framework for Teaching Basic Economic Concepts with Scope and Sequence Guidelines, K-12 (Saunders and Gilliard 1995), provides a likely model for the group?s final product. FOREIGN LANGUAGE National foreign-language standards were to be available in late 1996 from the American Council of Teachers of Foreign Languages. Most recent drafts are entitled National Standards for Foreign Lan- guage Education (1995). The standards are organized under five goal areas: communicate in languages other than English; gain knowledge and understanding of other cultures; connect with other disciplines and acquire information; develop insight into own language and culture; and participate in multicultural communities. These are articulated at grades K-4, 5-8, and 9-12, with each goal containing three standards. A ratio- nale statement accompanies each goal and standard, along with sample learning scenarios for each goal by level. HEALTH The Joint Committee on National Health Education Standards pub- lished National Health Education Standards: Achieving Health Lit- eracy (1995). The report contains several standards with rationale statements and performance indicators at grades K-4, 5-8, and 9-11, and is organized by standards and by grade level. PHYSICAL EDUCATION The National Association for Sport and Physical Education pub- lished Moving into the Future: National Standards for Physical Educa- tion: A Guide to Content and Assessment (1995). Seven standards with 162 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING benchmarks at grades K, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 include rationale statements, sample benchmarks, and assessment examples. SOCIAL STUDIES The National Council for the Social Sciences (NCSS) published Expectations of Excellence: Curriculum Standards for Social Studies (1994). This document focuses on the curriculum, specifically the role social studies play in providing an overall curriculum design and com- prehensive student-performance standards within which individual dis- ciplines (for example, economics, civics, history) provide specific con- tent and concepts. The document lays out ten ?thematic strands? such as culture, time, continuity and change, and individual development and identity. Each theme is accompanied by a list of student performance expectations and associated classroom activities. In all, 241 perfor- mance expectations are described. These reports serve both as resources and reference points for individual, district, and state curriculum-development efforts. For the first time, publishers have clear reference points against which their works can be judged. These initial attempts at specifying desired knowl- edge and skills will enhance the capacity of a much wider range of people and organizations to develop curriculum, since they need not engage in a lengthy process of developing the structure of the content or a rationale for the standards they propose students master. This model stands in sharp contrast to the dominant strategies for curriculum development prevalent in the mid- to late-sixties, when large, centralized, university-based projects were the norm. For ex- ample, the National Science Foundation sponsored major curriculum- development programs in physics and biology, the School Mathematics Study Group program was being implemented, and Man: A Course of Study was developed and disseminated widely in social studies. These approaches generally employed university-based personnel to define and interpret what essentially all students should know and how they should know it. Implicit in this approach was the notion that learning experiences valid for all types of students in all areas of the nation could be designed centrally, and that teacher involvement in curriculum devel- opment was not necessary and might actually be a hindrance. These reports and the subsequent standards produced by national subject-matter organizations imply much more decentralized curricu- lum development, within broadly defined parameters. They accordingly called for much greater teacher involvement in constructing and inter- preting curriculum as a key strategy to improve student performance, CURRICULUM 163 particularly in terms of enhancing the quality and quantity of student thought. The standards encourage diverse interpretation and applica- tions by teachers. They do not define exactly what should be taught or how it should be taught. They are rich resources that present an overall conceptual framework within which extensive curriculum development can be expected to occur at the national, state, and local levels, within subject-matter organizations, colleges and universities, and school dis- tricts. State departments of education have contributed to this environment of permissive curriculum development. Many have moved away from highly structured curriculum systems replete with detailed behavioral objectives, and replaced them with more open ?curriculum frame- works.? These frameworks define the general goals and progression of the curriculum without specifying each step in the process or the exact content to be taught. Teachers in states with frameworks will have more opportunities to create their own curriculum, in part because most frameworks contain extensive resources and ideas for instruction with them. Educators will continue to be faced with the problem of finding the time to develop new curriculum and lessons, but for those who are supported in doing so, they will find their task easier than their predeces- sors did. Such efforts will not eliminate textbooks any time soon, but they will create more alternatives to texts and will hasten the redesign of curriculum that in many cases has seen few changes in twenty or more years. NEW STRUCTURES FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION Many traditionally ?applied? areas of the curriculum are experienc- ing rejuvenation or even outright reinvention. Programs in business; home economics; wood, metal, and auto shop; electronics; welding; and related subjects have in many respects remained essentially the same since their inception shortly after the turn of the century. They now face a challenge fundamentally different from that faced by ?core? academic courses. Vocational/technical courses must transform themselves to survive; they are not able to change incrementally. It will not be enough simply to develop an ?improved? woodshop curriculum, for example. The relevance of the subject itself is being called into question. Gray (1991) describes the challenge faced by traditional vocational- education programs: If enrollments are any indication, high school vocational education faces an uncertain future.... [T]he numbers peaked in 1984. Enrollments in 164 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING vocational education are now suffering widespread decline. It seems like a strange time to suggest that vocational education may be in trouble. Global economic competition has focused attention on the need to improve the quality of the American work force.... However, the very economic forces that should be creating a rosy outlook for vocational education have led to increased graduation requirements and changing student aspirations. Ironically, these forces have put vocational education curriculum at risk. (p. 437) Gray elaborates on the growing belief that vocational education must be reformed if it is to survive: A consensus seems to be developing about the directions such reform should take, starting with a new mission and a new relationship with the total high school program of study.... ...Many of us in the field are proposing that the new mission for vocational education should involve a somewhat radical departure from the past by de-emphasizing preparation for full-time employment and emphasizing instead ?tech/prep??technical preparation for two-year postsecondary technical education?along with the role of vocational education as an important instructional modality for all students.... ...The curricular structure in vocational education has remained virtu- ally unchanged for 80 years. Programs are typically organized around specific occupational titles; the content is determined by observable com- petencies (typically manipulative in nature) that are determined by a panel of experts to be related to employment in the field. While these competen- cies have changed over the years in response to changing technology, the basic structure has not. It is time that it did. Two issues seem to transcend all others: instruction should be organized around a broader occupational structure, and the emphasis on academic and workplace literacy skills and content should be increased.... ...The vocational education curriculum should be reorganized around broader?clustered?definitions of work. For example, students interested in technical careers are better served by broad instruction in electromechanics than by narrow instruction in electronics.... Obviously, an increased emphasis on tech-prep calls for an increased academic emphasis. Likewise, there is growing consensus that a loosely defined set of skills?termed ?workplace literacy??may actually be more important than manipulative occupational competencies. (pp. 443-44) Business courses, with their traditional emphasis on teaching stu- dents to use particular business machines and perform basic business tasks, find themselves increasingly unable to keep pace with changes in the workplace. It is difficult enough for schools to respond to the constantly changing technologies employed in the world of work, let alone to deal with the changing roles of workers. While it was once possible to train students in the basic use of a typewriter and calculator, CURRICULUM 165 instruct them in dictation and bookkeeping, teach them to write business letters and answer telephones, business teachers now find themselves confronting a workplace where secretaries may be expected to be ?executive assistants? with considerable decision-making responsibil- ity, where voice mail takes over a significant amount of the responsibil- ity of a receptionist, where computers directly link executive-level workers, and a letter may be written and delivered without a secretary ever seeing it. These changing roles and technologies present profound challenges to traditional business teachers, some of whom continue to insist that students learn to type first on electric typewriters, back straight, feet flat on the floor, and wrists arched. Shop teachers face a similar challenge. Their classes have been a refuge for students who do not perform well in traditional academic courses, with their emphasis on language skills and mastery of abstract concepts. ?What will become of these students without the shop?,? they ask. Shop teachers can make the case for their programs on other grounds as well. Students can apply math, solve problems, work in teams, be judged on the actual products of learning. All of these points are true, and shop is not a bad experience for children. In a world of unlimited resources, such programs might be retained somewhat longer. The issue facing educators is not the absolute worth but the relative worth of a program. Given the resources allocated to a program in terms of staffing, space, and materials, what is the return on investment? Traditional shop classes no longer produce workers with marketable skills. And even as avocational experiences, their emphasis on obsolete, esoteric, or expensive equipment limits their value for the hobbyist. Some schools are choosing simply to eliminate these programs, sometimes gradually, sometimes suddenly, rather than reform them. In other places, these teachers are developing new curricula and being retrained to offer hands-on instruction that is academically challenging at the same time. The movement away from specific skills instruction and toward more general technological principles is often described as applied academics. Other responses include ?tech-prep? education and school-to-work programs. One example of a curriculum in the tech-prep area, ?Principles of Technology,? has been adopted widely as a replacement for shop pro- grams. In this curriculum, students must master mathematical and scien- tific principles and apply them to technological problems. Students build models, solve problems, and find other ways to apply the academic concepts they are learning. 166 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING Rosenstock (1991) presents several examples of how vocational programs might be structured: Students in an automotive program, rather than learning only repair skills, can learn to establish and operate an automotive shop, study the history of the automobile, examine the transportation industry at large (including public transportation in the community), learn the underlying scientific principles of engine design and artistic principles of body design, and examine the effect of fuel economy on the environment. Instead of merely learning how to join wood, students in a carpentry shop could consider why a 2? by 4? is actually 1 1/2? by 3 1/2?, study the impact of wood harvesting on the economy of underdeveloped countries and?perhaps?learn about the effects of deforestation on global warm- ing. Carpentry students could also study weatherization of homes, redlining practices of banks, community revitalization, workers? rights, zoning regu- lations, building permits, and all the other aspects of running a construction business. (p. 436) Home-economics classes often employ a similar strategy, incorpo- rating chemistry into lessons on cooking, or sociology into studies of families. They teach about early-childhood education and, in an increas- ing number of high schools, offer day care on campus as a ?lab? for students to apply their skills. Business programs begin to emphasize ?communication? strategies over training in the use of one type of machine. They create ?executive internships? that allow students not traditionally drawn to business courses to spend time in the community as an intern to a lawyer, architect, or other professional and receive academic credit for it. O?Neil (1992a) describes what he calls the ?erosion of the long- standing wall separating academic and vocational programs.? Academic and vocational teachers create new courses jointly in areas such as algebra, geometry, chemistry, and physics through applied, ?hands-on? techniques. The inevitable result of these curricular adaptations by vocational educators is an overlap between what they do and what is taught in the ?core? subjects. Science and mathematics are taught in shop; writing is taught in business; sociology and psychology in home economics. How are issues of credit and curricular continuity resolved when this begins to occur? Which courses should count toward college admission? Par- ticularly with the movement toward applied academic courses, the distinctions between academic and vocational, between core and elec- tive, between thinking and doing, become much less clear. The result of such changes is a challenge to the underlying structure of the high school curriculum in particular, and to the notion that academic classes are the ?legitimate? intellectual core of the institution. CURRICULUM 167 SCHOOL-TO-WORK PROGRAMS School-to-work programs are rapidly developing as alternatives to traditional shop/vocational classes. These programs bring work into the school and take students out of the school to help them make the transition from school to work more gradually and successfully. The curriculum is determined by the workplace and the goals of the particu- lar work experience. Students may be developing generic work-readi- ness skills, increasing career awareness, and acquiring industry-specific skills over the course of a school-to-work program. The curriculum is usually developed in concert with members of the business community. The federal government sponsored a series of initiatives in nine states to develop model school-to-work programs in the mid-1990s. Many industry groups have taken it upon themselves to encourage school-to-work programs, as have local private-industry coun- cils, public-private partnerships, and individual schools. Businesses express interest in supporting this type of educational experience, but are only now learning how to accommodate students in the workplace and how to support work-based experiences in the schools, such as simulated work environments and school-based businesses. One example of a school-to-work program is the career-academy model. These academies are being developed around the nation and have titles such as Academy for Aerospace Technology, Academy of Finance, Academy of Travel and Tourism, Global Business Academy, and Public Service Academy. In these settings, students learn together, sharing several classes each day. Academy students meet together regularly and participate in many decisions about the academy. Clusters of teachers from both vocational and academic areas have primarily academy students in their classes during specified times. Students take classes that meet high school graduation requirements and, whenever possible, college-entrance requirements as well. In addi- tion, they enroll in occupation-related courses that focus on a career pathway. Work-readiness skills are taught in vocational and academic classes. Work-based learning opportunities are designed to create a linkage between classroom activities and experiences students have with local employers through internships. Employers participate on an advisory group to the academy. The school district provides a coordinator who is the liaison between the school and businesses. The coordinator helps organize the various work-based learning experiences that allow students to link school and work. Employers provide various types of support, both in-kind and financial, to help make the academy successful. 168 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING CHALLENGE FOR TRADITIONAL CORE COURSES Those who teach required courses find themselves in a potentially difficult position in some respects. They are unlikely to perceive the need to change their curriculum as readily as the vocational teacher. As their colleagues who teach electives begin to modify their programs, introducing relevance, problem-solving, integration and application of knowledge, and real-world experiences, students may wonder why the core academic curriculum does not contain more of these elements. Wiggins (1991) cites an example from the private sector that illus- trates the challenge faced by core-curriculum teachers: Specifications should define what it takes to satisfy the customer.... Qual- ity is the customer?s perception of excellence. Quality is what the customer says he needs, not what our tests indicate is satisfactory.... This is old news in most vocational programs, athletic departments, and many art, music, and debate classes, but it is unfortunately a novelty in the traditional academic subjects. (p. 24) Required courses may no longer have a monopoly on student enroll- ment in states that adopt academic-performance standards as overall organizers for the curriculum. In such systems, many different kinds of learning can prepare a sudent to meet the required standards. For example, traditional vocational or ?applied? courses could contain ad- equate academic material to help students meet a science or math standard. If this is the case, the course?s title no longer guarantees it will be filled with students required to check it off a list of requirements. In such an environment, extensive integration of curriculum is not only possible but almost mandatory, particularly if assessments requiring complex thinking and reasoning are employed. Students could attain and demonstrate the necessary skills through many different types of learning experiences, including some that occur outside the classroom and even outside the school. But college-admission requirements remain to legitimize the core courses in their present form. These requirements are indeed a formi- dable challenge for curriculum reformers, since many institutions of higher education are only now beginning to engage actively in issues of educational redesign and restructuring (Conley 1996b). Individual pro- fessors may have done so, and some campuses or schools of education have sponsored interesting research projects with schools attempting to restructure, but at an institutional level colleges and universities have tended not to become actively engaged in the policy discussions or issues surrounding school restructuring. Perhaps academicians view restructuring as being linked more closely to work-force preparation than to academic achievement. CURRICULUM 169 Ironically, most colleges and universities would maintain that stu- dents come to them deficient in many of the precise areas where curricular restructuring is focused. Such deficiencies include students who seem unable to read or write well, who possess poorly developed reasoning skills, minimal problem-solving abilities, little intrinsic moti- vation or initiative, and apparently little love of learning. If the types of curriculur innovations described here, combined with other changes in standards, assessment, and instruction, occur with any frequency, the students who graduate from such programs will be different in many important respects from today?s students. It will be interesting to see how universities and colleges respond to such stu- dents. At the very least, colleges and universities face challenges to the relevance and appropriateness of their own curriculums and teaching methods. They may find themselves accountable for greater change both from students and from others who provide support, including parents and legislators, who will demand to know what a baccalaureate equips a student to do; in other words, what are the standards for a bachelor?s degree? This book is not about higher education restructuring. It is worth noting, however, that a number of state systems of higher education are investigating new methods of admission that focus much more on demonstrated skills and concern themselves less with the precise course titles present on an applicant?s transcript (Conley 1994). If momentum for these more proficiency-based admission systems grows, teachers in the core college-prep courses may find they are challenged to adapt their curriculum to ensure their students can meet standards, not merely attend regularly and complete a specified amount of classwork. THE CHALLENGE FOR TEACHERS If curricular restructuring is to succeed, it appears that, to varying degrees, all teachers will need to reevaluate the content they teach and the structure of the traditional disciplines. National standards and state curriculum frameworks, combined with advances in information tech- nologies, now make it possible for teachers to be curriculum developers in ways that would have been only a dream as recently as twenty years ago. This new access to a broad array of curriculum sources and resources, combined with an emerging philosophy about the nature of the learning process and the learner?s relationship to the curriculum (which are discussed in the next chapter), may drive teachers to rethink and reconfigure the curriculum through literally thousands of small- scale development projects. 170 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING The challenge will be to create conditions that allow teachers the opportunity to think, create, and develop the content necessary to keep curriculum in synch with a changing world and keep learners engaged in learning. Teachers then can strive to implement and support a more diverse curriculum attuned to student needs and capabilities. Such a curriculum can meet standards without reverting to the ?standardiza- tion? of the curriculum that now characterizes American education, what Tyack (1974) refers to as the ?one best system.? Teachers will not be able to restructure curriculum without the existence of standards, discussed in the previous chapter, and quality assessment strategies, considered in an upcoming chapter. To have any realistic opportunity to succeed, teachers will need to operate in a system that challenges them to enable essentially all students to master complex content and to apply their knowledge to real problems and situations in order to meet standards. Schools must refrain from expect- ing teachers to teach everything worth knowing and allow them to concentrate on creating greater depth of understanding among fewer, more universal concepts and topics. The goal ought to be to help students develop the key intellectual and cognitive processes they will need to succeed in new learning situations. Teachers will need to be able to work across disciplinary bound- aries, but still retain the essence of the organization of the disciplines. They will need to be able to rethink assumptions about the importance of knowing versus doing, and the relationship between the two. And they will need to work in partnership with institutions of higher education to demonstrate that student learning can, in fact, be demonstrated more effectively in ways other than grades, course titles, and Carnegie units. Few schools, as they are currently structured, are capable of supporting teachers in these ways. This reality highlights the challenges involved in curricular restructuring. The dimension of curriculum has been considered early in this discussion, both because of its importance and because of the tendency for it to be overlooked in discussions of restructuring. Closely related in importance and difficulty is the dimension of teacher instructional philosophy and technique, which is considered next. INSTRUCTION 171 CHAPTER 11 Most changes in instruction can be subsumed under one overarching concept. It is the notion that learners must be more actively engaged in learning, developing meaning, and taking responsibility. Examples of this trend abound. They range from whole-language instruction in elementary schools to cooperative learning in secondary schools, community service in high schools, and project-centered and experiential education at all levels. Philosophically, these forms of learning are based on the assumption that learners can and must make decisions about what they learn, and they must process and interpret content individually to make it meaningful. The term used to define this idea that the learner creates meaning in individual ways is called constructivism. WHAT IS CONSTRUCTIVISM? The notion that individuals create individual meaning out of what their senses process is known as social construction of reality in sociol- ogy, phenomenology in philosophy, and constructivism in psychology (Berger and Luckmann 1966, Giorgi 1985, Luckmann 1978, Thines 1977). Educators borrow from these disciplines when referring to ?constructivist? conceptions of student learning. Constructivism can be contrasted with behaviorism, which asserts that an organism is shaped by the stimuli it encounters in its environ- ment, over time. Behaviorism implies that organisms respond in rela- tively uniform ways to similar stimuli. Constructivism asserts that human beings process stimuli in idiosyncratic ways, resulting in very different interpretations of stimuli, particularly complex stimuli. The brain organizes the response patterns differently from individual to individual. Therefore, it is difficult to predict how an individual will react to a stimulus in any given situation, since each person processes stimuli differently and even the same individual responds differently to different stimuli. 172 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING O?Neil (1992b) describes the influence the constructivist perspec- tive has had on curriculum development and reform during the past several years, then summarizes the key elements of constructivism: Constructivist views strongly influenced the ?whole language? movement in English, the curriculum standards developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and new recommendations on effective science practices issued by the National Center for Improving Science Education (NCISE). The key tenet of constructivist theory, experts say, is that people learn by actively constructing knowledge, weighing new information against their previous understanding, thinking about and working through discrep- ancies (on their own and with others), and coming to a new understanding. In a classroom faithful to constructivist views, students are afforded numerous opportunities to explore phenomena or ideas, conjecture, share hypotheses with others, and revise their original thinking. Such a class- room differs sharply from one in which the teacher lectures exclusively, explains the ?right way? to solve a problem without allowing students to make some sense of their own, or denies the importance of students? own experiences or prior knowledge. (p. 4) Brooks (1990) describes constructivism as a means for educators to combine two distinct but potentially complementary educational tradi- tions: (1) the mimetic, in which students are expected to acquire facts and skills from drill and practice exercises, and (2) the transformative, a type of teaching that seeks to influence the attitudes and interests of the learners, evoking changes in perspective. In the mimetic tradition, teachers dissemi- nate knowledge, and students receive it. In the transformative, the student is the actor, and the teacher is the mediator [Jackson, 1986].... Alone, either extreme is insufficient preparation for a world that demands specific knowledge and skills, but also attitudes and interests conducive to vision and creativity. The primary question for the teacher... is how to help students build a foundation of skills and information while they simultaneously use their creative, intellectual abilities to solve real problems and incidentally de- velop positive dispositions toward such endeavors. The powerful concept of constructivism can help us find solutions to this question. Constructivists believe that knowledge is the result of individual con- structions of reality. From their perspective, learning occurs through the continual creation of rules and hypotheses to explain what is observed. The need to create new rules and formulate new hypotheses occurs when the student?s present conceptions of reality are thrown out of balance by disparities between those conceptions and new observations. Constructivism describes an internal psychological process. In the classroom, students and teachers negotiate both their means of acquiring credibility as members of a group and their emerging understanding of the INSTRUCTION 173 content of the curriculum. These negotiations occur as each participant actively seeks to learn about himself or herself, the other group members, and the content of the course. In this process, each person is continuously checking new information against old rules, revising the rules when discrepancies appear, and reach- ing new understandings, or constructions of reality. In psychological terms, the old rules are the existing cognitive structures. When the old rules and the new information collide, the checking process generates cognitive disequilibrium. The revision is the accommodation that occurs when new rules or new internal cognitive structures are required to replace the old ones, which no longer explain reality. The new understandings are stops along the path of learning that occur when equilibrium is temporarily restored. This process occurs in both the teachers and the students, in both academic and social contexts. (pp. 68-69) Leinhardt (1992) states that when the social nature of teaching and learning are considered, attention must be given to both the knowledge possessed by the individual and the knowledge shared by the group. What kinds and amounts of knowledge students bring to a learning situation cannot be ignored. These factors affect how the student con- structs meaning from the material presented. Prior knowledge does not necessarily mean a child?s readiness to demonstrate prerequisite skills, but encompasses the depth of understanding and interconnectedness of the knowledge, and the ease with which the child can access it. Knowl- edge is much more than building blocks of information. It is a complex network of ideas, facts, principles, actions, and perceptions. In the following examples, Leinhardt illustrates the role of prior knowledge and social construction of reality in learning: How we read a text is influenced by what we expect (from previous experience) to find there and how that material is parsed. Thus, a headline such as Vikings Cream Dolphins has a different meaning depending on whether we are thinking about the eating habits of ancient seafarers or about U.S. football teams. Similarly, if one believes that light emanates from an object (as many naive science students seem to believe), then science textbook diagrams such as those showing dotted lines between the human eye and a perceived object have a different meaning and interpreta- tion than they would if one believed objects are seen because of reflected light. (Leinhardt 1992, p. 21) Leinhardt explains the core assumptions many modern researchers have about learning and considers the implications of these assumptions for schools as learning communities: First, learning is an active process of knowledge construction and sense- making by the student. Second, knowledge is a cultural artifact of human beings: we produce it, share it, and transform it as individuals and as groups. Third, knowledge is distributed among members of a group, and 174 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING this distributed knowledge is greater than the knowledge possessed by any single member. One pedagogical problem is how to use knowledge of facts, principles, actions, and representations that is available within the group?or class- room?to help individuals and groups gain more knowledge. Proposed solutions include an emphasis on ?authentic? tasks. Another view on this, though, is to consider a school as having its own social system with its own artifacts and sense of authenticity. In such a culture of ideas and meanings, thought and reasoning are valued for themselves, not only for what they can do in the ?real world.? Both conceptions, however, suggest powerful changes in the dynamics of class- rooms, changes that lead to learning. (pp. 23-24) Brophy (1992) helps create a linkage between the teacher-effects research of the seventies and eighties and the constructivist thinking of the nineties. As one of the leading teacher-effects researchers in the seventies and eighties, he helped identify many specific teacher behav- iors that led to enhanced student achievement as measured generally by standardized or criterion-referenced tests. These behaviors and tests, however, ?focused on mastery of relatively isolated knowledge items and skill components without assessing the degree to which students had developed understanding of networks of subject-matter content or the ability to use this information in authentic application situations.? He notes the limitations of the notion that such teaching and learning is all that should occur in schools and discusses the shift in the focus of current research on subject-matter teaching from the teacher?s behavior to the student?s vital role in constructing meaning: Current research, while building on findings indicating the vital role teachers play in stimulating student learning, also focuses on the role of the student. It recognizes that students do not merely passively receive or copy input from teachers, but instead actively mediate it by trying to make sense of it and to relate it to what they already know (or think they know) about the topic. Thus, students develop new knowledge through a process of active construction. In order to get beyond rote memorization to achieve true understanding, they need to develop and integrate a network of associations linking new input to preexisting knowledge and beliefs an- chored in concrete experience. Thus, teaching involves inducing concep- tual change in students, not infusing knowledge into a vacuum. (Brophy 1992, p. 5, emphasis in original) Brooks and Brooks (1993) present five ?guiding principles? of constructivism. These suggest the ways in which a learning environ- ment could be structured to be consistent with the tenets of constructivist learning theory. Such an environment would be characterized by teach- ers who: INSTRUCTION 175 1. Pose problems of emerging relevance to students. The teacher guides, or mediates, students? investigations by helping them decide what is a good problem. This often will involve learning relatively fewer things in greater depth, taking the time necessary to explore and compre- hend a complex topic based on the students? developmental level. Students must be able to transfer and apply learning in other settings, rather than fragmenting or compartmentalizing it. Students must be encouraged to change their minds when it is appropriate to do so. 2. Structure learning around primary concepts: the quest for es- sence. Concepts are presented to students as wholes that students come to understand by breaking them down into their component parts, rather than the other way around. Teachers transfer responsibility for learning to the learner by encouraging self-initiated inquiry, then providing appropriate supplies, materials, and physical surroundings, then mediat- ing the process. ?Structuring curriculum around ?big ideas? and broad concepts provides multiple entry points for students; some become engaged through practical responses to problems, some analyze tasks based on models and principles, and others interpret ideas through metaphors and analogies from their unique perspectives? (p. 58). 3. Seek and value students? points of view. This process begins by acknowledging relativity, that other perspectives exist and may be valid ways of comprehending and knowing. Teachers respond to this observa- tion by creating opportunities for multiple points of view to be expressed and valued in the classroom. Students are asked to elaborate, to expand on their initial statements, but without the goal of having the student produce a ?right? answer. 4. Adapt curriculum to address students? suppositions. Teachers learn how to assist students to examine their untested assumptions and suppositions, rather than simply tell students they are wrong and present them with the truth. Young children have many suppositions that make perfect sense in many respects. It is not the job of education simply to destroy these at the earliest opportunity, but to help students use these early suppositions as a starting point for more complex understandings that students attain themselves, enhancing their confidence in their ability to construct and modify their world view over time. 5. Assess student learning in the context of teaching. The focus of assessment moves from ?rightness? and ?wrongness? to an understand- ing of the learning process that is taking place in the classroom, so that both teacher and student learn as a result of assessment. Nonjudgmental feedback is one tool to help create such an atmosphere. Another way is to embed assessment within the learning task so that learning and assessing occur in tandem. 176 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING CONSTRUCTIVISM AND SCHOOL RESTRUCTURING Many different approaches to school restructuring contain constructivist elements, either implicitly or explicitly. Sizer?s Coalition of Essential Schools lists among its basic principles the notion that the student should be viewed as a worker and the teacher as coach, nonpar- allel metaphors that convey the idea that the student must have consid- erably more control over learning. Students are viewed as active partici- pants, not products. The teacher?s role as coach implies guidance rather than control as a primary means of garnering desired performance. There is a greater sense of partnership in the endeavor of learning than is engendered by the image of teacher as boss. Sizer (1991) describes the current state of instruction and some of the tradeoffs of giving students more control over learning: Today, most of the teachers, rather than the students, ?do the work.? We present material and expect merely that students will display back to us that to which they had been exposed. Not surprisingly, the kids forget much of what they learned in a matter of months. They were not engaged. They did not have to invent on their own. They saw little meaning to their work. So,... we must change the curriculum from display-of-content to ques- tions-that-ultimately-provoke-content. Press the kids to do the work, to solve the problems presented. The cost? It takes longer to provoke kids to learn for themselves than it does to deliver content to them. The differences among the students become glaringly manifest when each is made to perform. A teacher cannot, thus, easily plan to ?finish Mao Tse-tung by Friday?; the kids don?t all master the matter at precisely the same rate. (p. 33, emphasis added) This idea of deriving the curriculum in some measure from the questions or interests of the learner represents a fundamental departure from the thinking that prevailed in the late seventies to mideighties, an era in which behavioral objectives defined the structure of learning and teaching to a significant degree. McCune (1988) presented similar ideas in her early descriptions of how instruction in a restructured school would differ from instruction in a traditional setting: ? Schools must extend the methods of instruction and provide a significantly greater amount of time in interactive activities. ? Schools must move away from the teaching of facts as the out- comes or ends of the learning process and use facts as the means for developing information-processing skills. ? Schools must help students to relate information across subject areas and to real-world issues. INSTRUCTION 177 It is important to note that constructivist notions of learning do not imply that students will simply play at learning, retaining whatever they might glean from their activities. The goal is not simply to make learning enjoyable, though that can be a frequent collateral outcome. The goal is to cause students to learn and develop deeper understanding and greater retention of the concepts they come to understand and the knowledge they employ to achieve understanding. The movement to- ward high-content curriculums can succeed only if instructional tech- niques that foster greater comprehension and retention are also em- ployed. According to Lewis (1991), instruction in a school with a high- content curriculum has the following characteristics: ? Consciously teaches higher order thinking skills. [Joyce] Epstein?s re- search on eighth graders concludes that ?students generally benefit in skills and behavior in math and English from higher level math instruc- tion and more difficult reading and writing activities.? ? Constructs active learning opportunities. Students need to be discover- ing, rather than receiving, knowledge. Teachers need to be coaches and facilitators. ? Makes greater use of original source materials. High content minimizes the dependence on textbooks, especially because they do not usually contain rich multi-perspectives on the curriculum for urban students. Using richer resources for instruction also supports the first two points, allowing students to deal with higher order thinking and become active researchers themselves. ? Integrates and interrelates subjects and disciplines. Early adolescents? cognitive growth leads them to integrate their knowledge, to get mean- ing from a whole perspective. Working across disciplines, teachers can match the other three characteristics of high content instruction to the development of their students. (pp. 62-63) What is interesting about the current movement to reshape school- ing is that the recommendations being espoused by educational reform- ers have some similarities to those being presented by the business community and governmental leaders calling for changes in teaching and learning?both have elements of constructivist notions to some degree. For example, consider the report discussed earlier,Workplace Ba- sics: The Skills Employers Want, prepared in 1990 by Carnevale, Gainer, and Meltzer for the American Society of Training and Development and the U.S. Department of Labor?s Employment and Training Administra- tion. Its description of the new ?basic skills? for American workers is similar to the types of things many progressive teachers have been trying 178 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING to do for years. It seeks to develop employees who know how to learn and are motivated to do so, who can listen and convey a clear response, who have positive self-esteem and personal goals, who can get along with their peers, and who demonstrate leadership and motivation in their interaction with peers. These behaviors describe learners in firm control of their own learning, who possess initiative, and who are actively participating in the construction of their learning and of their social reality. If students have opportunities to explore and practice such skills during their formal public education, there is a greater likelihood that they will demonstrate those skills in the workplace. The implications are profound for a system of education that for most of its history has been working on perfecting mechanisms for controlling individual behavior and thought. It should be carefully noted that the implications for the workplace, which has had similar goals, are at least as profound, and that many employers may not really want workers who think critically, any more than educators may. It would be naive to suggest that there is anything approaching complete congruence between the agendas of educational reformers and business leaders. Many business people still value the ?practical? di- mensions of education and assume the need for a strong emphasis on ?basic skills,? though the definition of these basic skills is shifting, as noted. However, the potential for significant dialogue between educa- tors and business people regarding what constitutes effective educa- tional practice appears at least possible if not promising. EXAMPLES OF CONSTRUCTIVIST INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES Many examples of changes in instructional practice that reflect the incorporation of constructivist perspectives could be offered. Coopera- tive learning represents a case in point. Its popularity has soared during the past decade. It has had to overcome concerns that it would under- mine traditional American values of competition, that individual stu- dents would not be accountable for their own learning, and that high- achieving students would be dragged down or held back by the group. It appears that teachers who adopt cooperative learning have been able to respond successfully to these concerns. Cooperative learning is an example of a teaching strategy that helps teachers adapt to more heterogeneous groups of students, and at the same time the strategy produces solid gains in achievement and prosocial behavior (Slavin 1990c). Traditional teaching techniques do not seem to have the same potential for enabling essentially all students to achieve INSTRUCTION 179 successfully in school. If schools want all students to succeed and be able to demonstrate their learning in terms of what they can do, not just what they know, techniques such as cooperative learning will be central to the achievement of this goal. Slavin (1991), in a review of the research on cooperative learning, presents the following summary of the effects of cooperative learning based on an examination of high-quality research studies: Overall, of 67 studies of the achievement effects of cooperative learning, 41 (61 percent) found significantly greater achievement in cooperative than in control classes. Twenty-five (37 percent) found no differences, and in only one study did the control group outperform the experimental group. (p. 76) These changes in instructional theory and technique have implica- tions for staff development and teacher retraining that have not been addressed adequately by reformers. Slavin suggests that only 10 percent of teachers are employing cooperative learning (Willis 1992). Such a low level of adoption of a teaching technique that has clear power to improve upon current practice, after nearly a decade during which high- quality training in the technique has been available, illustrates the magnitude of the challenge facing education. If the 1990s are to be a decade during which teachers transform their instructional practices to ensure that essentially all students can perform at high levels, how can current practice and best practice remain so far apart? Whole-language approaches to literacy development are another example of the application of constructivist notions both to curriculum and instruction in an integrated fashion. The organizing principle of whole-language instruction is individual interpretation and meaning- making by the learner. The teacher facilitates learning through the creation of environments and experiences that allow the learner to make choices, construct meaning, create products, and extend understanding, in both individual and social settings. This method can be contrasted to structured approaches to reading instruction, as represented by basal reader series, that define and control the nature and pace of understand- ing of material for students. Many other instructional techniques contain constructivist elements, and interest in these techniques appears to be increasing, based on discussions at professional conferences and articles in subject-area journals. Examples of these techniques include ? personal goal setting, where learning is based on the goals of the learner or at least where the learner must describe the learning experience in relation to personal interests 180 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING ? simulations and role-plays, which by their very nature engage students actively and are based on student interpretation and meaning-making ? project-centered learning, a technique that has been popular with gifted and talented students for some time (for example, science fairs and programs such as Odyssey of the Mind) and is based on student- developed projects as the focal point both for instruction and assessment ? case-study approaches, including problem-based learning, where stu- dents are presented a body of information that describes a real-world situation and must answer questions and solve problems related to the situation ? work-based experiences, community service, internships, job shadows, and other methods that engage the student directly with the world outside the school, giving each child a unique experience ? other forms of ?situated learning? or ?contextual learning? where the student engages in learning-by-doing under the guidance of the teacher or other adult with expertise These techniques all argue for student involvement and engagement in learning at a much higher level than direct-instruction techniques prevalent in perhaps most American classrooms. Such approaches ap- pear particularly promising (in combination with well-designed and well-implemented uses of direct-instruction techniques) as vehicles to engage at-risk youth and to enable them to develop the more sophisti- cated thinking skills and social strategies necessary for success beyond school. CHALLENGES THAT CONSTRUCTIVISM FACES Constructivism faces several major challenges. The theory itself is complex and somewhat difficult to transfer into practice, particularly when contrasted with behaviorism, which lends itself to step-by-step educational programs more easily followed by educators. Many of those who advocate constructivism have become ?cheerleaders? and do not base their recommendations firmly in research findings or the reality of schools and children. Some people wonder if constructivism is advocat- ing a kind of moral relativism, an ?anything goes? view of the curricu- lum whereby learners can reach any conclusions they like simply be- cause they ?construct? it personally. Others express concerns that constructivism is poorly suited to basic-skills instruction and to the needs of students who require more structure and accountability in the classroom. Another problem has been the tendency to view constructivist and behaviorist learning theories as a dichotomy. Human learning naturally INSTRUCTION 181 contains elements of both theories in varying combinations, depending on the situation and the nature of the material to be learned. Human beings order and retain information in a variety of ways. Therefore, it makes sense for schools to employ a range of instructional strategies rather than to adopt a philosophical position and pursue it regardless of its effects on students. This is probably true for any philosophical position. Some parents and community members believe that the curriculum should reflect clearly agreed-upon facts and ways of thinking about things that all young people should internalize. Those who hold this point of view worry that, under the guise of constructivism, schools are telling children to reach any conclusion they wish about any topic. In situations where the home and community have clear beliefs that are not to be questioned, people may feel threatened by what they perceive as relativism. An extreme interpretation of constructivism can cause chaos in classrooms where students naturally seek guidance, both in terms of the specific things they are to do, but also in terms of how they are to think. Schools may say they do not teach values, but education is impossible without values, even if they are only concepts such as courtesy, honesty, civility, and cooperation. There is a natural tension between constructivism and ?absolutist? educational philosophies that must be acknowledged. At some levels the differences are not resolvable. At others they are. Students can be taught to identify moral dilemmas and to use their own values to reach deci- sions in such situations. A constructivist approach can decrease the ?dogmatic? view of science and the ?absolutist? view of certain scien- tific theories held by academics and some educators. When students are allowed to reach their own conclusions, they are just as likely to reaffirm their values as to question them. Constructivist curriculum can coexist with more absolutist belief systems, if the limits of each are delineated clearly and educators, parents, students, and community members agree generally on those boundaries. Constructivism requires much of teachers as well. They must be sophisticated curriculum developers or adapters for this approach to succeed. By definition, textbooks are not adequate teaching tools for constructivist learning environments. Most teachers lack the time to create the conditions under which a wide range of learners can create personal meaning. Furthermore, those learners tend to consume learning experiences and materials at a rapid rate when they are operating in a constructivist mode. 182 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING Exactly the opposite can occur as well. Teachers may either not understand constructivism or perhaps cynically employ it as a rationale for simply letting students do what they please. These teachers may not plan at all, under the guise that the students have to create the meaning. When this occurs, teacher accountability is reduced, and the blame is often placed on the students for their lack of achievement. Beyond this set of challenges lie others. Current testing programs are based on the assumption that everyone has been taught roughly the same things and, as a result, can be expected to know roughly the same things. From a constructivist point of view, all students might be explor- ing the same topic, but they would not all be expected to learn the same things as a result. This creates problems when the standardized tests come into play. It creates similar problems when trying to sequence a curriculum (such as a second language) where the teacher may need to know that certain things have been learned. Those who understand constructivism fully point out that it is still possible, indeed necessary, for the teacher to provide the overall struc- ture of the learning and for learners to emerge with similar knowledge and skills, even if they follow different paths toward some common goal. This key distinction is lost on many who assume that students construct meaning without any overall structure within which they process learning experiences. A skillful teacher provides a structure wherein students? construc- tions lead them to similar skill development. In writing, for example, where there are many things about which students can write (construct personal meaning), there is also a common technology and structure (grammar, syntax, and so forth) that must be present in every personal construction. In mathematics, students might choose a range of interest- ing problems to investigate and then reach individual solutions. But each student must draw from the same algorithms and rules in order to structure the problems. Students may need structured instruction to master the basic tools of computation. Such instruction can occur simul- taneously with problem-solving, with the sophistication of the problems and independence of the learner increasing as basic mathematical tools are mastered. Reading is perhaps more controversial because of the split between phonics and whole language. But even here, many phonics programs acknowledge the importance of moving beyond drill-and-practice to the construction of meaning as students begin to read more complex texts. Unfortunately, some constructivists overlook the need many students have for a structure, a scaffold, within which they can acquire specific INSTRUCTION 183 decoding skills, tools they can use subsequently to create and construct meaning. Constructivism is a sophisticated concept, one that requires a skilled teacher and a supportive educational environment. Its effects are not often as immediate as more behavior-based instructional methods, and, as will be discussed in the next chapter, the assessment methods are nowhere near as well developed as those for behaviorally oriented teaching. Ironically, many of the current and emerging technologically based methods of learning are inherently constructivist in nature, and cannot be pursued using behaviorist methods. Finding the proper mix between behaviorist and constructivist learning models is a process educators have just begun, one that is causing considerable conflict within schools and communities unfamiliar with the uses and requirements of constructivism. The difficulty with a movement toward constructivist notions of learning is not merely the task of equipping teachers with new strategies, though this alone is a significant challenge. For a school to adopt constructivist principles fully requires ?restructuring? of teaching and learning at a fundamental, not a surface, level. Will teachers come to accept the notions that it is all right not to ?cover? the entire curriculum, that students will not ?know? exactly the same things at the conclusion of a course, that the student is actually in charge of the learning process in a fundamental sense, and that the teacher?s most promising role is that of facilitator? These are profound shifts in the frames of reference of people who function within an institution that allows them to maintain relatively stable world views (Pace 1992). The challenge is not just to transform practice, but to restructure basic assumptions about learning and learn- ers. The difficulty of this transformation should not be underestimated. 184 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING ASSESSMENT CHAPTER 12 184 It may appear a bit jarring to separate the discussion of standards from that of assessment by the two intervening sections on curriculum and instruction. A case can certainly be made that there is a very close linkage between outcomes and assessments, which there is. At the same time, the two should not be confused. An assessment determines achievement of a standard, and there can be many ways to do this. The standards themselves, however, serve to drive decisions about curriculum, instruction, and other related pro- cesses. The process of identifying standards, in the model being de- scribed here, precedes these other decisions, including the choice of assessments. In reality, this is rarely the case, since curriculum, instruc- tion, and assessment already exist. Once standards have been established and agreed upon, discussions of the proper assessment tools can take place in a more informed environment. Assessment can be designed so they provide useful infor- mation to teacher, student, and parent about performance relative to district (or state) standards, to district curriculum objectives, and to individual learner goals. This rational, linear approach is rarely fol- lowed, in part because standards and assessments exist de facto, even if they are not adopted in some formal fashion. The fact they already exist means that any changes in these areas have immediate, direct implica- tions for teaching and learning practices. The adoption of standards and assessments aligned with the standards signals changes in curriculum and instruction. If the types of changes in curriculum and instruction that have been described in preceding sections take hold in American education, they will be accompanied by changes in assessment of a similar magnitude. If new ways to measure content knowledge and cognitive skills are not developed, the effects of new curriculum and instructional methods will not register very well on current tests, the limits of which are discussed next. ASSESSMENT 185 SOME LIMITS OF CURRENT ASSESSMENT APPROACHES The current testing technology, from the classroom to the national level, is built largely on assumptions about the curriculum and methods of instruction employed in classrooms that may no longer be as univer- sally true as they once were (Bradley, April 5, 1995). Most current tests are designed to provide an accounting of the factual information re- tained by students. These methods of testing are based on considerations of efficiency and have close ties to the behaviorist notion that all learning can be disaggregated into a series of measurable units and that the sum of the performance on the subunits accurately measures the full scope of what is known by the student. These tests may have high reliability (that is, perform similarly in different situations) but low validity (they may not measure what is actually being taught); in other words, they tell us a great deal about things that may have very little to do with what students actually know and are able to apply. They provide little insight into the ways in which discrete pieces of information are combined, or integrated, by the learner to solve real-world problems or to serve as the stepping stones to new learning experiences. O?Neil (1992b) describes how behaviorist notions affected the ways in which instruction has been organized and assessed: Popularized by B.F. Skinner and others, the behaviorist view of learning, when translated by schools, was characterized by lengthy lists of measur- able behavioral objectives and tightly sequenced curriculums. Knowledge and skills were broken down into smaller and smaller bits, under the assumption that mastering simpler steps would add up, in the end, to complex thinking. These ?bits? tended not to be placed in the context of an authentic problem situation, and students had difficulty applying what they had learned in new contexts. Little attention was given, moreover, to the conceptions and misconceptions that learners held about the skills or knowledge being introduced; so misconceptions frequently resurfaced after the learning task concluded. (p. 4) These concerns are confirmed by the results from a three-year $1 million study sponsored by the National Science Foundation and con- ducted by researchers at Boston University (Rothman, October 21, 1992). The study reviewed standardized-achievement tests and the tests contained in textbooks through the use of three strategies: (1) an item- by-item analysis of the six most widely used standardized-achievement tests along with a sample of textbook tests in science and math in grades 4, 8, and high school; (2) a questionnaire administered nationwide to 2,229 math and science teachers in grades 4-12; and (3) interviews with 199 math and science teachers and 90 building-level administrators in six urban districts. The researchers found that the tests emphasized 186 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING thinking and content at the levels of knowledge and comprehension. Very few questions measured conceptual knowledge, problem-solving, or other forms of higher order thinking. Darling-Hammond and others (1995) offer a critique of traditional standardized testing, citing their limitations in a series of areas: Standardized Tests Are Limited Measures of Learning Multiple-choice tests do not evaluate student performance on actual tasks, such as reading, writing, or problem-solving in various subject areas, and they are poor measures of higher order thinking skills.... Most traditional standardized tests do not reflect current understand- ings of how students learn. They are based on an outmoded theory of learning that stresses the accumulation and recall of isolated facts and skills. They do not reflect current knowledge that people learn in meaning- ful and purposeful contexts by connecting what they already know with what they are trying to learn (Gardner, 1993; Kantrowitz & Wingert, 1989; Resnick, 1987). ?Thinking skills? are the foundation for building ?basic skills,? not the other way around, as many testing programs assume. Furthermore, real skills must be demonstrated in complex performance contexts, not on tasks demanding only recognition of discrete facts.... (p. 6) Overuse of Such Tests Narrows the Curriculum Because test scores are used for so many different purposes, they often exert great influence on what is taught, leading to a narrowing of the curriculum.... This leads to an overemphasis on superficial content cover- age and rote drill on discrete skills at the expense of in-depth projects and other thought-provoking tasks that take more time.... (p. 7) Standardized Tests Are Poor Diagnostic Tools Because most traditional standardized tests provide only a limited measure of a narrow aspect of learning or development, they are poor predictors of how students will perform in other settings, and they are unable to provide information about why students score as they do.... This promotes a view of children as having deficits that need to be remediated rather than as having individual differences, approaches to learning, and strengths that can be supported and developed.... An additional factor contributing to the inadequacies of standardized tests for diagnostic and placement purposes is that they do not reflect or capture the diversity of students? backgrounds and experiences. Because they often contain assumptions and facts that are grounded in the context of the dominant culture?and fail to include relevant forms of knowledge from other cultures?the tests place students from nondominant cultures at a disadvantage in demonstrating what they know and can do (Garcia & Pearson, 1994; Medina & Neill, 1988). (p. 7) Influences of Tests on Teaching and Learning These shortcomings of American tests were less problematic when they were used as only one source among many other kinds of information ASSESSMENT 187 about student learning, and when they were not directly tied to decisions about students and programs. However, as test scores have increasingly been used to make important educational decisions, their flaws have become more damaging.... The results of this phenomenon can be seen in U.S. students? perfor- mance. Since about 1970, when standardized tests began to be used for a wider variety of accountability purposes, basic skills test scores have been increasing slightly while assessments of higher order thinking skills have declined in virtually all subject areas. Officials of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the National Research Council (NRC), and the National Councils of Teachers of English and Mathematics (NCTE and NCTM), among others, have all attributed this decline in higher order thinking and performance skills to schools? emphasis on tests of basic skills.... More than a decade ago, the NAEP attributed its finding that only about 5%-10% of high school students can actually explain or defend their points of view to the fact that most reading tests emphasize short responses and lower level cognitive thinking (NAEP, 1981). (p. 8) AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT AND SOME ATTEMPTS TO DEVELOP MORE AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT TOOLS Many terms have been applied to the newly emerging forms of assessment, but the term authentic assessment has been used rather broadly by those engaged in developing alternative methods of assess- ment. These alternatives are frequently called ?authentic? assessments because they engage students in ?real world? tasks rather than in multiple choice exercises, and evaluate them according to criteria that are important for actual performance in that field (Wiggins, 1989). Such assessments in- clude oral presentations or performances along with collections of stu- dents? written products and their solutions to problems, experiments, debates, and inquires (Archbald and Newmann, 1988). They also include teacher observations and inventories of individual students? work and behavior, as well as of cooperative group projects (NAEYC 1988). (Dar- ling-Hammond and others 1995, p. 10) If expectations for student learning shift from measuring what students can repeat to demonstrating what they can do, the technology of testing will have to shift or evolve accordingly. This process of develop- ing new methods, though still in its infancy, has made impressive strides lately. Experts in the field of assessment suggest that five years may be a minimum period necessary to develop new assessment tools (Rothman, March 20, 1991). Eva Baker, codirector of the federally funded Center 188 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, believes it will take from five to ten years to develop and implement this new technology. She expresses concern over the ability of teachers to learn and implement new measurement techniques in the context of their existing responsibilities. This strategy, however, assumes that development must be done by large research centers under the support of multimillion-dollar grants. While this sort of development effort may be valuable, particularly for creating alternatives to standardized achievement tests, it is likely that much, perhaps most, of the development work on new assessment techniques will take place at the state and district levels. The U.S. Department of Education is encouraging this effort through its support of the State Alternative Assessment Exchange, which is housed at the Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing and cosponsored by the Coun- cil of Chief State School Officers. The exchange provides a central data- base and clearinghouse for alternative assessment strategies developed by states. (Rothman, March 13, 1991) School districts and schools are experimenting with methods of alternative assessment. This is not as unreasonable as it might first appear; if the results are not to be used for comparison between and among school buildings or districts, that is, if they are not high-stakes tests, then there is considerable latitude in the technical standards that need be applied to such development projects. If the data from the tests are going to be used by districts primarily for internal decision-making and for program improvement, then entirely different processes can be employed to develop these tests. Teachers can become much more centrally involved in assessment design to ensure that the results of assessments are of value to teachers. This is not to say that standards of reliability and validity should be abandoned. In fact, teacher involvement can help improve validity in particular by helping to identify what needs to be assessed early in the design process. In the debate on assessment, it is becoming increasingly clear, however, that slavish adherence to the illusion that current assess- ment tools are objective and rational can be dangerous. Data from those assessments can be used as the basis for program decisions and, in some unfortunate cases, student academic placements. Test-makers are not necessarily to blame, since they often inform school personnel of the limitations of their instruments. And teachers, for their part, often find themselves in the unenviable position of either using marginally rel- evant test data or using no test data at all as the basis for making decisions. They cannot be faulted for selecting what often appears to be the lesser of two evils. ASSESSMENT 189 EXAMPLES OF ASSESSMENT STRATEGIES While large-scale projects are being undertaken by states, universi- ties, and large research centers to develop new performance standards and new assessment tools and strategies, many educators at the district and school-site levels are actively involved in creating their own stan- dards and assessment methods. They are not content to wait until the large-scale projects, with their long timelines for development and their tendency to produce a horse by committee, are ready for use. Two school-based research projects (Rogers and Stevenson 1988) explored a variety of techniques for assessing student work. Assessment on a fifth-grade social studies unit included the following methods: ? Small-group interviews. In small group discussions with an adult, stu- dents are asked to explain what they have learned. The level of student understanding is probed and explored through these discussions. ? Situational pictures. Children view a picture of a situation that illustrates the conflict caused by the application of some right (a nativity scene on public property being taken down two weeks before Christmas), and are asked to discuss its significance and meaning. ? Card sorts. Students are provided information about key governmental roles and institutions and are asked to sort them into piles labeled ?most important? and ?least important,? and to provide a rationale for the decisions they make. ? Learning logs. Students describe in a notebook the most important thing they learn each day, identify areas where they are confused, and so forth. ? Leader snapshots. Students view pictures of key government figures and then attempt to identify them and tell what they do. ? Open-ended versions of conventional tests. Students provide extended explanations to more traditional questions. After answering an agree/ disagree question, students list examples and provide justification for agreeing or disagreeing. (pp. 69-70) The alternative strategies used to assess student learning from an eighth-grade unit on the poet Robert Frost were of a very different nature. A series of longitudinal tests and interviews was employed. Beginning with a test given immediately following the completion of the unit, researchers returned periodically throughout the semester and readministered elements of the original test. They also interviewed students. The results of this procedure provided insight into what stu- dents actually retained over time from a unit where they scored well on the initial posttest. In addition, the assessment captured student percep- tions and motivations related to the learning experience. This type of information is useful, not only to students, but to teachers, who can use 190 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING the feedback the next time they prepare to teach the same material. Teachers often lack this type of information and mistakenly interpret the posttest results as an accurate gauge of student learning, as do the students. A strategy that involves public demonstration of work by groups of students is exemplified by the Rural Educational Alliance for Collabora- tive Humanities (REACH) Program?s use of an exposition for students from ten project sites to display their work (Barone 1991). The REACH Program encouraged students to explore their personal and community history and the culture of their rural community to help foster a sense of connection among the students, the school, and the community. Stu- dents produced writings, interviews, dramatic presentations, and media productions. These were presented at a two-day ?exposition,? along with portfolios demonstrating student work such as poetry, stories, and collections of essays that demonstrated the students? progress. Portfolios of student work have been proposed as a potentially powerful tool for gauging student growth, encouraging self-analysis, and helping students to develop a sense of ownership and pride in their work. Paulson, Paulson, and Meyer (1991) provide guidelines for schools that are interested in using portfolios to reflect student progress: 1. Developing a portfolio offers the student an opportunity to learn about learning. Therefore, the end product must contain information that shows that a student has engaged in self-reflection. 2. The portfolio is something that is done by the student, not to the student. Portfolio assessment offers a concrete way for students to learn to value their own work and, by extension, to value themselves as learners. Therefore, the student must be involved in selecting the pieces to be included. 3. The portfolio is separate and different from the student?s cumulative folder. Scores and other cumulative folder information that are held in central depositories should be included in a portfolio only if they take on new meaning within the context of the other exhibits found there. 4. The portfolio must convey explicitly or implicitly the student?s activi- ties; for example, the rationale (purpose for forming the portfolio), intents (its goals), contents (the actual displays), standards (what is good and not-so-good performance), and judgments (what the contents tell us). 5. The portfolio may serve a different purpose during the year from the purpose it serves at the end. Some material may be kept because it is instructional, for example, partially finished work on problem areas. At the end of the year, however, the portfolio may contain only material that the student is willing to make public. ASSESSMENT 191 6. A portfolio may have multiple purposes, but these must not conflict. A student?s personal goals and interests are reflected in his or her selec- tion of materials, but information included may also reflect the inter- ests of teachers, parents, or the district. One purpose that is almost universal in student portfolios is showing progress on the goal repre- sented in the instructional program. 7. The portfolio should contain information that illustrates growth. There are many ways to demonstrate growth. The most obvious is by includ- ing a series of examples of actual school performance that show how the student?s skills have improved. Changes observed on interest inventories, records of outside activities such as reading, or on attitude measures are other ways to illustrate a student?s growth. 8. Finally, many of the skills and techniques that are involved in produc- ing effective portfolios do not happen by themselves.... [S]tudents need models of portfolios, as well as examples of how others develop and reflect upon portfolios. (pp. 61-63) HOLISTIC ASSESSMENT WITH RUBRICS Another popular method of integrated performance assessment is holistic assessment. Generally applied to writing samples or student demonstrations in which it is important to consider the learning as a whole rather than as a series of component parts, holistic assessment generally relies on the use of a scoring rubric to determine student performance. The rubric contains specific descriptions of behaviors and evidence of performance an observer can use to analyze and categorize the student?s performance along a continuum, usually designated by a numeric scale of 1 to 5, with five representing the highest, most compe- tent, and most complex level of performance. One of the advantages of the rubric method of scoring is that it can be developed and applied by teachers. The behaviors identified as the focal point for observation in most rubrics are ones that can be grasped relatively easily by educators, students, parents, and community mem- bers. They also can generate discussion about what it is students should know, and at what levels and by what means they should demonstrate mastery of this knowledge. An advantage of using rubrics is that they signal the outcomes necessary for success beforehand; learners don?t have to guess what they must do to be successful. Furthermore, the rubric can be applied to preliminary drafts or be used throughout a course of study to provide formative feedback to the learner indicating clearly what he or she must do to improve performance. Such feedback can be more valuable and useful than a score of 64 or 72 on a test. 192 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING The standard for success is identified before the fact, as well. A 3 on a scale of 1 to 5 might be designated as meeting the school?s standards for mastery. Schoolwide profiles of student performance that are more descriptive than test scores can be developed and provided to teachers to help them pinpoint deficient areas to be addressed in the future. Schoolwide profiles also enable parents to understand what students can and cannot do as demonstrated by the assessment. This knowledge helps in the process of identifying school-improvement goals. Mark Twain Elementary School in Littleton, Colorado, created a rubric to judge written reports produced by fifth-graders as one element of an assessment process that also required them to research a topic, create a visual presentation relevant to the research topic, and deliver an oral presentation three to five minutes in length. Each element of the process was assessed separately, and a separate rubric was employed to assess the oral presentation as well. The written report was assessed employing the following five-point rubric: 5 - Excellent: The student clearly describes the question studied and provides strong reasons for its importance. Conclusions are clearly stated in a thoughtful manner. A variety of facts, details, and examples are given to answer the question, and provide support for the answer. The writing is engaging, organized, fluid, and very readable. Sentence structure is varied, and grammar, mechanics, and spelling are consistently correct. Sources of information are noted and cited in an appropriate way. 4 - Very Good: The student adequately describes the question studied and provides reasons for its importance. Conclusions are stated in a thoughtful manner, but with less clarity and insight than in an Excellent rating. A sufficient amount of information is given to answer the question, and provide support for the answer. The writing is engaging, organized, and readable. Sentence structure, grammar, mechanics, and spelling are gener- ally correct, and sources of information are appropriately noted. 3 - Good: The student briefly describes the question and has written conclusions. An answer is stated with a small amount of supporting information. The writing has a basic organization although it is not always clear and sometimes difficult to follow. Sentence structure and mechanics are generally correct with some weaknesses and errors. References are mentioned, but with some adequate detail. 2 - Limited: The student states the question, but fails to fully describe it. The answers and/or conclusions given are vague, and basic information may be lacking. The writing generally lacks organization and is difficult to follow. There are many errors of sentence structure and mechanics. Refer- ences may or may not be mentioned. 1 - Poor: The student does not state the question. No answer or conclusion is given. The writing is disorganized and very difficult to read. Sentence ASSESSMENT 193 structure and mechanics are consistently weak. References may or may not be mentioned. 0 - No written report is made. (?Mark Twain Elementary: The Peak Performance School,? Littleton Public Schools) PERFORMANCE DEMONSTRATIONS The performance demonstration is yet another form of holistic assessment. Walden III, an alternative school in Racine, Wisconsin, with a long history of performance assessment, has developed what they title a ?Right of Passage Experience? (ROPE). This process has served as a model for other schools. The model contains the following dimen- sions: All seniors must demonstrate mastery in fifteen areas of knowledge and competence by completing a portfolio, a project, and six other presenta- tions before a ROPE committee consisting of staff members (including the student?s home room teacher), a student from the grade below, and an adult from the community. Nine of the presentations are based on the materials in the portfolio and the project; the remaining six presentations are devel- oped especially for the presentation process. The Portfolio: The portfolio, developed during the first semester of the senior year, is intended to be ?a reflection and analysis of the graduating senior?s own life and times.? Its requirements are: 1. A written autobiography, descriptive, introspective, and analytical. School records and other indicators of participation may be included. 2. A reflection on work, including an analysis of the significance of the work experiences for the graduating senior?s life. A resum? can be included. 3. Two letters of recommendation (at minimum) from any sources chosen by the student. 4. A reading record including a bibliography, annotated if desired, and two mini-book reports. Reading test scores may be included. 5. An essay on ethics exhibiting contemplation of the subject and describ- ing the student?s own ethical code. 6. An artistic product or written report on art and an essay on artistic standards for judging quality in a chosen area of art. 7. A written report analyzing mass media: who or what controls mass media, toward what ends, and with what effects. Evidence of experi- ence with mass media may be included. 8. A written summary and evaluation of the student?s course work in science/technology; a written description of a scientific experiment 194 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING illustrating the application of the scientific method; an analytical essay (with examples) on social consequences of science and technology; and an essay on the nature and use of computers in modern society. The Project: Every graduating senior must write a library research- based paper that analyzes an event, set of events, or theme in American history. A national comparative approach can be used in the analysis. The student must be prepared to field questions about both the paper and an overview of American history during the presentations, which are given in the second semester of the senior year. The Presentations: Each of the above eight components of the portfo- lio, plus the project, must be presented orally and in writing to the ROPE committee. Supporting documents or other forms of evidence may be used. Assessment of proficiency is based on the demonstration of knowledge and skills during the presentations in each of the following areas: 1. Mathematics knowledge and skills are demonstrated by a combination of course evaluations, test results, and work sheets presented before the committee, and by the ability competently to field mathematics ques- tions asked during the demonstration. 2. Knowledge of American government should be demonstrated by dis- cussion of the purpose of government; the individual?s relation to the state; the ideals, functions, and problems of American political institu- tions; and selected contemporary issues and political events. Support- ing materials can be used. 3. The personal proficiency demonstration requires the student to think about and organize a presentation about the requirements of adult living in our society in terms of personal fulfillment, social skills, and practical competencies; and to discuss his or her own strengths and weaknesses in everyday living skills (health, home economics, me- chanics, etc.) and interpersonal relations. 4. Knowledge of geography should be demonstrated in a presentation that covers the basic principles and questions of the discipline; identifica- tion of basic landforms, places, and names; and the scientific and social significance of geographical information. 5. Evidence of the graduating senior?s successful completion of a physi- cal challenge must be presented to the ROPE committee. 6. A demonstration of competency in English (written as well as spoken) is provided in virtually all the portfolio and project requirements. These, and any additional evidence the graduating senior may wish to present to the committee, fulfill the requirements of the presentation in the English competency area. The above is drawn from the 1984 student handbook, ?Walden III?s Rite of Passage Experience,? by Thomas Feeney, a teacher at Walden III, an alternative public school in Racine, Wisconsin. Preliminary annotations are by Grant Wiggins. (Cushman 1990, p. 10) ASSESSMENT 195 This complex, multidimensional form of assessment has also been adapted to an urban setting by Central Park East Secondary School in New York City. Students there compile a portfolio that must contain the following elements: 1. Postgraduate Plan 2. Autobiography 3. School/Community Service and Internship: evidence of accomplish- ments 4. Ethics and Social Issues: project or presentation 5. Fine Arts and Aesthetics: exhibition 6. Mass Media: project 7. Practical Skills: evidence of mastery from world outside school 8. Geography: performance assessment 9. Second Language and/or Dual Language: competence demonstration 10. Science and Technology: test and performance demonstrations 11. Mathematics: state competency test and project 12. Literature: texts read and sample essays about literary works 13. History: state competency test or faculty-designed test and overview of areas studied and timeline, and historical research 14. Physical Challenge: demonstration or documentation of participation or proficiency in team or individual physical activities SENIOR PROJECTS The senior project is another form of assessment that is being put into place at high schools throughout the country. In general, the senior project is meant to be a ?capstone? experience that provides an avenue both for demonstration and celebration of the student?s knowledge and skill in an area of interest to the student. Senior projects vary from school to school, but most follow a similar structure and progression. Darling-Hammond and others (1995) describe the senior project at Hodgson Vocational Technical High School. Students follow a five- step process: 1. Select an advisor and project committee members. Students begin this process at the end of their junior year. Student and advisor work to identify a project committee that serves as both resource and judge. In addition to teachers, individuals from the community may serve on the committee if the students invite them. 2. Select a topic. Students are encouraged to challenge themselves and investigate topics of genuine interest to them. Some must begin by 196 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING examining carefully what their interests truly are. If students succeed in selecting a topic in which they have high interest, they will be more able to do the hard work and meet the demanding standards of the senior project. 3. Research the topic and prepare the research paper, the product, and the oral presentation. Students must use many skills to complete these three tasks. They develop their researching and writing skills and are expected to write and rewrite their research paper. It must be clear and logical and include all the structural features of a carefully constructed research paper. The students then actually produce something, a model that illustrates their research. They then prepare their oral presentation. 4. Make a formal public presentation before the project committee. The presentation is not less than ten minutes or more than thirty minutes. Students may then be questioned by the committee, a process that may go on an additional half-hour. Students find this aspect of the senior project the most daunting and anxiety-inducing. At the same time, some of the most powerful learning has resulted from this requirement. 5. Receive a final evaluation from the project committee. Each compo- nent of the senior project, research paper, product, and presentation receives a grade that meets a school requirement in shop and English. Committee members apply consistent, common criteria for scoring the public presentations: content (30 points), organization and plan of work (30 points), communication skills (30 points), and personal appearance (10 points). Each committee member scores the presenta- tion on these criteria. THE PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES FACED BY NEW ASSESSMENTS New forms of performance assessment are exciting in many ways and challenging in many others. Researchers and educators are learning how to use various assessment strategies effectively. In all cases, assess- ments are powerful tools that operate to affect a number of educational dimensions at once. Teaching methods, instruction, teacher training, even the school?s schedule have to be reexamined when new assessment methods are put into place. Furthermore, not only must teachers master these new techniques, but students and their parents must come to understand them and accept them as valid replacements (or supple- ments) for traditional measures, such as standardized-achievement test scores and teacher-generated letter grades. For example, portfolio assessment has shown great promise as a tool to enhance student engagement in learning and to extend teaching ASSESSMENT 197 beyond rote tasks to more complex dimensions, such as problem- solving and indepth writing and research. When used exclusively as a tool to determine progress within a teacher?s classroom, the portfolio has few problems. It functions at least as well as a traditional grade. But when it is used to judge students against common standards external to the classroom, it encounters a series of problems. Herman and Winters (1994) outline these challenges while also suggesting solutions exist. They note that some of [the] technical issues can probably be most easily solved if portfolio tasks are closely specified and highly standardized. But, in seeking technical rigor, we need to be sure not to lose the appeal of the portfolio concept. (p. 54) The research suggests students maintain the same relative perfor- mance on portfolios as on traditional standardized measures; girls do better than boys, and disadvantaged or minority students do worse than advantaged or white students (LeMahieu and others 1995, Hearne and Schuman 1992). Yet, teachers report positive effects from portfolios. The require- ments of the portfolios led Vermont teachers to devote more time to problem-solving, mathematical patterns and relationships, an increased emphasis on mathematical communication, and more small-group work (Koretz and others 1992). Results are mixed when the first attempts at large-scale portfolio review are considered. Vermont had difficulty achieving acceptable levels of reliability among teachers? portfolio scores during the first year. This was due in part to the wide variance in the student work that was included in the portfolios and the limited training teachers received about how to score. However, in Pittsburgh, the ARTS PROPEL project in visual arts, music, and imaginative writing allowed wide discretion in what students contributed to the portfolio and was still able to achieve interrater agreement correlations from .60 to .70 and a generalizability estimate of interrater agreement in the .80 range when a piece was reviewed independently by two raters. Furthermore, in Vermont reli- ability increased in subsequent years, sometimes dramatically. For ex- ample, interrater reliability for eighth-grade math portfolios increased from .53 to .83 (Viadero, April 5, 1995). Why was one portfolio assessment more reliable than another? While research is just beginning to accumulate on this question, early results suggest that 198 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING consensus depends on clearly articulated criteria, effective training, and rubrics that reflect shared experience, common values, and a deep under- standing of student performance. (Herman 1994, p. 51) In survey research conducted by the Rand Corporation, teachers in Kentucky and Maryland, two of the states with the most comprehensive commitment to new assessment methods, responded that they believed some schools had found ways to improve test scores without improving student learning. Only 15 percent of teachers surveyed believed higher test scores were the result of increased student learning. At the same time, 81 percent of Maryland principals believed resistant teachers had changed their approaches as a result of the assessment. Teachers made other changes as well: In writing and math, the new tests seemed to be achieving the goals of the reformers who designed them. Teachers said they had shifted away from teaching ?mechanics? such as grammar and spelling, for example, to emphasize communication, analysis, and other higher-order skills. (Viadero, April 17, 1996) However, the goal of raising all students to high standards was apparently not being met. Most teachers indicated they had not in- creased their expectations for special-education and low-achieving stu- dents. At the same time, over 70 percent of Maryland teachers and 80 percent of Kentucky teachers believed the testing program was helpful for these groups of students. Researchers noted that the tests were still being implemented in both states and that educators were only now becoming completely familiar with them and with the implications for change that the assessments engender. CALIFORNIA California?s experience with a dramatically different state assess- ment system, CLAS, demonstrates other difficulties new forms of as- sessment have encountered. By attempting to have students write and by collecting information on student attitudes as well as skills, the test aroused criticism on several sides. It ran into sampling problems that rendered the data largely useless for their primary purpose?determin- ing school-level performance. Simultaneously, some of the questions it asked students about their attitudes raised the concerns of parents who felt the state was infringing on their privacy. In the end, an assessment that had attempted to create a new measure of learning and new targets on which teachers and students could focus was abandoned after only one year, leaving California at the time without a state-level assessment program. ASSESSMENT 199 MARYLAND Maryland has implemented statewide assessments linked to school improvement in its elementary schools in grades 3, 5, and 8. The initial board policy to develop the system was adopted in August 1989. This led to the creation of The Comprehensive Plan for the Maryland School Performance Program in February 1990. Local districts began in 1992 to follow prescribed procedures for school improvement based on per- formance assessment and other data. The assessments cover material in reading, writing, language usage, mathematics, science, and social studies and are performance-based. Criterion-referenced tests emphasize higher order thinking skills, prob- lem-solving, and integration of knowledge. Performance tasks are also used as a part of this program. The Maryland School Performance Assessment Program sets statewide standards for achievement that each school?s improvement team is responsible to use to make decisions about the instruction and school programs needed to help students meet the achievement standards. Each school must develop a plan to address the areas in which standards have not been met. The sixth annual Maryland School Performance Report, released December 12, 1995, shows that Maryland?s schools are making steady and substantial progress toward meeting the state standards. The state improved in 21 of 31 report areas between 1994 and 1995. Students made gains in 16 of 18 perfor- mance assessment areas.... Across all Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP) areas, satisfactory scores increased from 31.7 percent in 1993, to 35.3 percent in 1994, to 39.7 percent in 1995. In 1993, 113 schools were approaching or meeting standards in grade 3 mathematics; in 1995 nearly 300 schools reached that status.... ...In 1995, only 61 schools?7.7 percent?were far from standards. On the school system level, all but one school system improved in at least 10 of the 18 content area categories....(Rosenberger 1996, p. 9) KENTUCKY The Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) instituted wide- spread changes in assessment practices. Schools were required to assess students using a ?primarily performance-based assessment program to ensure school accountability for student achievement? (Kentucky De- partment of Education 1990, p. 233). This resulted in a multistage development process that began with the creation of a transitional 200 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING assessment system consisting of a writing portfolio, performance event, and transition test administered at grades 4, 8, and 12. The twelfth-grade portfolio, for example, contained the following: 1. Table of contents 2. Best piece, chosen in collaboration with the teacher 3. Letter to reviewer written by the student explaining why she/he se- lected the best piece and how the piece was developed 4. One short story, poem, play, or personal narrative 5. Two prose pieces from content areas other than English or Language Arts, the purpose of which will be to predict an outcome, defend a position, evaluate a situation, or solve a problem 6. A personal response to a cultural event, public exhibit, sports event, media presentation, or to a book, current issue, math problem, or scientific phenomenon (B. Steffy 1993, pp. 56-57) In addition to state assessment, each district must develop its own ?continuous assessment program to evaluate how students were pro- gressing toward the state-assessed benchmark? (Steffy 1993). The tran- sitional system served as the basis for the system that was subsequently put into place, which relied on a similar mix of portfolio, demonstra- tions, and criterion-referenced tests. The Kentucky Institute for Educational Research conducted an evaluation of the assessment program to determine its implementation and use by teachers. The extent to which performance assessment is occurring in the class- rooms of the teachers selected for this study varies considerably both within and across schools. Observers found a range of differences in terms of understanding what is required of a particular type of assessment and how it should be implemented. Understanding and utilization of specific innovation components varied from teacher to teacher. There is confusion about the meaning of terms used to describe different types of performance assessment. Terms such as ?performance task,? ?portfolio task,? and ?culminating performance? are often used interchangeably.... KIRIS [Kentucky Instructional Results Information System] is having a major impact on the use of performance assessment in the classrooms of teachers at the selected schools. However, the use of performance assess- ment for many teachers is primarily in preparation for KIRIS tests rather than as an integral part of their daily instruction. Multiple forms of assessment including oral and written open-ended questions, performance events, portfolio assignments, skills tests, and conferencing are used by seven of ten teachers surveyed. More than half ASSESSMENT 201 used some type of open-ended questions within the scope of an instruc- tional unit. Nine of ten teachers reported using oral and written, open-ended questions on a regular basis and eight of ten teachers reported using portfolio tasks within units of instruction.... Differences in the setting of standards for performance assessment were observed among elementary, middle, and high school levels. Elemen- tary teachers display student work most frequently as a standard-setting mechanism. High school teachers are the most likely to provide students with standards in advance and to use scoring rubrics on assessments. High implementors of performance assessment use assessment to drive instruction, use technology and hands-on manipulatives more frequently, provide challenging and engaging assessments, and provide content that covers multiple Kentucky Learning Goals and Academic Expectations. These areas are the greatest predictors for implementation. High implementors of performance assessment use open-ended, writ- ten questions and portfolios [sic] tasks more frequently. However, types of assessments tend to vary independently of the other components that were measured and by themselves are not good predictors of effective imple- mentation. New teachers report higher uses of performance assessment in instruc- tion than more experienced teachers. For example, 95 percent of teachers with one to five years? experience report using performance events within units of study. The extent of use of performance events drops to 70 percent for teachers in the range of six to ten years and to 50 percent for teachers with more than ten years of teaching experience. (School of Education, University of Louisville 1995, pp. xii-xiii) Kentucky?s assessment system is designed primarily to establish school-level accountability for student learning, not as a high-stakes system for student promotion or graduation. However, schools have objected that the results of the assessment are not accurate reflections of what their students have learned, particularly those schools whose students have fared less well than would have been expected. Technical problems with sample size and other reliability issues have clouded the system?s utility as a means to distribute funds to reward high-perform- ing schools and to intervene in schools that are not progressing toward their improvement targets in a timely fashion. OREGON By contrast, Oregon?s Certificates of Initial and Advanced Mastery (CIM, CAM) and its Proficiency-based Admission Standards System (PASS) are designed to make determinations about individual students. 202 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING These three performance-based systems plan to use a combination of assessment methods in three basic categories to award two certificates to students around ages sixteen and eighteen, and to determine readiness for college admission. Although the requirements for each are slightly different, they will overlap to a high degree. There are three primary dimensions for assessment. 1. Criterion-Referenced Tests. These will be developed by the Oregon Department of Education in consultation with the Oregon State System of Higher Education and will yield data in content areas prima- rily for the CIM and CAM and secondarily for college admission (PASS). 2. Common Assessment Tasks. Districts will have considerabe discretion selecting which task to use to meet CIM, CAM, and PASS requirements. For each Common Assessment Task, students respond to the same prompt statewide and are scored against the same standards. These tasks are complex in nature and can be interdisciplinary. They may involve writing a research paper, conducting an investigation, or solving a complex problem. 3. Teacher Verifications. Many areas of student performance will be verified by teachers, who are to apply common standards throughout the state to determine if student work samples demonstrate required levels of performance. Considerable work will be required to ensure teachers? judgments are consistent from school to school. Ongoing training combined with validation panels that rescore work from ran- domly selected schools each year will help preserve adequate reliability. Assessment is facing a series of challenges. The most important one is how it will be used. The methods that yield the best information to students and teachers rarely serve the needs of policy-makers and vice- versa. As assessment becomes more of a high-stakes proposition for students, parents, and educators, all groups can expect to raise issues about the technical quality of the assessments or simply to mount political efforts to overturn them if these new assessments result in too many students failing them, are threatening to the way things are done, or show the school in a bad light. A high standard backed up by an authentic assessment can be a driver for improved learning, but at first many students and schools are likely not to do well with the system. Scores will not be high enough, and pressure will be applied either to lower required scores or modify the assessments. It will always be easy to set standards, but far more difficult to sustain the effort needed over time to see that student- learning gains as demonstrated on authentic assessments continue until desired performance levels are reached. ASSESSMENT 203 RISING DEMAND FOR ACCOUNTABILITY The preceding pages provide examples of both issues and tech- niques in assessment. The process of developing such assessments is complex, yet critical to the success of school restructuring. Without clearly defined standards and assessment methods, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate accountability in restructured learning environments. Parents, policy-makers, and the public at large appear less likely to tolerate a system of public education that lacks adequate accountability procedures and measures. In fact, public policy seems to be moving toward increasing ac- countability for public schools. This appears to be due at least in part to the continuing accretion from the local to the state level of the responsi- bility for financing local school districts as more courts find state educational financing schemes unconstitutional. Additional impetus for accountability comes from the expectation, held by a growing number of people, that governmental agencies and programs are responsible not just to provide services, but to achieve results, to make a difference, and to meet client needs if they are to justify their continued funding. THE CHALLENGE OF CHANGING THE CENTRAL VARIABLES Many restructuring schools launch some sort of project or change in school organization or structure and identify this as restructuring. Oth- ers take a broader view and develop a vision, mission, and key strategic directions. Missing from both approaches is the development of perfor- mance standards and appropriate assessment methods?what students will be able to do upon completion of an education and how such learning will be judged. As discussed earlier, performance standards can provide a framework within which appropriate assessment strategies can be selected or developed. Once standards and assessment strategies are identified and agreed upon by a school faculty, the changes that need to be made in the structure of the school and the content and organization of the curricu- lum and instructional program become much clearer. This process of working from standards to program structure allows for a more rational process to be followed to determine which projects should be launched to restructure the school; it also establishes a framework within which all new ideas and proposals can be debated and analyzed by all faculty. Such a conversation is not an easy one, particularly for faculty members who are not accustomed to discussing substantive issues 204 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING related to standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Ultimately, such issues are rooted in values. Members of the school community must ask themselves: What is worth knowing? How is it best taught and assessed? If faculties and communities can reach some agreement on what young people should know, and how they should be expected to demonstrate their ability to apply what they know, the work of restruc- turing moves from a strategic level to a tactical one in which the primary question becomes: How can the school best be organized to ensure that the desired standards are achieved by essentially all students? Such an approach challenges the traditional isolation of teachers. It suggests that teachers will have to teach in ways that will meet certain agreed-upon standards. As schools currently exist, few mechanisms help or cause teachers to think in terms of how their work relates to what other teachers are doing, have done, or will do. Performance standards arrived at through dialogue and discussion will tend to drive instruction in a school and will require considerable communication, cooperation, and collaboration among faculty for students to succeed. These norms may not be embraced with enthusiasm by teachers accustomed to working in isolation. Furthermore, these discussions are difficult because they may call into question the value of a particular area of the curriculum or method of teaching. In some cases the threat goes even further, with certain existing subject areas not being represented in the standards that are developed and approved. A process such as this is terribly difficult to conduct successfully in an environment such as a school (or school district) where there is a high premium on maintaining harmony, where many administrators pursue this goal over all others. The development of standards that result in accompanying changes in curriculum, instruction, and assessment will be very challenging for districts to do on a voluntary basis when motivated only by the goal of professional improvement of practice. In most cases, standards will have already been developed at a state level and the school will be asked how to achieve them. In some states, schools will be given a broad framework of standards and asked or required to adapt them to their particular school. Processes of this nature are highly political in nature and require a political context conducive to change. Elements of such a context are considered in part 4. The preceding four dimensions?standards, curriculum, instruc- tion, and assessment?constitute the core of schooling. They are the areas that must be addressed sooner or later for substantial improvement or change in education to be achieved. They are also the areas most difficult to change. This is true in part because many of the changes ASSESSMENT 205 described in these four chapters require teachers (and administrators) to examine many of their assumptions about learning and learners, about what constitutes valid educational experiences, and about how learning should be organized. Change is also hindered by the lack of resources for staff develop- ment and release time that would give teachers the opportunity to engage in the type of thoughtful analysis and planning necessary to rethink teaching and learning, and to develop new curriculum materials, teaching skills, and assessment strategies. Lack of adequate vision and leadership by those in administrative positions can make change of this nature much more difficult, or impossible. 206 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING LEARNING ENVIRONMENT CHAPTER 13 206 Amultitude of projects and experiments seek to change the learning environment. I define the learning environment as the ways in which students are organized for instruction, including grouping pat- terns, grade levels, and other organizing strategies and instructional settings. For example, many elementary schools are experimenting with multiage groupings of various types, are having groups of students stay with a teacher for more than one year, and are working to integrate students from pullout programs into the regular classroom. Secondary programs are experimenting with schools-within-schools, community- based education, and the elimination of tracking. Why is it important to examine the structure of the learning environ- ment? As noted earlier, most schools are essentially bureaucratic in structure. This aids in making schools more efficient but can hinder the personal interactions so critical to the learning process. Stockard and Mayberry (1992) summarize the research on effective educational envi- ronments and indicate the importance of both cognitive and affective dimensions of the learning environment: In effective learning environments, students and teachers have positive feelings about their work setting. High morale appears to bolster the self- confidence of both teachers and students and promote positive attitudes and expectations about teaching and learning abilities.... That is, academic achievement is enhanced when the normative struc- ture of the group integrates high academic expectations with learning processes that emphasize interdependence, cooperation, and an orderly learning environment characterized by warmth, concern, and respect of others. (pp. 34-35) Many of the efforts to change the learning environment are attempts to achieve a better balance between these sometimes conflicting needs for order and warmth. The challenge is to create an environment in which all students feel valued and challenged simultaneously, where they enjoy being at school but also achieve academically. Stockard and Mayberry (1992) describe this as attempting to achieve a balance be- LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 207 0000000000 * The confusion results from the term nongraded being interpreted to mean students do not receive grades or report cards. tween the expressive, or socioemotional, dimensions of classrooms and schools, and the instrumental, or task-related, dimensions. The remain- der of this chapter is devoted to a discussion of some of the strategies schools are employing in their attempt to establish (or reestablish) this balance. MIXED-AGE OR NONGRADED GROUPING STRATEGIES There is a great deal of experimentation occurring with mixed-age learning environments in elementary schools, particularly at the primary (grades K through 3) level. This approach, often confusingly referred to as ?nongraded primary,?* is based on the premise that it is not useful to organize children into instructional units based on age when the key organizing concept should be the developmental interests, abilities, and readiness of the child. In such environments children are grouped and regrouped based on factors other than age. The curriculum is not merely a simpler version of that which will be offered in the coming grades, but is designed to offer experiences and activities that are inherently inter- esting to children at this particular developmental stage of their lives. Multiage programs are not new. They have seen periods of popular- ity at different times during the past fifty years. In fact, the one-room schoolhouse may be thought of as the ultimate multiage program in some respects. In 1963, Goodlad and Anderson expounded the rationale for such programs in The Nongraded Primary. This book has since been revised (Goodlad and Anderson 1987), in part due to the interest that has been demonstrated in various places, including Kentucky and British Columbia, which mandated mixed-age, developmentally appropriate learning environments for primary grades, and Oregon, which mandated investigation and development of such models. Interest has also been evident throughout the decade in other states where schools or districts are establishing multiage classrooms and at professional conferences for elementary teachers, where presentations on the rationale, organization, and techniques of such programs are increasingly commonplace. What exactly are the characteristics of such programs? Pavan (1992), using the term nongraded, provides a definition of such a school: A nongraded school does not use grade-level designations for students or classes. Progress is reported in terms of tasks completed and the manner of learning, not by grades or rating systems. A team of teachers generally works with a team of students who are regrouped frequently according to 208 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING the particular task or activity and student needs or interests. Many times these are multiage heterogeneous groups pursuing complex problem-solv- ing activities in interdisciplinary thematic units. Students are active participants in their learning and in the collection of documentation to be used for assessment and evaluation. The continuous progress of pupils is reflected in students? growth of knowledge, skills, and understanding, not movement through a predetermined sequence of cur- riculum levels. (p. 22) Studies that compare graded and nongraded schools ?provide a consistent pattern favoring nongradedness,? Pavan reports. Students in nongraded groups performed better than (58 percent) or as well as (33 percent) students in graded groups on measures of academic achieve- ment. Such performance is ?rather remarkable,? since nongraded schools do not necessarily teach the textbook in the manner in which traditional classes do. Because nongraded schools adjust learning tasks based on individual differences, students may not be exposed to the same material in the same sequence as students in graded classrooms. ?Yet nongraded students performed as well or better than graded students on achieve- ment tests emphasizing mastery of content that is generally not the primary focus of the nongraded school? (Pavan 1992). At the same time, students in such environments fared better on assessments of mental health. They had more positive attitudes and scored higher on self-esteem inventories. Studies that tracked students over time found that those who spent their entire elementary careers in nongraded classrooms demonstrated superior academic achievement and felt more positive or the same as students in age-graded classes. One study found that nongraded students received fewer discipline referrals when they entered junior high school. Nongraded programs were found to benefit boys, African-Americans, students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and underachievers. Guiterrez and Slavin (1992) present findings that are generally consistent with those of Pavan. They found the most positive achieve- ment effects to occur in plans that were simpler forms of multiage grouping evaluated during the 1960s. These programs resembled the Joplin Plan, in which cross-age groups are used primarily for reading. Positive effect sizes were also noted for programs that grouped across grade level for multiple subjects. Slavin cautions that multiage grouping should not be confused with individualized instruction, for which little evidence of enhanced achievement can be found. Based on Guiterrez and Slavin?s study (1992) of the effect size (proportion of a standard deviation by which experimental groups exceed control groups) of multiage learning environments, Slavin concludes: LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 209 The effectiveness of nongraded elementary programs depends in large part on the features of the program, especially the degree to which nongrading is used as a grouping method rather than as a framework for individualized instruction. (Slavin 1992, p. 25) Kentucky has gone the farthest in adopting multiage grouping. The Kentucky Education Reform Act required all Kentucky primary pro- grams to include multiage grouping. The progress implementing this mandate has been uneven, and some Kentucky educators are asking their legislators to revisit the requirement. Nevertheless, a tremendous amount of training and development has already taken place, enabling Kentucky teachers to group students more flexibly than by age cohorts alone. Evaluation data indicate that over half the teachers were imple- menting full multiage classrooms by mid-1995 (Institute on Education Reform, University of Kentucky, 1995). British Columbia spent several years developing extensive materi- als for multiage classes and training teachers in their use. The province has subsequently moved away from mandating multiage classrooms for all students to allow more choice at individual schools. Multiage forms of organization appear capable of creating an envi- ronment that engages students positively and allows them to retain positive attitudes about themselves and schooling while developing the basic skills necessary to succeed in school. Multiage approaches chal- lenge the factory model of organization, where children are labeled based on an arbitrary characteristic (age) to allow for the orderly assign- ment and flow of students through the institution. Age-based grouping provides many advantages for those who must organize schooling; it may offer relatively fewer advantages for those who are being educated within that structure. SCHOOLS WITHIN SCHOOLS There is adequate evidence to suggest that smaller schools lead to greater student success along a number of dimensions. Stockard and Mayberry (1992) offer this assessment of the research on school size and student attitudes: Studies of elementary students suggest that small schools provide a more humanistic learning experience.... Several studies suggest that students in small high schools are involved in a greater number and variety of activities, assume a greater number of positions of responsibility, are less alienated, and have a greater ?sense of belonging? to the group than students in larger schools (Huling 1980; Barker and Gump 1964; Willems 1967; Baird 1969; Peshkin 1978; Turner and Thrasher 1970; Morgan and Alwin 1980; Wicker 1968, 1969; Downey 210 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING 1978). These results occur in both urban and rural areas and particularly with students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (Holland and Andre 1987). Because of their greater involvement, those in small schools report feeling needed and challenged, that they have an important job (Willems 1967; Wicker 1968). Many studies have linked these feelings of involve- ment with a lower probability of dropping out of school. Students who feel more identified with their schools are much more likely to remain in school until graduation (Finn 1989). (p. 47) Lee and Smith (1994) affirm this finding. They found that students in high schools that enrolled in the range of 600 to 900 students achieved better than did their counterparts in larger or smaller schools (Viadero and Drummond, April 24, 1996). Large high schools and middle schools are experimenting with schools-within-schools to capture the advantages of both large and small schools in one educational setting, to allow students to connect with school, and to expand choice while accommodating the diverse interests and goals present in most communities. Teachers with a unique vision of education have an opportunity to attempt to translate that vision into practice. Such settings create opportunities for affiliation and community-building. They can offer parents a way to have some choice regarding what type of program their child attends within the public schools. Roderick found that students whose grades fell sharply during their freshman year were more likely to drop out of school. She concluded that ?a lot of students simply find it hard to make a good transition from the lower grades, where they?re given personal attention, to the large bureaucratic institutions many of our high schools have become? (cited in Hayes 1992). Oxley asserts that large schools, particularly large high schools, are difficult to defend on educational grounds. She cites research that indicates large school size adversely affects attendance, school climate, and student involvement in school activities. Large size also contributes to higher dropout rates, vandalism, and violence (Goodlad 1984, Garbarino 1978, Lindsay 1982, Pittman and Haughwout 1987). Schools-within-schools may be one means to reshape large institu- tions to put a personal face on them. However, these new structures carry potential problems with them as well. They must be ready to address equity issues to ensure that admission is open and equitable, and that their student populations are representative of the school as a whole and the community broadly. One temptation is to create small units where everyone essentially thinks alike. Such arrangements can easily contribute to an ?us versus them? mentality. LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 211 Sooner or later most schools-within-schools will face the problem of institutional legitimacy, particularly in environments of declining resources. In other words, which school is the ?legitimate? school: the school-within-a-school, or the larger school? The experiences of such programs in the early seventies indicate that such programs are very sensitive to declines in resources in the district. Their need for very specific types of staff members comes into conflict with the district?s needs to assign or reassign teachers. As cutbacks occur, the contract may dictate that teachers who do not necessarily agree with the basic pre- mises of the school-within-a-school will be assigned to it anyway because of seniority. Pressure to revert to the ?legitimate? model of education, as embodied in the remaining traditional structure, will be strong. If schools-within-schools are attempted, several issues can affect their success. If a school-within-a-school exists in a larger educational structure that continues to be labeled as the ?legitimate? or ?real? school, the larger school may eventually overwhelm the smaller, more vulnerable school-within-a-school. This danger argues for a complete transition to a series of programs within one building. The new pro- grams should be roughly equal in size and all be distinctly different from a ?traditional? program, with no single program able to claim primary institutional legitimacy. One way to accomplish this transition has been demonstrated by District 4 in New York City. The district disbanded an existing school and turned over the site to a series of programs from different grade levels that had little in common other than the shared site. Another alternative is to officially designate the school-within-a- school as the research and development center for the building or district. Staff within the larger school site (or district at large) agree that new practices developed and tested at the school-within-a-school that prove to be successful will eventually be implemented in the larger school (or the district). Such a caveat is likely to increase staff interest in the goings-on in the school-within-a-school significantly, as well as to establish a clearer relationship between the school-within-a-school and the rest of the educational environment. The designation of a school-within-a-school as an R & D center has another benefit. It creates a place where teachers can observe and be trained in new teaching techniques before implementing them in their ?regular? classrooms. The concentration of resources, such as new technologies or adequate staff development funds, in such a center can allow educators to develop and experiment with new techniques in a cost-effective manner. Such a school also shows parents that new 212 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING programs are being carefully developed and tested under controlled conditions. Since enrollment in such a school would be voluntary, it is likely that those involved with the schools would be open to new approaches. The smaller size of the R&D center would allow staff to develop a close working relationship with parents and to solicit parents? feelings about new programs and techniques that may be piloted at the center. This involvement would also provide an indication of the kinds of issues that may be raised by those in the traditional program when the new tech- niques are implemented there. One of the dangers of schools-within-schools is that they often become dumping grounds for the unwanted, the difficult-to-teach, or the ?at-risk? student. While these students certainly need educational envi- ronments in which their needs are addressed, there is little to suggest that concentrating these students in one location is preferable to allowing them to interact with a wider range of young people. At the other end of the spectrum are schools-within-schools that become elite programs. Experience suggests that when one such pro- gram gains a reputation as being ?better? than the rest of the school, there is pressure to disband it because of the subtle (or not so subtle) competition for students and the social ranking that begins to occur. The tendency is for some to insist that norms of mediocrity be enforced on all aspects of the school equally and that the ?elite? program be disbanded. A better result would be that the program serve as a catalyst for the rest of the school to improve. That will require a remaking of the culture of the school and the incorporation of new norms regarding professional relations. As has been noted frequently throughout this book, the diffi- culty of such changes should not be underestimated. Early findings from schools in the Coalition of Essential Schools suggest that schools-within-schools face serious problems moving be- yond the small group of pioneers that begin them. Particularly large schools (as in the case of many urban high schools) have tried a different approach where the entire school is broken up into separate schools, each with a different identity and focus. Often these are magnet pro- grams, designed to appeal to students from outside the school?s atten- dance area as well as to those who attend the large high school. These programs then co-exist as functional equals with no one program having a claim to legitimacy or resources over the others. This is one way to decentralize a large campus. However, the programs that live on the campus often have little interaction with one another, which can lead to ?turf? issues and may limit student opportunities. LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 213 CREATING LEARNING COMMUNITIES The premise behind all schemes for breaking down large, complex organizations into smaller subunits is that such structures will allow more opportunities for human interaction and affiliation to occur. In other words, the potential that a strong sense of community will develop is enhanced. This sense of community appears to be an important dimension of student learning, particularly for at-risk students. The need to create a strong and healthy school community is greatest in situations where family life may not be as supportive of student development and where the youth culture is strong. Steinberg, Brown, and Dornbusch (1996) studied a mix of high schools in urban and rural settings across economic lines and found that ?student disengagement was pervasive. Roughly 40 percent of the students said they were ?just going through the motions? in school? (Viadero, June 5, 1996). The authors conclude that by the high school years students? peer group is more influential than their parents and that students hide their abilities in order to avoid conflicting with group norms that deride achievement. Students spend twenty to twenty-five hours a week with friends. Schools where teachers do not get to know students well inadvert- ently contribute to the power of youth culture by establishing the peer group, which is relatively stable over time, as the primary mode of social organization for the school. The peer group, moving relatively intact from grade to grade, is a powerful counterforce to teachers, who must in essence negotiate with this social structure each fall as school resumes. Even in schools with high transient rates, students quickly form into peer groups that are narrowly bounded by age. This deprives them of role models or of a wider range of examples of behaviors they may wish to emulate. Pullout, remedial, and special-education programs, however well intentioned, can contribute to creating peer groups with anti- academic values. Wynne and Walberg (1994) recommend that American educators give greater emphasis to the principle of ?group persistence,? by creat- ing more stable, long-term groupings of adults and students. Such groupings enhance affiliation and bonds among members and create a greater sense of belonging, which is particularly important for students who may not have a strong family structure that meets such needs. The authors advocate that ? Schools should try to keep discrete groups of students and teachers together over long periods of time. The size of the groups is not as important as their continuity. Inevitably, various school priorities will seem to dictate that such groupings be fractured. In the face of such pressures, a high value should be allocated to the goals of group and 214 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING faculty continuity. We are dealing with human beings, not automobile parts. ? With appropriate planning, persisting groups can be formed even in large schools. A variety of organizational options?e.g., divisions, homerooms, houses, or subschools?may serve to foster small-group life. (pp. 529-30) Burke (1996) states that ?multi-year teacher/student relationships are still uncommon in U.S. schools. But research findings and the enthusiasm of participants in multi-year relationships suggest that the arrangement merits serious discussion and widespread piloting? (p. 361). He cites the results of a study of middle schools conducted by George and Oldaker (1985): Approximately 70% of [the teachers] reported that teaching the same students for three years allowed them to use more positive approaches to classroom management. Ninety-two percent of them said that they knew more about their students, and 69% described their students as more willing to participate voluntarily in class. Eighty-five percent of the teach- ers reported that their students were better able to see themselves as important members of a group, to feel pride in that group, and to feel pride in the school as a whole. Eighty-four percent of the teachers reported more positive relationships with parents, and 75% reported increased empathy with colleagues. The reactions of students in this study were favorable as well, and they grew more positive with each successive grade level. Parents also responded positively; indeed, when allowed to request teach- ers for their children, 99% of parents requested the same teacher to whom their child had been assigned during the previous year. (pp. 360-61) Oxley (1994) describes the K?ln-Holweide school in Cologne, Germany, as an example of a school in which the conditions of the learning environment have been altered to bring about new relationships between students and teachers and to create a learning community. Group membership is a key concept in this school. The school exempli- fies ?an approach to small-unit organization that is geared to meeting students? diverse academic needs in ?regular? classrooms.? It ?incorporate(s) structural features of small-unit design that have come to be associated with greater teacher knowledge of students, a sense of community among students, and higher rates of attendance and aca- demic achievement.? The Holweide school ?also employ(s) the kinds of alternative instructional methods that need to accompany structural reorganization.? (p. 522) The Holweide School is composed of schools-within-schools of approximately ninety students each. The staff base their organizational model on personalizing education for the fifth- through tenth-grade students in the school. Their two key goals are to diminish anonymity LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 215 and to allow students of varying backgrounds to work together. The groups of ninety students and six teachers stay together for six years. The groups of ninety are further broken down until ultimately a student ends up as a member of a ?table group? comprising five or six students. This group remains stable for a year or more. Students are trained in the best methods of working together as a team. Twice a year groups consult with their tutors to assess their progress and their personal contributions. These meetings often take place at the tutor?s home, over breakfast. The table groups develop common offcampus experiences and projects, which may involve them in social issues in the neighborhoods surrounding the school. Ratzki (1989/1990) describes the learning environment at Holweide School: We assign students to table-groups of five or six members integrated by sex, ability, and ethnic origin. Within these ?social unit? groups, the children tutor and encourage each other. The difference between our groups and cooperative learning groups is that our children stay in these same groups for every subject, normally for at least a year. The aim is to promote stable groups in which the members learn to work together despite their individual differences. To achieve good group results, each member is responsible not only for his or her own work but also for that of the other members. If the work of one child in the group is unsatisfactory or his or her behavior a problem, then we try to discuss the issue with the individual child as well as the group.... Each table-group meets once a week to discuss any problems or to suggest improvements in their every day working situations. During lessons, except for free learning periods, the group practices and works things out together. Students who are more able are expected to help the other members in their group. Since the teacher?s time is limited, this helper system is of great benefit. (p. 48, emphasis in original) Differences among students are recognized through individual learn- ing activities, such as techniques in learning how to learn: Each school week begins with a discussion circle. For this event, the students move their tables aside, and those who wish to can tell about something special or interesting that happened to them over the weekend. After these remarks, the tutors announce any special events in the coming week. Next, the tutors present the weekly plan, which structures each student?s work for the upcoming days. They also write the individual obligatory tasks for their subjects on the board, which the students copy into their plan books. Each student then checks his or her plan for the previous week and copies any unfinished exercise into the new plan. As teachers for other subjects come into the classroom, the plans are added to.... The circular discussion group format is also used for certain lessons. For example, during tutorial lessons, students discuss any problems with 216 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING the tutors and how these can be solved. The students themselves determine the agenda for these lessons; the teacher plays a passive role. Each person in the discussion group who has just spoken in turn chooses the next speaker, irrespective of whether students or teachers have expressed their wish to voice an opinion. Coming from traditional schools, where teachers have an almost absolute right to speak whenever they wish, many teachers find that this format requires some getting used to. (Ratzki 1989/90, pp. 49- 50, emphasis in original) Teachers do not play a passive role in constructing the learning environment. They must make many decisions and take responsibility for creating the structures and content that allow students to engage in learning successfully: Teachers in Holweide have a great deal of autonomy. Between them, they teach all the subjects and are responsible for the education of three groups of 28 to 30 students. They form their own teams of 6 to 8 members; devise schedules for the coming year; choose who will teach which subjects in which classes; decide how the curriculum will be taught (in a single period or longer block of time, for example); cover for absent colleagues; and organize lunchtime activities, parents involvement, field trips, and many other concerns. They also decide among themselves which two people will work together as class tutors (home class, or home room, teachers) in a given class. (Ratzki 1989/90, p. 48, emphasis in original) A number of American educators have journeyed to Germany to visit this program. Some have returned to emulate or adapt it for students in the United States. It appears to have been an influence on the thinking of a number of restructuring projects taking place around the nation. Other descriptions of organizational structures designed to increase student affiliation and construction of learning experiences contain similar elements. Nickle and others (1990), in their description of a school-within-a-school, make reference to increased sense of commu- nity and affiliation as program outcomes: Another aspect of the program that has proved successful is ?personaliza- tion?.... Because the four [teacher] coaches are responsible for a total of only 80 students, the students get to know us and one another better than would be the case in a regular school. An unexpected rapport has devel- oped within the [School-Within-A-School] SWS.... A final beneficial aspect of the structure of the SWS is that students have developed a sense of ?ownership? of the program. Those who inter- fere with learning are prodded into remembering why they are in school. The students usually reprimand and cajole their peers kindly, but such pressure is far more effective than an admonition from the instructor. Students also help one another freely and easily. As one student put it, ?We LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 217 can better explain things to one another because we speak the same language, and we aren?t embarrassed to ask one another questions about things we don?t understand.? (p. 150) Lewis (1991) describes how one middle school faculty moved to a school-within-a-school structure that would enable its members to cre- ate different blocks of time within the school for different subgroups of students. The structure would facilitate teacher planning as well. The goal was to enhance the quantity of content teachers were able to teach: Discussions on high content piqued the Frick teachers? interest in interdis- ciplinary teaching. This led to a decision to go for teaming and to create ?castles,? in which groups of students stay together all day with a team of core teachers. By dividing the school into castles, teachers obtained com- mon planning time, flexibility to schedule block periods, and closer rela- tionships with students.... Organizing the teams required a massive moving day as teachers regrouped from subject-matter departments to castles. ?That ruffled a few feathers,? says Donna Blochwitz, perhaps Frick?s most enthusiastic supporter of teams.... June Jackson, principal at Frick when the castles were formed, found the process of organizing and starting the teams difficult for teachers at first. ?It takes time and training for people to learn to work together,? she explains. ?Some relish an opportunity to change; for others, it is quite painful, even though they are stagnating.? (pp. 50-51) Descriptions of programs such as these suggest that viable learning communities can be created within larger organizational structures, if careful thought is given regarding their relationship to the larger struc- ture. Such environments can do more than simply retain students in school. They can be places where enhanced social affiliation and greater learning occurs. COMMUNITY-BASED LEARNING Another way the learning environment is being redefined is by moving more instruction outside classroom walls. One strategy being considered by several states and school districts is the community- service requirement, in which all students spend some time outside school working in volunteer positions to improve the community. Such programs help students develop an appreciation of their roles in a democratic society and of their obligations to others through the concept of a social contract. It is interesting that these programs may have more support within the business and social-services communities than among educators and parents of college-bound students, some of whom are cautious about the idea of making such service mandatory for all students (Lawton 1991). 218 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING Legal challenges have been mounted in states that have required com- munity service, but these have not been sustained to date. Conrad and Hedin (1991) conclude that school-based community service can have a positive impact on both the academic and social/ psychological development of students. Peer tutoring shows evidence of increasing reading and math achievement for both tutor and tutee (Hedin 1987). Conrad and Hedin (1982) found enhanced problem-solving abil- ity. Students who participate in community-service programs tend to exhibit enhanced social and personal responsibility, more favorable attitudes toward adults and toward community agencies and the people who work in such agencies (Conrad and Hedin 1982), more positive attitudes toward others, a greater sense of efficacy, and higher self- esteem than do students who do not participate in such a program (Luchs 1981). Participating students also show fewer signs of alienation and isolation and have fewer disciplinary problems (Calabrese and Schumer 1986). Service learning, when it is mandatory or at least organized and sanctioned by the school, raises the question ?In the service of what?? Kahne and Westheimer (1996) make it clear that service learning is inherently political. Students will reach certain conclusions based on the experiences they have. In some cases, they may come to believe that individual action is the cure for social ills. In other programs of service learning, they may go beyond their individual experiences to consider the causes of the need for service. They may scrutinize the system as well as serve the individual. These two perspectives on service are fundamentally different. The first approach emphasizes the ?charity? of giving one?s time and energy to the less fortunate or needy. The second approach quickly becomes focused on issues of social change. The service experience is a spring- board to questioning the status quo and, perhaps, to eventual political activity. The orientation is toward change, not charity. Efforts to integrate service learning activities into the curriculum have great potential and deserve the support they are now receiving. To date, however, little attention has been given to sorting out the goals and motivations that underlie the spectrum of service learning projects emerg- ing in schools throughout the country. Is it beneficial to point out such differences and risk creating some opposition to service learning? We think so. Clarifying different goals provides educators with an opportunity to consider systematically a range of possible priorities (including some they might otherwise not consider) and the relation of these to their practice. (Kahne and Westheimer 1996, p. 598) A different strategy is to move learning beyond the classroom and into the community, utilizing the community as the curriculum. Ex- LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 219 amples of this approach that were piloted in the late sixties and early seventies include the Parkway Program in the Philadelphia School District and Other Ways in the Berkeley School District. Gardner (1991) describes a type of educational environment he believes is based on how young children approach thinking and learning in the absence of formal schooling. In constructing such an environ- ment, he strives to apply what is known about how the human mind develops: Imagine an educational environment in which youngsters at the age of 7 or 8, in addition to?or perhaps instead of?attending a formal school, have the opportunity to enroll in a children?s museum, a science museum, or some kind of discovery center or exploratorium. As part of this educational scene, adults are present who actually practice the disciplines or crafts represented by the various exhibitions. Computer programmers are work- ing in the technology center, zookeepers and zoologists are tending the animals, workers from a bicycle factory assemble bicycles in front of the children?s eyes, and a Japanese mother prepares a meal and carries out a tea ceremony in the Japanese house. Even the designers and mounters of the exhibitions ply their trade directly in front of the observing students. During the course of their schooling, youngsters enter into separate apprenticeships with a number of these adults. Each apprentice group consists of students of different ages and varying degrees of expertise in the domain or discipline. As part of the apprenticeship, the child is drawn into the uses of various literacies?numerical and computer languages when enrolled with the computer programmer, the Japanese language in interacting with the Japanese family, the reading of manuals with the bicycle workers, the preparation of wall labels with the designers of the exhibition. The student?s apprenticeships deliberately encompass a range of pursuits, including artistic activities, activities requiring exercise and dexterity, and activities of a more scholarly bent. In the aggregate, these activities incorporate the basic literacies required in the culture?reading and writing in the dominant language or languages, mathematical and computational operations, and skill in the notations drawn on in the various vocational or avocational pursuits. Most of the learning and most of the assessment are done coopera- tively; that is, students work together on projects that typically require a team of people having different degrees of and complementary kinds of skills. Thus, the team assembling the bicycle might consist of half a dozen youngsters, whose tasks range from locating and fitting together parts to inspecting the newly assembled systems to revising a manual or preparing advertising copy. The assessment of learning also assumes a variety of forms, ranging from the student?s monitoring her own learning by keeping a journal to the ?test of the street??does the bicycle actually operate satisfactorily, and does it find any buyers? Because the older people on the team, or ?coaches,? are skilled professionals who see themselves as train- 220 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING ing future members of their trade, the reasons for activities are clear, the standards are high, and satisfaction flows from a job well done. And because the students are enrolled from the first in a meaningful and challenging activity, they come to feel a genuine stake in the outcomes of their (and their peers?) efforts. (p. 40) The Lowell Public Schools, in Massachusetts, established a varia- tion on this type of learning environment by creating a school structured as a microsociety. Based on the book The Micro-Society School: A Real World in Miniature (Richmond 1974), the school opened in the down- town business district in 1981. The goal was to engage students, teach- ers, parents, and community members in the development of a miniature society that would serve as a school: The effort began with the introduction of money, markets, and property into the school. The students, advised by their teachers, used these ingredi- ents to create a microeconomy. The microeconomy, in turn, has led to the creation of numerous organizations and jobs in them. Students fill these positions. Some of the work opportunities have arisen in the business sector; others have developed in government agencies, in the miniature society?s fledgling legal system, and in a variety of cultural organizations. As these institutions evolve, so do markets for land, labor, and capital. Interacting with these markets has become a dynamic part of each student?s school experience. Beginning in kindergarten, children attending the microsociety school play with the fundamental building blocks of modern society. As they grow and mature, their miniature society matures with them. Apart from gaining insight into adult experience and adult society, there is no pre- scribed ideological path that the students must follow. With the assistance of parents and teachers, they fashion their own. The Lowell microsociety school is a living experiment in applied moral development. Children and adults constantly face moral dilemmas that they must solve as they strive to build a ?good? society. Do you want a microsociety with the extremes of poverty and wealth? Do you want a state based on law or one based on fear and violence? Should the microsociety?s government assist or ignore children who may not be succeeding? Do you want a democracy or totalitarian state? What liberties should students have? And what responsibilities should they shoulder? What kinds of activities should be taxed? When does one put the community?s welfare ahead of the rights of the individual? What civil rights should children enjoy in their microsociety? When has justice been done? Children attending the City Magnet School face these dilemmas under the guidance of parents and teachers, many of whom may be struggling with similar issues in the real world. The City Magnet School provides students with a strong, traditional program in the basic skills.... [T]he students learn basic skills as they legislate, adopt budgets, pass tax measures, administer justice, govern, or LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 221 simply communicate with one another regarding commercial and legal matters. They read, write, and use mathematics with purpose. In other words, the basic skills have utility. In the tradition of John Dewey doing reinforces learning. (Richmond 1989, p. 233, emphasis in original) The preceding examples indicate that it is possible to think of schooling and learning occurring in a variety of settings and structures other than the factory-derived models based on the notions of economies of scale, centralization, and specialization that originate in scientific management. Such alternative settings offer the potential for education to focus on new and varied learner activities designed to meet challeng- ing standards, rather than be limited to incremental improvement of current classroom-based models. ALTERNATIVES TO TRACKING Another fundamental change in the structure of the learning envi- ronment involves rethinking how students are grouped for instruction based on characteristics such as ability or achievement, rather than age. The one grouping strategy that is coming under the closest scrutiny is tracking, the practice of grouping students based on some measure of ability. Tracking tailors the curriculum and instruction to each group based on assumptions about what students in each track are capable of learn- ing. Students are retained in such groups over long periods and for a variety of subjects, sometimes throughout the school day, and from year to year. Tracking is a widespread phenomenon in American schools. Brewer, Rees, and Argys (1995) cite data from the 1988 National Educational Longitudinal Study that indicate over 85 percent of eighth graders are in tracked mathematics classes; nearly the same number in English classes; and closer to 90 percent in science. Marsh and Raywid (1994) summarize Dentzer and Wheelock (1990) and Oakes (1985) to identify eight drawbacks common to tracking: 1. The best teachers are often assigned the ablest students, and the least- experienced?or least-favored?teachers are assigned the weakest and most challenging students. 2. There are differences in the content presented to the different groups, with less?and lesser?substance presented to low-ability students. 3. There are differences in the quality of instruction delivered to the different groups, with higher order thinking reserved largely for high- ability classes. 4. Teachers of students assigned to low-ability classes expect and demand little of them. 222 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING 5. Students excluded from high-ability classes encounter lower motiva- tion among their peers and develop less motivation themselves; thus they achieve less. 6. Students in low-ability classes include such disproportionate numbers of minority youngsters that tracking often functions as a form of resegregation. 7. Students in average and low-ability classes are restricted in their subsequent educational and career opportunities. 8. Compounding the above inequities, there are many cases in which youngsters have been erroneously assigned to lower track classrooms (often on the basis of standardized test scores). (p. 315) The research on ability grouping has not always used the most sophisticated methods, such as randomized experimental designs. Nor has it necessarily taken into account the interaction among the range of variables that have an impact on student learning. Nevertheless, the findings across studies appear to be fairly consistent. Stockard and Mayberry (1992) reached the following conclusions regarding those findings: A large number of studies from a wide range of years suggest that, when students are in an environment with other high-achieving students, their own achievement tends to increase. In contrast, ability grouping appears to be detrimental for low-ability students. In other words, although ability grouping may sometimes benefit high-achieving students, a good deal of research indicates that it impedes the progress of students in lower groups (see Bridge et al. 1979; Kulik and Kulik 1982; Esposito 1973; Begle 1975; Brophy and Good 1986; Hallinan 1987, 1990; Sorensen and Hallinan 1986). In addition, ability grouping can affect status differences in a classroom with those in lower groups held in lower esteem (Hallinan 1984). Thus ability grouping can actually lead to larger differences be- tween the high and low ends of the achievement and social distribution within a school or classroom. In general different types of grouping systems may have different effects on learning outcomes. For instance, some studies suggest that various types of ability groupings can sometimes benefit students in mathematics classes (Slavin and Karweit 1985; Dewar 1964; Smith 1960). Other work suggests that the Joplin plan, which calls for cross-grade grouping of students in reading and whole-class instruction (Moorhouse 1964; Kierstad 1963; Skapski 1960), can enhance achievement (Slavin 1987a, b; 1990b). (Stockard and Mayberry 1992, p. 11) Brewer and others (1995) reached a different conclusion, at least in regard to student performance on standardized-achievement tests in mathematics. They concluded from their statistical analysis of homoge- neous and heterogeneous classes that LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 223 detracking would create winners and losers. Although students in lower tracks would realize achievement gains by being placed in a heterogeneous class, this gain would be at the expense of students placed in higher-level tracks. Our estimates imply that detracking all students currently enrolled in homogeneous classes would produce a net 1.7% drop in average math- ematics test scores. (p. 214) The feelings run strong for and against tracking and ability group- ing, both among educators and researchers, who often criticize the methodologies of the research on the topic. At the same time there appear to be areas of agreement among researchers on some points: Participants in these debates tend to agree that ability grouping does not enhance achievement for the majority of children. In addition, they tend to agree that grouping arrangements that enhance achievement appear to alter the allocation of both instructional and learning time and instructional activities (see Slavin 1987b, 1990a, 1990b; Hallinan 1990; Provus 1960; Morris 1969). In other words,...differential effects in ability-grouped classes appear primarily because the instructional process is altered (see Barr, Dreeben, and Wiratchai 1983; Gamoran 1986; Hallinan 1990). (Stockard and Mayberry 1992, p. 12) Tracking is usually instituted to help teachers deal with instructional issues related to the range of achievement present within a group of students. However, it has unintended effects on the self-concepts of both high and low-achieving students: School officials have assumed that, by preventing extensive contact of lower-ability students with their higher-ability peers, the self-esteem and self-concepts of lower-ability students are protected. In fact, exactly the opposite result seems to occur. Instead of feeling more comfortable about themselves, students in lower tracks tend to develop lower self-esteem, lower aspirations, and more negative attitudes toward school (Oakes 1985, 1987). It is also important to note that the result of higher track placement is not uniformly good. It may enhance achievement but not necessarily increase aspirations or self-evaluations. Students in higher tracks tend to have peers who perform well, thus enhancing group norms regarding performance.... [A] higher-ability context can lead individuals to give more negative evaluations of their own ability than they would in other contexts. (Stockard and Mayberry 1992, p. 14) Rather than being primarily a tool to enable teachers to deal with the diverse achievement levels present in a classroom, tracking may, in fact, function to reinforce and define social relationships: Ideally, track placement would only reflect a student?s academic achieve- ment, ability, and motivation. In reality, most studies conclude that stu- dents? track placements are related to both their prior academic achieve- ment and their social class background (Sorensen 1987) .... 224 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING Many scholars suggest that tracking in secondary schools and ability grouping, its counterpart in elementary schools, function as the mediating variable between students? socioeconomic background and their educa- tional achievement, occupational aspirations, and perceptions of them- selves and their school.... These studies suggest that tracking reproduces class status by sorting students from different socioeconomic backgrounds into different curricula and providing them with unequal learning environments...[see] Oakes 1985; Schaefer and Olexa 1971; Alexander and McDill 1976; Barr, Dreeben, and Wiratchai 1983; Dreeben and Gamoran 1986; Garet and DeLany 1988; Sorensen 1987). In general, these studies suggest that students from lower socioeco- nomic backgrounds receive educational experiences that offer them lim- ited access to high-status knowledge and normative climates that are not conducive to achievement. In contrast, students from higher socioeco- nomic backgrounds are much more likely to enroll in challenging curricu- lar programs and college preparatory tracks that provide the type of knowledge and normative standards that are essential for higher levels of education and entrance into high-status occupations. (Stockard and Mayberry 1992, pp. 14-15) Acknowledging that tracking is deeply rooted in the culture of many schools, Oakes and Lipton (1992) suggest a critical examination of basic assumptions about students and learning will be required before a movement away from tracking can begin to take hold. They describe schools that have abandoned tracking successfully and have established a culture of ?detracking.? Such schools recognize that the norms that support tracking are powerful and must be acknowledged as alternatives are developed; that changes in tracking must become part of a compre- hensive set of changes in school practice; that the process of removing tracking is politically sensitive, is idiosyncratic to each school site, and requires broad-scale staff involvement; that it requires changes in adult working relationships and roles; and that certain teachers emerge as the risk-takers whose persistence over the long haul helps institutionalize alternative practices. UNTRACKING SCHOOLS Wheelock (1992) describes the work of the Massachusetts Advo- cacy Center, which, since 1990, has worked to identify untracked middle schools and to document their success in promoting both equity and excellence for all students. Researchers identified some 250 schools engaged in efforts to move away from tracking. Through questionnaires, interviews, and site visits, they discovered clues to the process of untracking, what it takes to begin to move away from tracking. Their search led to identification of nine ingredients of the untracking process: LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 225 ? A belief that all students can learn, that untracking is merely a means to the end of greater student learning for all within the context of a democratic school community. ? A belief that systems-level change is possible in schools, and that the removal of tracking necessitates changes in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and other areas of the school. ? A belief in high expectations for all students and in inclusive practices in all aspects of school life. Schools develop practices that acknowledge the success of all students and that guarantee that a wide range of students participate in all school activities. They treat students as mem- bers of a learning community. ? A partnership between leaders and teachers that leads to agreement on common mission, vision, and goals for the school, which include con- cepts of equality. ? A commitment to parental involvement throughout the process in genu- ine ways, such as participation in planning and implementing heteroge- neous groups, provision of information to parents, and commitment to institute two-way communication with parents, particularly with those who perceive their children as being ?gifted and talented.? ? Indications of support from local and state policies that encourage such practices. ? The development of a multiyear plan that allows the numerous steps necessary to prepare for untracking to occur in a systematic, comprehen- sible manner. Examples of such steps include disseminating research about tracking and alternatives to tracking, visiting other schools with heterogeneous classrooms, developing appropriate curriculum, planning staff development activities. ? A plan to address the multifaceted needs for professional development that accompany this transformation, showing models of how alternatives to grouping can work and providing teachers with general knowledge and specific techniques to facilitate untracking. ? A commitment to phased-in implementation based on what is possible or desirable within the school. Such a phase-in may employ any one of many possible strategies, depending on the specific circumstances and existing organizational structure of the school. (Adapted from Wheelock 1992) One of the key challenges that must be addressed if schools are to institute learning structures other than tracking is how to meet the needs of gifted students. Johnson and Johnson respond to some of the key objections to cooperative learning raised by advocates for the gifted. They begin by making a distinction between high-ability students (the top 33 percent) and gifted students (the top 5 percent). The needs of these two groups will probably be different, they say, though there is 226 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING somewhat of a tendency to think of them as one group. These students should not always work in cooperative groups (Johnson and Johnson 1991) and should have opportunities to compete with one another. At the same time, they can benefit from participation in mixed-ability groups. Based on nine studies conducted over the past fifteen years, the Johnsons (1992) have concluded that: ? High-ability students benefit academically from cooperative learning groups. The exchange of ideas within the group is richer, and group discussion enhances the ability to apply information in subsequent situations when working alone. ? Learning cooperatively with lower achieving peers does not decrease the critical thinking and higher-level reasoning of high-ability students. In fact, cooperative learning provides alternatives to drill and practice activities that serve little purpose for high-ability students. ? High-ability students who work cooperatively with others outperform high-ability students who work exclusively in competitive or individual settings. While individual work may lead to quicker mastery of lower- level cognitive tasks, cooperative work results in more higher-level cognitive strategies and reasoning, more sophisticated problem solving, and enhanced retention. ? Low-achieving students do not hinder the learning of high-ability stu- dents. By explaining material to others, high-ability students strengthen their grasp of material while they restructure and practice its organiza- tion. ? Having high achievers work together does not automatically lead to enhanced achievement. High achievers may not feel compelled to ex- plain their reasoning to one another or to generate alternative explana- tions or solutions. There is little expectation that one student will teach anything to another in such settings. ? Heterogeneous learning groups are not the best model for transmitting large quantities of material. They are effective for ensuring the quality of thought students develop regarding the material that is presented. ? Heterogeneous groups can have significant social benefits for high- ability students. They can create a setting where academic ability is valued socially, something that rarely occurs in many schools. They can decrease the sense of isolation some high-ability students feel. (Adapted from Johnson and Johnson 1992) Matthews (1992) suggests six ways to make cooperative learning more effective for high-achieving students, based in part on her discus- sions with gifted students: ? Design cooperative projects so that all students can interact and contrib- ute equally. Avoid traditional worksheet, ?right answer? tasks. LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 227 ? Use new curricular materials that involve collaborative practices? projects in which students share creative ideas, build on one another?s knowledge, and draw on diverse skills (Cohen [October 1990]; Gamoran 1990). Projects might include: writing workshops, oral histories, guided nature walks, ecology projects, discussions of political issues, plays, science experiments, manipulatives-based math explorations, Odyssey of the Mind competitions, Future Problem Solving teams, and foreign language talk shows. ? Encourage successful group functioning by including five conditions: positive interdependence, face-to-face interaction, individual account- ability, social skills, and group processing. (Johnson et al. 1986). ? Set authentic group goals that are important to group members.... ? Teach students how successful groups work and how to apply this information to their own groups (Johnson et al. 1986). How to ask for assistance, help others, and take responsibility for group members are important skills (Cohen [October 1990]). Roleplay and model these skills with students. ? Group students in flexible ways.... Flexible grouping gives the low achievers the opportunity to realize the positive effects of being the ?explainer? and provides gifted students opportunities to get to know and work with a wide range of students. (p. 50) Alternatives to tracking are being pursued in some schools prima- rily as strategies to increase the educational success of all students. Interestingly, the goal is to increase both equity and excellence. New practices are not being instituted simply to make students feel better about themselves, or strictly to benefit low-achieving students. The approaches being tested are designed, in most cases, with the goal of providing richer educational experiences for all students and bringing techniques formerly reserved for talented and gifted or accelerated programs to all students. Successful alternatives to tracking help to steer the curriculum away from highly sequenced courses focused on the lock-step mastery of skills and information. The goal instead is a curriculum rich in complex ideas and opportunities for students to pursue multiple paths to common outcomes. To accomplish this, teachers need many opportunities to develop an expanded repertoire of instructional skills. Additionally, provisions must be made for students with special needs. At the same time, alternative assessment and grading practices have to be developed. These new assessments provide information to students that allows them to make continuous progress toward common learning outcomes rather than being consigned to failure at arbitrary points in the process. 228 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING SCHOOL-TO-WORK PROGRAMS The learning environment is changing in another, more fundamental way as well. More learning is taking place off-campus. This phenom- enon takes many forms, including project-based learning, field-based studies, mentorships, and internships. And while schools have always had some limited set of opportunities for students to learn outside of school, the scope is now increasing dramatically. Whereas offcampus activities were once at the margins of the school?s instructional pro- gram, they are now moving into a more central role. Most prominent among these initiatives to take learning into the world are school-to- work programs. In essence, school-to-work blends the worlds of schooling and work by allowing students to move back and forth while being supported in both environments. This approach is different in several ways from previous programs like cooperative education, work experience, or special trips students took. The most important difference is the con- scious linkage between what the children learn in school and how they apply it in the work world. School-to-work is not necessarily a jobs program (though in some cases students get paid while they learn). Instead, these programs replace or update many vocational and business courses in high schools. A student learns concepts then applies them in a work setting, rather than practicing at the school as in a shop or business class. Goldberger and Kazis (1996) describe what they call ?school-to- career? as a strategy that is inseparable from broader high school reform. They note that the primary impetus for school reform comes from ?outsiders,? namely the business community. Vocational educators, they maintain, ?see a threat to their jobs and fear they will be asked to add academic rigor to their courses that goes beyond their training? (p. 547). Administrators may be ambivalent about vocational education to begin with, and not inclined to reinvigorate it since this may draw resources away from academic programs. School-to-career may resolve these tensions. This strategy is consistent with the desire to move away from the ?shop- ping mall high school? and toward a more coherent and integrated curricu- lum. It strengthens the argument for elimination of the general track, which prepares young people neither for college nor for productive work. School- to-career strategies encourage breaking high schools into smaller learning communities. They are consistent with the use of magnet schools and charter schools of thematic approaches for organizing instruction. The pedagogy of school-to-career strategies?emphasizing project-based in- struction, active and experiential learning, and the shift to ?teacher as LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 229 coach, student as worker? ?is also in line with current reform movements. (Goldberger and Kazis 1996, p. 548) To implement school-to-career programs as a catalyst for reform of the high school?s entire instructional program, Goldberger and Kazis advocate a reform agenda based on the following four design principles: 1. High schools should be organized around nontracked, thematic pro- grams of study designed to prepare all students for entry into both higher education and high-skill employment through intellectually rigorous practical education. 2. Selection of a career-focused program of study in high school should be based on general interests and should not be a high-stakes career decision. 3. Work-based learning should be an integral part of the core curriculum for all students, since it yields benefits that school-based education alone cannot provide. 4. The integration of secondary and post-secondary learning environ- ments is critical to the development of rigorous programs of career- related education. (p. 550) Programs of study in this model are organized around industry themes (for example, health care, finance, industrial and engineering systems, arts and communication, tourism and recreation, human re- source systems) or more generic themes with academic foundations, such as international studies. The programs do not train students in specific careers, but employers are involved in designing curriculum and establishing the standards for what students should know and do as a result of participating in the theme. Students explore themes based on individual interests. It is possible to move across themes, rather than being trapped in one area until graduation. This approach is already in use: it is how many of the nation?s most innovative school-to-career programs are organized. These include career academies in California, Philadelphia, and elsewhere that focus on a single industry; Roosevelt High School?s Renaissance 2000 project in Portland, Oregon, which is organized around six career pathways starting ninth grade...; Boston?s ProTech, which began as a program in health occupa- tions and has expanded to include other career pathways, including finan- cial services, communications, and utilities; and the Rindge School of Technical Arts in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which uses a range of school- and work-based experiential learning programs to give students focused opportunities to explore career options and develop specific technical skills. (Goldberger and Kazis 1996, p. 550) Raby (1995) offers a more detailed description of ?career acad- emies.? They are 230 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING school/business partnerships that offer high school students a rigorous academic/technical curriculum, employability skills, career counseling, work experience, enrichment activities, and mentoring. Career academies? programs are designed to ensure that their graduates are academically and technically proficient, have marketable job skills, and are academically prepared to enroll in postsecondary education. (p. 82) She describes the California Partnership Academies, forty-five state- supported programs that seek to improve educational success and career opportunities for unmotivated young people from disadvantaged educa- tional and socioeconomic backgrounds. The academies restructure the learning environment to: ? Provide an integrated curriculum that shows the relevance of academic subjects to work experience ? Give autonomy to teachers to exercise their professional expertise and judgment in curriculum development ? Develop partnerships with business to provide mentoring and paid work experience to help students make a smooth transition from school to the workplace... Academy students are enrolled in a core academic program, consisting of English, mathematics, science and/or social studies, and a technical course in a career field local businesses agree to support. Examples of career fields include electronics, health, business technology, agribusiness, media, en- vironmental science, retailing, graphic arts, and law and government. The content of the core academic courses and the technical course is integrated and taught in a school-within-a-school environment. Academies have a strong career development component that stresses job readiness skills, career planning, job interview techniques, and applying to college. A mentor program that includes firsthand exposure to career information is supplied through the partnership with local businesses. Students enter the program in the tenth grade and those meeting academy standards are rewarded with jobs in local businesses in grades 11 and 12. Students remain with the same teachers the entire 3 years in the program. The curriculum is demanding and focuses on critical thinking, problem analy- sis, and practical work simulations.... Although schools have primary responsibility for the development of curriculum in the academies, representatives from business actively par- ticipate in its definition. They work with teachers to identify the academic and technical competencies students need for employment in their indus- try. Teachers integrate the competencies with the academic work and include practical experience in applying skills taught in the course to career situations. Students receive a foundation in a particular career area in the school?s technical coures, while specific job training is provided by the employers during the student?s work experience. (Raby 1995, pp. 83-84) LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 231 Work-based opportunities are a key component of the school-to- work model. Exposure to work follows a developmental sequence, beginning in the early grades when representatives from the work world visit the classroom and students participate in visits to workplaces (field trips), job shadows, and community-service projects. Hands-on experi- ence in the workplace commences in earnest near the end of the tradi- tional high school years as students begin a gradual, supported transition from schooling to work while still retaining the ability to change their minds and career goals based on the lessons they are learning in the workplace. These young people also have many more personal contacts with adults in roles other than teacher or parent. Since school-to-career emphasizes the learning that takes place both in the classroom and on the job, learners have more opportunities to see how a business works (Sommerfeld 1996). They may rotate through a series of jobs, observe as well as work, be given special responsibilities they would not ordinarily get if they were hired as workers, and partici- pate in discussions with managers and workers at all levels of the company. Such experiences let them learn more about adults, develop personal relationships with them, get advice, and come to understand the transition from dependent child to independent adult that they are just beginning in earnest. Students also see the different roles workers have and can develop their career goals accordingly. The best experiences offer students the chance to understand not just work but companies as well?to see them as systems or organiza- tions with an overall purpose or goal. This perspective is invaluable once they enter a company and have to understand how their actions and decisions will affect their company?s success. Boston?s ProTech program is a good example of how such work can be organized to provide a range of experiences and perspectives to students to help them either expand or focus their career interests: In [the] ProTech program, for instance, students spend the last year or two of high school rotating through at least three different areas of a hospital, learning skills in the context of paid training experiences. By the middle of the senior year, students are expected to firm up their career plans. Those who opt for a technical position, such as diagnostic-imaging technical or respiratory technician, will be able to combine hospital-based training and paid work with their postsecondary studies. Students who wish to work full-time or to pursue less than an associate?s degree will have access to such hospital jobs as multi-skilled patient-care technician or pharmacy technician. Students who decide on four-year degree programs in health care, such as pharmacology or physical therapy, will enter these programs as seasoned health-care workers familiar with the industry. (Goldberger and Kazis 1996, p. 552) 232 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING School-to-work programs require a new relationship with employ- ers, an issue that will be considered in more depth in chapter 15. INCLUSION OF SPECIAL-EDUCATION STUDENTS Another alteration in the structure of the learning environment that is being seen in some schools is a movement to include special-educa- tion students in regular-education classrooms to the maximum extent possible. Along with detracking, this trend represents a major challenge to the organization of the learning environment as it currently exists in most schools. The complexity and emotion surrounding this topic are such that it is impossible to provide an adequate treatment of it in a work such as this. The inclusion of special-education students into regular-education classes, combined with attempts to eliminate or modify tracking or ability grouping, creates a tremendous challenge for traditional class- room structures and teaching methods at all grade levels. And while efforts are under way to develop models such as consultative teachers and joint-planning teams, a tremendous amount of work remains to be done before American classrooms can hope to accommodate wide ranges of student ability successfully. The pressure for inclusion comes in part from democratic principles of equal treatment for all students and in part from the limited success of pullout programs to achieve the goal of enhanced educational achieve- ment for special-education students of some types, particularly learning disabled. This movement applies to all pullout programs, including Chapter 1 and other remedial approaches that remove the student from the regular classroom. Miller (1990) suggests that it may be possible for classroom teachers and special-education teachers to form a partnership to support and benefit from school-reform efforts. Programs of school restructuring may provide the forum within which long-held beliefs about the nature of children and how they learn can be challenged, and alternatives can be explored. Such an environ- ment may be necessary to permit the types of changes that appear to be necessary to support the full inclusion of the entire range of student ability in one classroom. Traditional models of instruction that beam a lesson just above the perceived ability level of the midpoint of the class have little utility in such inclusive environments. Yet the alternatives require not incremental adjustments, but fundamental reorganization of curriculum, instruction, and assessment, and redeployment of resources, including professional staff, reconfiguration of time, integrated use of technology, and redefined parental involvement. The discussions of LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 233 mainstreaming and full inclusion serve to highlight the challenges the educational system faces in its attempt to meet the needs of all students to function at high levels cognitively and socially. Case (1992) contends that special education serves to ?rescue? the traditional system. Operating from the medical model, special education diagnoses and prescribes treatment based on the needs of each indi- vidual. However, the system in which the child exists and to which she or he must return is not examined or affected: Problems with the instructional setting have not been analyzed; changes needed in classroom instruction have not been specified; and special education intervention has rarely been targeted to improve learning in the classroom. Children?s learning has been jeopardized because the basic system that is ineffective for them is left untouched. Because the child, not the system, is defined as the problem, children remain dependent on special education. We are caught in a self-perpetuating system of depen- dence on special education and are hard-pressed to break the cycle. (p. 33) Suggestions are being proposed for how school systems might proceed to modify and adapt, rather than abandon, special services for those students who truly need them, while at the same time improving the quality of instruction all students receive. Danielson and Bellamy (1988) note that between 1976-77 and 1984-85 ?the number of U.S. students identified as learning disabled increased 127 percent.? Wang, Walberg, and Reynolds (1992) propose several changes that need to occur in the immediate future for special education to better serve students with special needs: ? The enhanced use of effective instructional practices that are based on student achievement needs; materials and procedures that allow students to proceed at their own pace; frequent assessment of student progress; additional time for those who need it; enhanced student responsibility for monitoring and guiding their own learning; and learner goals that students can work cooperatively to achieve. ? School environments that monitor student progress more closely; are more aware and mindful of student characteristics; assess which pro- grams are working and which are not, which need to be improved, which need to be abandoned, and which need to be extended; use outcomes against which students can compare their individual achievement to a greater degree; and have less need to categorize children. ? More effective use of technology to allow special-needs students to work at home as well as at school, on weekends and during the summer, and that give parents better information about student progress. ? The elimination of separate teacher preparation to deal with special- education students, and in their place programs that train all teachers to deal with all students. 234 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING ? Increased coordination with and integration of health and welfare agen- cies and programs into the school. ? Coordination among all levels of government to support coherent pro- grams that serve all students. (Summarized from Wang, Walberg, and Reynolds 1992) Wang and colleagues suggest that the disjointed nature of educa- tional services generally, and those for special-education students spe- cifically, has led to a loss of focus on the needs of the learner. Improve- ment might be achieved through the use of ?waiver for performance? strategies (Wang, Reynolds, and Walberg 1988). States could allow districts to experiment with enriched regular-school programs in broad noncategorical or cross-categorical programs in return for providing data showing enhanced pupil learning outcomes. In their reform efforts, district schools have focused primarily on structural changes and program enhancements. Because teaching positions are now blended, job titles such as Chapter 1 teachers or special education resource room teachers no longer exist. Support teachers?called ?learning sup- port??are funded out of several sources. In addition, teachers are using different grouping strategies such as within-grade, cross-grade, multiage, and in-class services.... Schools have also concentrated on the causes of student failure by attempting to enhance learning opportunities. For example, they are ex- ploring options in cooperative learning, study skills, social skills, learning styles, self-concept, thematic curriculum, guidance support, and peer/ teacher tutoring. (Fink 1992, pp. 42-43) Integrating special-needs students into classrooms represents a unique challenge to educators, since these students represent two distinctly different groups of children. One group is composed of those who have never before been included in public school classrooms with any regu- larity; among these are students with severe and profound disabilities of a physiological or neurological nature. These children have been in special schools or programs devoted to and organized around their needs. Regular-classroom teachers have little idea of how to cope with such students. Programs of integration for these students will need to be of one type, since teachers have few experiences or reference points to draw upon in responding to the needs of such children. The other group of students only recently were withdrawn from regular education but are now returning. These include children with learning disabilities and those who are emotionally or behaviorally disturbed. Such students were a part of regular education until the midseventies and the passage of P.L. 94-142. Since that time numerous special programs have been developed for such students. Data from three studies suggest that these students may be having a difficult time LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 235 finding success in restructured schools that have made attempts to reintegrate them into regular classroom settings (Zigmond and others 1995). The authors found that students with learning disabilities were able to achieve at a rate necessary to begin closing the achievement gap between themselves and national reading norms at rates varying from 23 percent to 64 percent. Results revealed differences across the three projects, with 53% (Pitts- burgh), 38% (Washington), and 62% (Vanderbilt) of students with learn- ing disabilities gaining ground on their peers. Overall, [61%] of the target group had moved up in relative standing; the other [39%] lost ground. (Zigmond and others 1995, p. 539) Although it is difficult to compare these results to those achieved in schools that are not restructuring, since such schools are seldom evalu- ated so thoroughly, they are indicative of the challenge faced by schools that hope to increase the achievement of all students by placing them into mainstream classroom settings. Kauffman, Lloyd, Baker, and Riedel (1995) argue that the strategies to teach special-education students successfully are known and that schools need only follow them more closely. Such programs, they assert, can be used in essentially any educational environment. Charac- teristics include: ? Systematic, data-based interventions ? Continuous assessment and monitoring of progress ? Treatment matched carefully and specifically to the nature and severity of students? problems ? Multicomponent treatment ? Provision for frequent guided practice of academic and social skills ? Programming for transfer and maintenance ? Commitment to sustained intervention (pp. 543-544) Kauffman and others (1995) conclude that the key is to focus on the needs of the child, not the philosophy of the school: A narrow, highly restrictive definition of inclusion requires that all indi- viduals occupy a common space, regardless of whether that space has the features appropriate for their needs; it assumes that every place can be structured to serve every individual?s needs. A more adaptive and humane definition of an inclusive school system is one that allows for a variety of placements that offer the conditions under which every individual feels safe, accepted, and valued and is helped to develop his or her affective and intellectual capacities. (p. 545) To be successful, the integration or reintegration of special-educa- tion students will require a change in the culture of schools. Inclusion of 236 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING these students implies teachers will see themselves responsible for the education of all students, and for knowing which methods are working for which students. Such a transformation will be exceedingly difficult to achieve in environments where teachers work in isolation from one another, set different standards of success, and hold differing expecta- tions for appropriate student behavior. Also contributing to the complexity of change will be parent groups that support the rights of special-needs students. These groups are well organized and influential. Some are viewing the movement toward greater inclusion with a cautious eye ?because they fear losing the hard- won rights and special education services? they have gained over the past fifteen years (Viadero, November 4, 1992). CONCLUSION All these changes in the learning environment hold a common thread. A shift is taking place in which the learning environment is being designed with less attention to meeting the needs of the adults conduct- ing the learning and more attention to meeting the needs of the students engaged in the learning. Carrying out this shift requires a delicate balance between engaging/empowering the learner and simultaneously maintaining standards for performance. Humane environments can be- come indulgent ones; environments with high standards can become dehumanizing ones. The linkage between changes in the learning envi- ronment and those in standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment become clearer within such a framework. Changing the learning environment can help to reconceptualize relationships between students and subject matter, and between children and adults. By instituting such changes, material can be made more meaningful to students, and the quality of human relationships within a school can be improved for all participants. Such changes are difficult since they require substantial rethinking by all participants in the learn- ing process. Teachers must reexamine their assumptions regarding the distribution of ability among students and the innate ability of all students to learn. Administrators must reconsider the rationale they employ when designing specific structures for organizing schools. And students must take responsibility for and control over their own learn- ing. TECHNOLOGY 237 TECHNOLOGY CHAPTER 14 237 The most striking observation one reaches about technology in educa- tion over the past dozen years is not its impact but its lack of impact. Information technologies have been adopted in the central offices of most midsized school districts, particularly in business offices and, to a lesser degree, in school offices where they are used primarily to manage data on students and schedules. To be sure, there are many more computers in schools than there were ten years ago. But technology has not revolutionized learning in the classroom, nor led to higher produc- tivity in schools. In an edition of Macworld magazine entitled ?America?s Shame: How We?ve Abandoned Our Children?s Future,? Jerry Borrell, editor, describes his magazine?s research on the use of computers in schools and the concerns it raised: We debated whether we should invest more effort developing a story on how America is using personal computers in schools. Department of Education statistics told us that America made significant progress toward introducing personal computers in primary and secondary schools during the 1980s, that more than 50 percent of all children in grades 1 through 8 use computers at school.... Remarkable findings. Too remarkable.... ... [W]e decided to look further, to visit schools across America, to talk with policymakers in Washington, and to talk with professional associa- tions for teachers and educational administrators. What we found is a false dependence on statistical analysis and a reality so discouraging that it made us question how this situation has remained unremarked on for so long. Antiquated computers; unused computers; computers used for games and not for teaching; schools and teachers unprepared to use computers that they own; mismanaged or misdirected policies; and unknown hundreds of millions of dollars spent over the last decade for little return. (Borrell 1992, p. 25) Conditions have changed little since Borrell?s review in the early 1990s. Mehlinger (1996) reports that By 1994 the ratio of students to computers across all grades was 41 to 1. Thus, while there has been rapid growth in the number of computers in 238 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING each school, the opportunity for a typical student to have access to a computer is still limited. For example, as late as 1989 a student might have had access to a computer for one hour per week? about 4% of instruc- tional time. (p. 403) News media, boards of education, and parents often focus on the ratio of computers to students as an indication of technology use in schools, and these ratios do continue to drop. Many districts have gone on purchasing binges to acquire more computers, but in most cases these also become obsolete quickly as new software demands more RAM, more disk storage, and greater speed. Even technologies that have remained relatively stable, such as CD- ROM, have increased their speed four-fold and more, a critical differ- ence in learning situations where children?s attention spans may be limited, and schools are ill-prepared to update their equipment. Although large hardware purchases seem to assuage parents who then see computers in the school, they do not address issues of software and, more important, of training teachers in the use of computers and the integration of technology into the curriculum. Ratios of computers to students do not tell us anything about how (or whether) the machines are being used, about teacher technological literacy, or about whether changes have occured in other vital areas of schooling, such as curriculum, teaching techniques, and structure of time, to allow technology to achieve its full potential. The only technologies that have firmly taken root in most schools are the copier (which simply replaced the ditto machine) and the video- tape recorder and television monitor (which replaced the 16mm projec- tor and screen). In the vast majority of schools, telephones are only now becoming available to teachers, and often this occurs because of safety concerns, not as a part of a technology plan. Voice-mail systems are beginning to be seen in schools. Fax machines are a part of most central offices and are now appearing in school buildings. It is interesting to note that these forms of telecommunications are often not even a part of a district?s plan for technology, because parents, teachers, and commu- nity members usually associate technology with only one thing: the computer. THE ACOT PROJECT The computer may be the only image that comes to mind when the issue of technology is raised, though this appears to be changing. Much of the evidence on computer use in schools over the past decade indicates the computer will not single-handedly revolutionize teaching TECHNOLOGY 239 and learning. Dwyer, Ringstaff, and Sandholtz (1991) describe the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow (ACOT), one of the most extensive projects for classroom implementation and integration of computers. Even with the benefit of this carefully designed, resource-rich program, teachers took quite a while to move away from familiar ways of ap- proaching teaching. What we witnessed during the [first year of the project] was the adoption of the new electronic technology to support traditional text-based drill-and- practice instruction. Students continued to receive steady diets of whole- group lectures and recitation and individualized seatwork. Although much had changed physically in the classrooms, more remained the same. (p. 47) Dwyer and colleagues describe how the integration of technology brought about gradual changes in the mix of teaching techniques: The new technology became thoroughly integrated into traditional class- room practice. Lecture, recitation, and seatwork remained the dominant forms of student tasks; but these were supported 30-40 percent of the time with the use of word processors, databases, some graphic programs, and many computer-assisted instruction (CAI) packages. (pp. 47-48) The popularity of CAI packages indicates that computers are being used to continue the teacher?s control over the curriculum and to impose the structure of the curriculum on the learner via the computer, rather than allowing the learner to create meaning from the wealth of informa- tion the computer is able to make available. In the ACOT project, it wasn?t until the second year that a cadre of teachers emerged who began to provide instruction that was informed by a comprehensive under- standing of the full potential of technology. After they mastered the technical dimensions of the machines, they were ready to experiment with new methods of teaching. As teachers reached [the point where they mastered the technology] inde- pendently of each other, their roles began to shift noticeably, and new instructional patterns emerged. Team teaching, interdisciplinary project- based instruction, and individually paced instruction became more and more common at all of the sites. To accommodate more ambitious class projects, teachers even altered the foundation of the traditional school day: the master schedule.... [T]his type of teamed, project-based learning activ- ity opened up opportunities for teachers to step back and observe the results of their own pedagogic shifts. What they saw was their students? highly evolved skill with technology, ability to learn on their own, and movement away from competitive work patterns toward collaborative ones. (pp. 48-49) The ACOT project serves to demonstrate the difficulty associated with the introduction of any new instructional method or material into 240 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING classrooms. The researchers themselves admit that they may have un- derestimated the complexity of introducing change into the classroom: In the early days of the introduction of computers to classrooms, everyone seemed to focus on the innovation: computers and software. Little thought was given to the elements that would most likely remain the same: instruc- tion, student tasks, and assessment. In many ways the early progress of ACOT repeated the error. Although the sheer number of computers in ACOT classrooms radically transformed the physical environment, for the most part student learning tasks remained unchanged. (pp. 46-47) In a subsequent report on ACOT, Dwyer (1994) presents a positive assessment of the impact computers are having in ACOT classrooms after four years. He observes more student involvement and control of learning, more curiosity in what others were learning, and more excite- ment. At the same time, he hints that technology alone will not be enough to transform schooling. He quotes an early report by one of the project?s research associates that illustrates this point: Children interacted with one another more frequently while working at computers. And the interactions were different?the students spontane- ously helped each other. They were curious about what others were doing. They were excited about their own activities, and they were intently engaged. These behaviors were juxtaposed against a backdrop in which the adults in the environment variously encouraged and discouraged alterna- tive patterns of operating. It was as if they were not really sure whether to promote or inhibit new behaviors. (Phelan cited in Dwyer 1994, p. 6) Finding the proper uses for technology, the proper ways to measure the learning that results, and the proper adjustments in the ways teachers teach with, through, or around the technology continues to be a chal- lenge. Computers alone do not seem likely to cause dramatic changes in student learning if the primary measure is a standardized test. Even in the ACOT classrooms, which were truly computer-rich, students tended to do about as well on standardized tests as they might have been expected to do without the computers, though some clearly excelled. Districts that expect to spend millions on computers and see an instant increase in student learning are likely to be disappointed. Changes appeared to be somewhat more difficult, or at least more subtle, in ACOT?s high school classrooms. Today, if you observed ACOT?s 125 students in 9th through 12th grade at West High School in Columbus, Ohio, you would still see relatively traditional high school activities: lectures and recitations, writing assign- ments, and math problem sets. But you would also notice differences even in those basic activities. Students deliver lectures along with their teachers, TECHNOLOGY 241 and they take notes on portable computers?with the soft clicking sounds of keyboards filling in lecturers? pauses. (Dwyer 1994, p. 7) I leave it to the reader to determine if changes of such modest magnitude will justify the expense and effort required to integrate computers into secondary schools. While laptops are clearly a superior tool for notetaking in most cases, and evidence exists that they make a significant difference for certain student populations, the question re- mains whether using them to take lecture notes is going to transform student learning. High schools in particular have yet to adapt teaching and learning to take advantage of the inherent strengths and opportuni- ties offered by small portable computers. Collins (1991) identifies eight major trends that often accompany extensive use of computers in schools, as I have summarized below: 1. A shift from whole-class to small-group instruction. In another study of the ACOT project, Gearhart and her associates (1990) reported ?a dramatic decrease in teacher-led activities and a corresponding in- crease in independent or cooperative activities.? 2. A shift from lecture and recitation to coaching. There is evidence of a movement from didactic to constructivist approaches to learning. Schofield and Verban (1988) point to the switch by teachers from second-person grammatical constructions (?You should do this?) to first-person constructions (?Let?s try this?) as evidence of this shift. 3. A shift from working with better students to working with weaker students. There is evidence to suggest that in whole-class instruction, teachers carry on a dialog with the better students in the class. In classrooms where students are utilizing computers individually, re- searchers have seen evidence of teachers increasing the attention they pay to weaker students by a significant amount (Schofield and Verban 1988). 4. A shift toward more engaged students. In classrooms where computers are accessible to students to use for long-term activities or projects, ?researchers have reported dramatic increases in students? engagement? (Brown and Campione forthcoming, Carver 1990, Scardamalia and others 1989). 5. A shift from assessment based on test performance to assessment based on products, progress, and effort. Teachers are beginning to require students to solve problems before they move on to the next level of complexity in the curriculum, and to evaluate projects based on the products that the students produce. Teachers are still developing the standards and skills to assess student work against outcomes and effort, rather than factual knowledge. 242 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING 6. A shift from a competitive to a cooperative social structure. When students are working on a common database, or on projects which utilize the same database, there is more sharing of information, problem- solving, and communication among students (Brown and Campione, forthcoming, Newman 1990, Scardamalia and others 1989). By con- trast, when students work on Integrated Learning Systems, where each is working independently to master factual information, there appears to be an increase in competition (Schofield and Verban 1988). 7. A shift from all students learning the same things to different students learning different things. A curriculum that requires all stu- dents to learn the same things naturally ends up focusing upon the things that students have not learned, and directs student effort toward their weaknesses rather than their strengths (Drucker 1989). While there are areas of instruction where this may be quite appropriate, for many students their entire education consists of constant focus on their weak- nesses, and no attention to strengths. Access by students to large, diverse databases, coupled with the opportunity for students to make some choices of what is of interest to them allows students to share informa- tion and to develop areas of strength and interest (Foster and Julyan 1988, Pea forthcoming). 8. A shift from the primacy of verbal thinking to the integration of visual and verbal thinking. Computers, electronic networks, television, and multimedia educational systems are providing a new type of ?elec- tronic literacy? that allows people to think differently than they did when restricted to print material as the primary means for transmitting ideas and thoughts at a distance. Much as the invention of the book changed the way in which people think, so too will the extensive use of electronic, visual information. Schools have yet to adapt their method- ologies to this changing reality. SOME OFTEN-OVERLOOKED TECHNOLOGIES Telephones, fax machines, calculators, and video cameras are less glamorous than computers, and for that reason their potential benefits for instruction often go unnoticed. While schools flock to install satellite dishes and to hardwire for computer networks, the most basic form of telecommunications, the telephone, often remains overlooked as a po- tential tool, both for teacher productivity and student learning. Tele- phone lines possess the ability to carry voice, electronic, and visual data. The telephone can serve as a tool for better communication between teachers and parents. If phones are available, teachers will use them. If TECHNOLOGY 243 they are inconvenient to use, teachers will be much less inclined to make repeated efforts to reach parents, for example. Use of the phone goes beyond normal teacher-parent or even teacher- student communication. Some devices enable teachers to leave recorded messages, such as the day?s homework assignments, which parents may access by punching a predesignated code for each particular teacher. Soon it will be feasible to assign codes to individual students, if the parents and teacher believe that regular messages are needed. Schools can also use such equipment to provide a verbal ?bulletin board? of upcoming events and needs. Such technology pays for itself in reduced mailing costs and increased efficiency in the transmission of important information. Phone lines also allow students to communicate with others in the local community and around the world. Conference calls allow direct, real-time communication; computer networks, like the National Geographic?s Kidnet, allow electronic communication. Online data- bases can also be accessed through conventional phone lines, putting vast amounts of information at the fingertips of teachers and students. And recent developments in video-transmission technologies are allow- ing phone lines to transmit video images to accompany a conversation. Although the advent of ?wireless networks? is just around the corner, the phone line can play an important role, particularly in schools where the expense of more exotic hardware and wiring cannot be justified yet. Access to a telephone line also creates the capability to employ a fax machine in a variety of ways. As these machines become more ubiqui- tous, new uses for them will surely be found. For now, they allow for the transmission of printed information from school to school almost instan- taneously. Using a fax machine, students working together on a network can transmit information (such as writing, drawings, local newspaper articles, and other forms of data that would be cumbersome to transfer to the computer) to one another to enliven discussions or focus investiga- tions. With the capacity to beam messages to predefined groups of users with a single command, a fax machine could allow a teacher to commu- nicate with all parents simultaneously, when or if we reach the point where most parents have such machines. A facsimile of an individual child?s work for the day could be quickly transmitted to parents while the original remained at school. Parents could comment on an upcoming assignment or offer a critique of their child?s work, which could be returned to the teacher and incorporated into the next day?s lesson. The video camera, a powerful, accessible tool for curriculum devel- opment and student expression, is used sparingly and is viewed more as 244 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING a toy than an educational tool. It is ironic that video is largely ignored at the same time that students spend large blocks of their leisure time viewing information from video sources. Visual images are an increas- ingly important part of students? lives, and of most workplaces, yet video clearly remains on the fringes of instruction in schools. Low-cost editing equipment and small portable cameras with relatively sophisti- cated technical features enable children and adults to collect and orga- nize visual information with relative ease. Advances in multimedia technologies are leading to the integration of video and computer-based information. Telecommunications in the form of satellite transmissions, gener- ally referred to as distance learning, along with interactive computer networks, are being employed by more and more schools throughout the country. This combination is especially appealing to rural schools as a source of learning experiences they are otherwise unable to offer. Interactive distance learning also offers a way for students to communi- cate with other children in very different environments, thereby counter- acting the sense of isolation often present in rural settings. While telecommunications may prove to be a powerful tool for restructuring, its use at this point is primarily to expand, not to change, the existing curriculum by offering courses such as physics or French to schools not otherwise able to offer them and by employing traditional instructional strategies. As educators become more familiar and comfortable with the poten- tial inherent in distance learning and computer networking, and as more schools purchase the equipment necessary to participate fully in satellite uplink-downlink and computer networks, it is likely these technologies will be employed to restructure as well as expand the curriculum. If nothing else, telecommunications allow rural schools to adapt rapidly (sometimes more rapidly than their larger urban cousins). For example, rural schools with interactive capacity are offering courses in foreign languages such as Japanese and Chinese. These courses are taught by highly trained teachers, often native speakers, while urban schools, relying on their own teachers, may have to limit their offerings to the ?traditional? European languages. Even devices as simple as calculators have not yet been fully integrated into some schools. Calculators now come in numerous sizes, shapes, and forms, including sophisticated graphing calculators. Rather than being restricted to math classes, calculators have the potential to be used in many different learning settings, to make measurements, verify results, check hypotheses, analyze data, or record observations. Such uses make it feasible for teachers in disciplines other than math to TECHNOLOGY 245 require calculator use, and, ideally, to coordinate their efforts so that each does not have to teach calculator skills. Parents in some schools still object to calculators, since they view them strictly as tools to replace basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. They worry students will never memorize these basic skills. Schools have not been very effective in presenting this type of parent with a broader view of the potential and role for calculators in the total curriculum. THE EVOLUTION OF INTEGRATED LEARNING SYSTEMS The Integrated Learning Systems (ILS) that came into being in the mideighties were often based on the use of computers in a centralized lab as tools for individual student work on a common structured curricu- lum, generally containing liberal doses of drill and practice. David Conley (February 1991) describes how these systems were primarily another example of substituting a new technology for an old one without changing the basic dimensions of teaching and learning: For some schools, the vision for technology is to move the fact-based, textbook-driven curriculum to a disk, allowing each student to move through this material individually on a computer, with the teacher monitor- ing on a central machine. These Integrated Learning Systems (ILS), or Integrated Instructional Systems (IIS) are developed by large corporations, many with ties to the textbook market. [Major producers include: Jostens Learning Corporation, WICAT Systems, Wasatch Education Systems, New Century Education, Ideal Learning, Computer Curriculum Corpora- tion, Computer Networking Specialists, and Computer Systems Research.] They are touted as tools for increasing teacher ?productivity?; one teacher can monitor several students simultaneously. The curriculum is designed by the corporation based on its conception of what each age group ?should know.? It is a mastery-based approach, which can be very valuable for certain portions of the curriculum with certain students in certain situa- tions. The danger is that, having made major investments in hardware and software for these centralized labs, there will be pressure to keep them occupied with students. They will come to drive the curriculum. Programs that integrate math, English, social studies, and science already exist. Their emphasis is on the mastery of factual material at a knowledge and comprehension level. How much time students can spend at these learning stations before ?productivity? declines remains to be seen. However, once this technology is purchased, the commitment to use the materials in their current form and for the goals specified is relatively irrevocable. The appeal of the IIS is evident, particularly to local boards of educa- tion, whose members are frequently business people to whom the ?effi- ciency? of such systems generally appeals. (p. 29) 246 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING These systems may now begin to experience dramatic changes as manufacturers move to incorporate CD-ROM technologies and to allow teachers to have much greater control over the content and activities delivered to students. The use of CD-ROMs with ILS means that much greater amounts of information can be made available to students and more sophisticated learning tasks developed. ?Open architecture? de- signs allow teachers to combine elements from different programs into more highly integrated and interesting learning experiences and to tailor experiences to individual students with relative ease. They can choose among existing learning objectives or create their own. Teachers have all the elements necessary to design an entire course within the system (Greenfield 1991). This new generation of Integrated Learning Systems can play an important role in schools attempting to personalize learning while still ensuring that all students learn certain skills. Skillful use of such envi- ronments both as centers for student exploration and construction of knowledge and for more highly structured drill and practice offer the potential to allow students to take much greater ownership of their own learning while simultaneously enabling teachers to monitor student mastery of key skills and knowledge. Ideally, such environments could function as resource centers where students go to acquire a skill as needed to complete a project or learning experience successfully. This potential to obtain knowledge or skills ?just in time,? to be able to see the utility of what was being learned, and to be able to apply it almost immediately creates an opportunity to produce powerful learning expe- riences, where students are more likely to integrate and retain what they learn. An exhaustive evaluation of the ILS as a learning tool by Van Dusen and Worthen (1995) reveals both its potential and the complexity of making this innovation work successfully as a tool for student learning: Recently, some ILSs have moved beyond... simple drill and practice by adding materials that require students to delve into complex problems in ways that promote deep reflection and genuine understanding (Becker and Hativa 1994). For example some systems include scientific simulations that teach the scientific method by illustrating the beginning of an experi- ment and requiring students to hypothesize about outcomes before com- pleting the simulation. Some language arts lessons encourage discovery learning by allowing students to explore topics through a branching pro- gram before defining a specific vocabulary or presenting the overall theme. Such ILSs follow more of a constructivist view of learning by provid- ing a rich learning environment. Word processing programs, spreadsheets, mathematical graphing programs, encyclopedias, and thesauruses are only TECHNOLOGY 247 a few examples of the software and other resources that allow students to construct meaning and enhance critical thinking.... (p. 28) Proponents of these systems argue that they improve student learning. Whether or not one views research as supporting this claim depends in large part on the type of evidence one chooses to trust.... Of the studies that did examine student learning outcomes, many reported large gains on standardized test scores (Trotter 1991). However, Becker (1992) has noted methodological flaws in many of these studies and, in a meta-analysis of nearly 100 of them, concluded that they provide little conclusive evidence of ILS impact on achievement. Where differ- ences were found between the achievement of ILS users and comparable non-users, Becker concluded that they were too small to have any educa- tional significance.... (p. 29) We believe the reason prior research results are equivocal may be that they have underestimated the impact of these systems.... We believe that the ?no impact? findings may reflect a failure of such studies to examine one very critical question: Has the ILS been implemented correctly and in the manner its designers proposed as necessary for its effectiveness? This underutilization of such systems... has been documented (Sherry 1990).... In none of the sites participating in our study was the ILS being used to its full potential. In some schools, students were spending as little as 10 minutes per week on the system!... The findings from our study show that an ILS?if used appropriately? has real potential for improving student achievement. (p. 31) However, Van Dusen and Worthen note, for these positive results to be realized, a number of things must happen in concert. Schools that have made effective use of an ILS have attended to the following six criteria: ? They have made use of a sound implementation guide. ? The have an appropriate hardware configuration, either in a cen- tral lab or distributed, based on the needs of the school. ? They allow students adequate time on the ILS, in some cases a substantial portion of their day, or at least 30 minutes. ? They have enough equipment, roughly one for every 3 students. ? Their teachers integrate the ILS into their classroom learning activities. ? They have administrators who support use of the ILS, including up to two weeks of training in its use. This research indicates that the ILS can be effective, but also suggests the complexity of achieving success with an ILS and the need for a high degree of teacher buy-in into its use. Schools where adminis- tration purchases and installs such expensive and complicated systems without regard to teacher attitudes could find themselves frustrated and 248 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING disappointed. Schools should give careful thought before venturing down the ILS path, if for no other reason than it will lock up most of the resources available for technology essentially indefinitely. The software required to run the system is generally licensed on a yearly basis to the districts. This annual licensing fee can be hefty. Changes in the software can dictate hardware purchases, thereby further limiting a school?s options. On the other hand, a school where staff are clearly committed to using the ILS as a central means of organizing and tracking student learning can hope to find it a useful tool. These examples suggest that technology could have a significant impact on instructional practices and goals, both to improve current practices and to restructure them. As mentioned earlier, the impact of technology to this point has not been significant in most schools either in terms of improvement or restructuring. It has been common to merge technology into the program without disrupting established routines or ways of thinking. Even the computer has been incorporated in a way that allows the current structure of learning to remain intact. Levinson (1990) offers two scenarios of how technology might become integrated into public schools, one suggesting how technology could change learn- ing fundamentally, the other extending current practices out into the next decade: Students and teachers with a common interest, though miles apart, meet in a teleconference. Voice mail provides individual contact between teacher and student. An expert in learning styles uses a sophisticated program to diagnose the special needs of children in three school districts on one day. At computer workstations, teachers customize instruction, maintain con- tact with parents, and handle administrative chores. Networks and groupware allow students to work across classroom boundaries; CD-ROM technology puts huge libraries at everyone?s fingertips; videotapes and satellite trans- missions encourage multisite instruction, freeing classroom teachers for coaching and small-group work. Consider a second scenario.... It is the year 2000. Every student has a personal computer linked to a local network; every teacher has a computer workstation to monitor stu- dent progress and record grades; every classroom is linked to the media center for video. But the organization of the school and the patterns of student/teacher interaction remain the same?except that now they are computer-mediated, perhaps slightly more efficient, certainly more com- plex to manage.... Which scenario will prevail? A strong case can be made that elemen- tary and secondary educational institutions will co-opt the complex and central changes necessary to make the vision of technology-mediated education a reality. These institutions may instead use technology to replicate the status quo, supporting or streamlining current modes of TECHNOLOGY 249 operation?or school systems may introduce incremental changes that create more complexity without achieving greater effectiveness. (pp. 121- 22) In other words, technology per se is no guarantee of a better, or even a different, education for tomorrow?s students. EMERGING MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES One of the most promising of the rapidly emerging technologies is multimedia. Multimedia combines computer, video, audio, and other sources, such as online data, in a way that allows users to interact with information and make decisions about how and what they learn. Like many recent technologies, multimedia has received considerable hype as the next tool to revolutionize education and schooling. Stansberry (1993) anticipates teachers? response to this hype and explains the potential value of multimedia: Try telling teachers that multimedia will revolutionize the American class- room, and chances are that their eyes will roll toward the ceiling. It?s a promise that educators have heard before, about everything from the overhead projector to closed-circuit TV.... Educators realize, however, that the new technology is here to stay, like it or not. They know they must prepare their students to survive in a computerized workplace. For many teachers, as well as students, the enticements of the new media are hard to resist. Unlike earlier educational computing efforts, in which rote learning exercises were pretty much moved verbatim from the page to the screen, many new applications introduced to K-12 schools attract students with images and sound, involve them with interactivity and feed their minds with vast stores of hyper- linked data. Many new applications go hand in hand with constructivist learning theory, which holds that in today?s fast-changing world the ability to analyze and solve a variety of problems quickly is more important than applying memorized information. And the best way to teach the conceptual thinking required for these tasks is through a system of inquiry in which the student is immersed in hands-on, real-world situations and asked to pro- vide solutions. Interactive multimedia?with its potential for engaging the user?may well be the perfect support medium for such a process. The new applica- tions invite students to navigate their own paths and explore connections among disciplines that might not have been obvious. Many programs encourage students to rearrange provided media objects or generate their own to create original presentations. (pp. 30-31) Multimedia gives students the opportunity not only to research the written word, but to employ graphic images and full-motion video in 250 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING combination with text to create an integrated report. Students become much more involved in the decision-making process concerning both what they learn and how they organize and present what they have learned. An example of such a program is Science Essentials. This fully interactive program allows students to access information from sixteen laserdisks, a video dictionary, a word processor, and a video editor. In one module, students study the complex interplay of light and sound during a thunderstorm. The teacher calls up a storm sequence, which can then be stopped at key points while the students measure the amount of time between a thunderclap and a flash of light. In this way, they calculate whether the storm is approaching or receding, and at what rate and distance. Science Essentials? video dictionary provides visual and oral explanations for key concepts and terms. Students type in a word such as ?erosion? and the video monitor displays a picture of a hillside being worn away by wind and water. Simultaneously, the computer screen presents a written defini- tion, which is spoken aloud by a disc-based narrator. Students can cut and paste the video clips to assemble their own multimedia reports. (Stansberry 1993, p. 33) The existence of a technology is guarantee neither of its ultimate use nor of its effectiveness. Although multimedia holds great potential, teachers will need to be willing to rethink their role along with their instructional strategies. Recent studies by Dr. Dennis Falk and Dr. Helen Carlson at the University of Minnesota suggest that the biggest roadblock to multimedia lies in the mundane observation that teachers tend to teach in the same way they themselves were taught.... [T]his underlies the necessity for teacher train- ing in computers and multimedia. (Stansberry 1993, p. 36) Many teachers and school districts are on the verge of making decisions to employ multimedia more extensively. Many new titles are currently available, prices on hardware have come down considerably, the types of equipment school districts are likely to purchase now are much easier to use, and there is much more staff development of high quality available to teachers. In such an environment it is likely that multimedia will begin to proliferate in public schools throughout the decade?provided teachers come to embrace it as an ally and not a threat or nuisance. THE INTERNET AND NETWORKING The Internet is truly a phenomenon. It has burst upon the scene and continues to grow and evolve rapidly and unpredictably. What the TECHNOLOGY 251 Internet does demonstrate conclusively is the capability to create com- plex networks of computers exchanging a wide range of information, and the willingness and enthusiasm of people to learn how to use such a network, and to use it in unpredictable ways. The Internet probably has two primary uses for schools: as a re- search tool and as a communication tool. As a research tool, it offers access to an unimaginably large amount of data from an incredible array of sources. It is easy to search, and reasonably fun to use, particularly when compared to older command-line interfaces dependent on obscure written commands. As a communications tool, the Internet has the capability to allow students to converse with experts and novices on any of a wide range of topics. Through bulletin boards and file-transfer programs, students can quickly obtain advice and assistance from around the world. These communications can be interesting, entertaining, and informative. Stu- dents are drawn into the world of the Internet. Sometimes the challenge is to get them to rejoin the world outside it. E-mail, newsgroups, usenets, listservs are all mechanisms that speed and simplify communication among people who would find it nowhere near as easy to interact otherwise. Improving communication can spur greater learning. In the long run, the Internet poses a unique challenge that goes far beyond these two uses. That challenge derives from the way in which the Internet promises to unlock access to information and, by implica- tion, to learning. If virtually everyone has access to the Internet, if it becomes continuously easier to use, if the range of things that can be done on it continues to grow, and if schools don?t become dramatically more technology-rich, we may be faced with a situation where children are exposed to so much information in the home and elsewhere in their lives that school becomes the place they go to get away from informa- tion. This may seem preposterous on its face, and may be. However, it is worth asking the question now, since educators are not likely to hold the monopoly on certain types of information they have had previously. Home schooling, in particular, has gained momentum using rather unimaginative packaged curriculum programs. It?s worth pondering how many more families may choose some degree of home schooling if they can gain easy access to relatively inexpensive, high-quality learn- ing materials coupled with teacher interaction electronically over the Internet. The Internet need not be the kind of threat to schools that it (or some other variation such as enhanced cable television) is likely to be to the Postal Service. At the same time, the handwriting is on the wall for all to 252 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING see. Simply outfitting schools with computers does not give them any particular advantage over the home or any other site that would choose to establish an electronic hookup. The difference, or added value, schools can offer is in how they structure, support, facilitate, and certify student learning. Schools can be true ?learning communities,? not infor- mation factories. Education is more than acquiring information. Infor- mation is not knowledge, and knowledge is not wisdom. School should be about helping students at least learn the difference among the three, as well as begin their journey toward wisdom. For schools to contribute a unique ?value-added? to the learning process, technology cannot continue to be marginalized the way it is currently, nor can it be optional, nor can schools wait until there is ?enough money? before they purchase technology. Many school teach- ers and administrators respond with the lament, ?But we can?t afford to,? when they might more fruitfully determine if they can afford not to. At the same time, the Internet is not likely to eliminate the need for teachers. It?s hard to imagine large numbers of students sitting trans- fixed, day after day, year after year, in front of the computer doing school work. They may do so to ?surf the Net,? but these are activities where they are in control. Many of the current visions of an educational system revolutionized by technology fail to make a crucial distinction. They neglect to note that much of what motivates people to use technol- ogy as a learning tool is their ability to choose what they learn and control how they learn it. Schools tend to want learners to learn similar things in relatively similar ways. Who will control technology in the schools, the teachers or learners? Can both groups have their needs met simultaneously via technology-based learning? Or will computers end up much like videotape has, where it is used extensively in classrooms, but not necessarily in ways that excite and motivate students. PROBLEMS FACING TECHNOLOGY IN THE SCHOOLS Even if schools commit to using technology and designing learning accordingly, they face numerous hurdles. Clearly, technology is trans- forming the world and will continue to do so in rapid and unpredictable ways. But that is not the same as saying that technology is ready to transform education in its current form. The visionaries describe an educational future full of computers and self-directed learners creating and recording new endings to Shakespeare?s plays or conducting re- search on groundwater pollution in India. While feasible (I?m sure somewhere students have used technology to do each of the aforemen- tioned examples), the challenges schools face to reach this visionary TECHNOLOGY 253 state should not be overlooked. In other words, the simple existence of technology will not be enough to transform schooling. Here are several problems schools face: Technology becomes obsolete so quickly that few, if any, school districts have devised a plan to keep pace with it. Most purchase machines and keep them until they wear out or run out of replacement parts. School districts? current strategy of choice to fund technology is the use of bonds, a dangerous approach. Morton (1996) describes the dangers: The new rush to use bond issues to fund computer systems in schools will cause new problems because administrators and school boards refuse to accept the idea that funding for computer systems (including teacher training, software upgrades, video upgrades, satellite use, and system maintenance) must be part of the annual budget and must be looked on as a necessary expense. Bond issues fund hardware and cabling, but nothing else.... School budgets can accommodate technological change by using ?tech- nology-based budgeting.? This is a simple concept: school budgets must have a minimum percentage of their total funds allocated to technology maintenance and change every year. This minimum is 3% of the total operating budget. (p. 419) Computers are still not very easy to use or particularly reliable. By this I mean they ?crash? often, lose or corrupt data with some regularity, have numerous incompatibilities between and among software and hardware, require highly specialized knowledge to keep in proper work- ing order, and always seem to fail at crucial moments. Hardware and software makers do not help the situation much by rushing products to market before they are ready, then providing inadequate support to befuddled end users struggling to make them work. One has only to observe even a professional presenter making a presentation with an LCD panel and presentation software to see the number of things that can go wrong. Equipment in schools is subjected to extreme abuse (or loving use) and is poorly supported, making it unreliable for anything other than rudimentary tasks. Schools where this is not true have individuals who have dedicated themselves to keeping machines in working order, up- dating software, and ensuring no damage has been done to them. All of this limits the functional utility of technology. It can theoreti- cally do many things, but in practice does not fully live up to what it promises. I think of today?s computers and software as similar to cars that had to be hand-cranked to be started; every once in a while they would kick back and break the cranker?s arm. It doesn?t take too many 254 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING bad experiences before users become ?gun shy,? and limit their use to a small slice of a machine?s capabilities. Computers require much more support than schools seem to be willing or able to provide for them. Business has learned the importance of LAN administrators and technical-support staff. Schools cannot pro- vide such support (although high schools in particular are learning to use students to provide tech support). Once an organization develops depen- dency on computers and networks, it cannot tolerate disruptions to the network that last more than a few minutes. Schools (and the technology itself) have a long way to go before being able to meet such demanding reliability criteria. Weiss (1996) summarizes these support issues: Along with a hardware and software infrastructure, computer systems will require a number of parallel infrastructures in order to function at all. Skilled individuals will be needed to repair the machines when they break. And this repair includes more than the desktop machines out in the open; it also includes the array of networking devices hidden in closets. Other individuals will need to be available to diagnose systems in order to determine whether they need repair. Staff developers will be necessary both to train staff members in the use of computers and to model new teaching methods that can be integrated into the curriculum. A ?help desk? system will be needed to answer users? questions over the telephone and to offer field support when necessary. Technicians will be required to install new equipment and transfer files as obsolete models are replaced. Spe- cially trained network experts will be needed to solve problems arising beyond the individual workstations. New software and hardware will have to be tested for appropriateness and compatibility with the existing equip- ment. (p. 410) The teacher-training requirements are almost beyond comprehen- sion. Familiarity and competence with computers and their software are acquired almost entirely through ?hands on? use. Users need support as they are learning and applying the software. Courses alone do not accomplish this. Schools will need extensive user-support networks and internal training capacity to have any hope of retaining currency if schools develop plans to avoid hardware and software obsolescence. Inability to standardize hardware within districts or even among districts will increase training costs as well. The types of learning that networked computing (or good quality software for that matter) lends itself to are quite antithetical to the types of lessons teachers have become expert at constructing and conducting. At the very least, computer-based activities require much larger blocks of uninterrupted time than schools provide. Whether it?s constructing a home page, manipulating an image in Photoshop, creating computer art, TECHNOLOGY 255 responding to email, producing an animated presentation, even playing an interesting simulation like SimCity, the time passes very quickly. Doing almost anything on computers other than typing term papers or responding to drill-and-practice programs demands this focused, yet relaxed, concentration for extended periods. As long as the student?s entire day is tied up in classes, broken up into small bits of time from twenty to ninety minutes, the potential will not be realized. Students want to use technology to learn what they want to learn, which may or may not be what the teacher has in mind. Students may spend hours of their own time learning everything there is to know about martial arts, or Nintendo games, or Walt Disney movies, or how to bake cookies, or the lyrics to every pop song produced in the past thirty years, or how to pass the SATs, but they may not necessarily be all that interested in nineteenth-century Czarist Russia, or factoring polynomi- als, or grammar, no matter what jazzy uses of technology are included. The challenge for educators is figuring out how to get students interested and engaged in learning about things they would not otherwise even know existed. The trick will be to find a way to balance and integrate student interests with teacher objectives within the complex web of information technologies. On a more mundane level, many critical issues remain to be re- solved before educators can expect to have access to the resources that will be available on the Internet and via other sources. Many sources of information have already been purchased by large corporations such as Microsoft, which have no plans to allow free access to their acquisitions. The Internet itself is still in its infancy, and there is no reason not to assume that it will become increasingly commercial as it evolves. Its early beginnings were as a government-sponsored network to support national defense, hence the free-access tradition. Perhaps the Internet will escape the commercialization that befell the airwaves, but this is unlikely. When it happens, educators may lose free access or be restricted in their use of its resources. Copyright issues need to be resolved as well. What rights does an author have when a piece of work is accessed electronically? Why would publishers pro- duce anything if it were readily available free online? Schools will need to confront the reality of students being limited in their ability to search the Internet (or other databases) due to commercial restrictions and monetary charges. As long as learning is defined in terms of the Carnegie unit, technol- ogy will have a hard time becoming cost-effective. The Carnegie unit is a measure of student-teacher face-to-face contact. It is entirely inad- equate as a measure in a technologically based system where interaction 256 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING with the teacher may not be the key dimension of learning, and where a great deal of time may be spent outside the teacher?s supervision. This learning time is not ?homework? in the way schools have defined homework historically, as a sort of guided practice of materials intro- duced by the teacher. Instead, this independent work is the true essence of the learning experience in many cases. It is where the student creates, generates, and comprehends the ?lessons.? To say that the only time that should count is the time spent in the teacher?s presence ignores this learning dynamic. Schools have been unable to rethink learning outside the Carnegie unit. I do not wish to be excessively pessimistic here, but only to caution educators that the challenge of technology is multifaceted. It is not just a matter of getting the money to purchase computers. Schools will have to fight doggedly to maintain pace with the rest of the world, and will have to exert a voice in political arenas as well to influence the evolution of the information-based society so that schools have some special standing. This requires proactive planning and focus that I do not see presently in many schools or school districts. I rarely sense urgency when talking with educators about the re- sponses the information revolution demands from them and the chal- lenges it poses to schooling. I find it hard to believe schools will be funded at the levels they are currently (however inadequate such fund- ing might be) if they continue to drift out of touch with the rest of society?s push into the information age. ISSUES TO CONSIDER WHEN DEVELOPING TECHNOLOGY PLANS The introduction of computers into schools has been viewed prima- rily as a hardware/software project. The ACOT study and my own work with schools suggest that the integration of technology requires atten- tion to six variables simultaneously for any technology plan to have a significant educational impact. These variables are hardware, software, staff development, curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Unfortu- nately, most district technology plans focus on hardware acquisitions almost exclusively. Schools that choose to buy rather than lease, or buy then resell, should have multiuse plans for the machines. What will the district do when the machines need memory or storage upgrades? What will be done when the machines begin to become obsolete? What are their projected key uses and their lifespan? Such questions need to precede, not follow, hardware purchase. How much support do the machines TECHNOLOGY 257 require and who will provide this support? How stable and reliable are they? How user friendly? How familiar? Once hardware decisions are tentatively made, software needs should be considered immediately. Software includes a range of media includ- ing laser disks, CD-ROM discs, online resources, and, yes, books. It?s worth reviewing at this point whether the right decision on hardware was made. Can you get the software you need at a reasonable price and with adequate technical support? Staff development to support technology usage has been haphazard at best. While this is often true of the private sector as well, it offers little consolation to educators who face a newly equipped computer lab that has been stocked over the summer and readied for students only days before school begins, or who have the computer that was scheduled to be there in September show up mid-October and they are expected to learn how to use it over the weekend. Teachers need adequate time to learn and experiment with new software and hardware before they begin using equipment in the classroom with students. Technology acquisition programs often do not address this need in a systematic way. There is little reason to purchase technology if the curriculum is not modified to take advantage of its unique potential. The purpose of technology is to enhance student learning; it is unlikely that this goal will be achieved if exactly the same curriculum is used after the technol- ogy is purchased as was used before the technology was available. The technology plan should contain an expectation that new curriculum will be developed and modified regularly based on the role technology can play in learning. Similarly, the instructional techniques teachers employ in whole- class instruction are rarely well suited to the inherent potential of technology to personalize learning and let learners construct meaning. Helping teachers learn to move beyond their position at the front of the classroom and to develop new management techniques that allow stu- dents to work independently and in small groups while using technology as a learning tool will be essential if teachers are to integrate technology successfully. One out-of-control class that results from the failed use of technology will discourage many teachers from using technology for years to come. New technologies, curricula, and instructional strategies imply new assessments as well. If the measurement of effectiveness for new tech- nologies is limited to standardized achievement test scores, the ultimate uses of those technologies will be extremely limited. Assessment should be designed to capture the unique aspects of learning that occur when technology is integrated thoughtfully into instruction in ways that re- 258 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING shape learning. Such assessments might examine both what students learned and how they learned it. The process they followed will be as important as the results in many cases. In other cases, the only reason- able way to ascertain learning will be on the computer itself. Simula- tions are their own evaluation, for example. LINKING TECHNOLOGY AND RESTRUCTURING Sheingold (1991) discusses in detail the issues related to creating synergy between restructuring and technology. In particular, she identi- fies four recommendations to speed the process, which I have para- phrased as follows: 1. Bring technology and learning to the same ?table? when restruc- turing is being planned. Make certain that those who purchase technol- ogy and those who design the learning experiences for which it is used communicate with one another. 2. Reconsider how technology is organized in the district. Who makes technology decisions, central office or teachers? What are the advantages of each? Should money for technology be spent on adminis- trative uses of technology (student scheduling, information manage- ment), teacher networks and workstations, loaner machines so that teachers can learn technology at home, new multimedia technologies, or more classroom computers? Such issues must be considered in terms of the needs and goals of each school. 3. Work toward a critical mass of equipment and expertise. Once enough educators understand and implement a technology, they can model its use and provide technical assistance and training to those who want to develop proficiency. A critical mass is achieved, at least in part, by having machines that are easy for educators to access. Integrated- learning systems for which all lessons are programmed, for example, do not allow teachers to develop much proficiency with technology in a broad way, or to develop new uses for the computers. 4. Use the media to convey new images and metaphors of schooling. Technology should ultimately create schools that do not look or feel the way today?s schools do. There will be little need for teachers to stand in front of quiet children seated in straight rows and tell students what to do and think. Small-group discussions revolving around data generated from a computer, student interviews and other projects using video equipment, or teacher-student evaluation of student electronic work may be more dominant images of the classroom. Many long-awaited technologies are now available, and their price is falling. Schools are beginning to experiment with integrating these TECHNOLOGY 259 technologies into instruction. We are perhaps at the crossroads of our relationship with technology. Will it transform teaching, learning, and schooling, or will the ?deep structure? (Tye 1987) of schooling over- whelm technology and make it conform to the current practices and goals of schooling (Levinson 1990, Mecklenburger 1990)? Although there is still adequate time for schools to incorporate technology into learning and to redesign schooling for an information age, the time is passing without much tangible progress. The window of opportunity is closing as the gap between traditional schools and a technology-driven society widens. Educators face stiff challenges, but they may have little choice in the long run. Those schools that are struggling the most with technology are probably in the best position to make it work in the long run. Those that have few issues or problems associated with technology use may be in the most trouble. 260 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING SCHOOL-COMMUNITY RELATIONS CHAPTER 15 260 This dimension of restructuring addresses the imperative for schools to work in close partnership with all their stakeholders, whoever has an interest in the education of students. These stakeholders include parents, community agencies, and businesses, among others. Healthy families require parents and children working toward common goals in a mutu- ally supportive manner. Healthy communities need healthy families and healthy young people in order to survive. Businesses need people who have mastered basic academic skills, understand what it takes to be successful in the workplace, and want to succeed. Schools play an important role in the health of all these institutions. And, conversely, these institutions have an effect on the school?s ability to accomplish its primary mission. This interconnectedness is becoming increasingly evident, and educational programs are changing as a result, as are practices within families, agencies, and businesses. The net result is new ways of ensuring young people reach maturity emotionally whole, intellectually competent, and prepared for the world of work. These new partnerships represent a 180-degree shift in the thinking of some educators and in the structure of some schools. During much of this century the relative separation between schools and their immediate communities has increased. While organized inter- est groups have certainly made their influence felt on public education, schools have not generally worked in concert with community agencies, businesses, local government agencies, or, in many cases, even parents, in a concerted fashion to adapt to the changing needs and realities of their constituents. Many of the reforms during the first half of the twentieth century? such as nonpartisan boards of education, a professional managerial class composed of principals and superintendents, tenure and dismissal laws, formal processes for curriculum or book challenges, and the general bureaucratization of school procedures?served to insulate schools from community influence and to give them control over determining the ways and means by which community involvement took place. This SCHOOL-COMMUNITY RELATIONS 261 separation fostered the perception that education was the responsibility of the educators, that they alone possessed the knowledge necessary to make the proper decisions regarding how schooling should be organized and conducted. Over time, many educators themselves came to believe that they did, in fact, know best and could work successfully in relative isolation from their communities. Fewer teachers and administrators lived in the same communities or attendance areas as their students. More parents seemed willing to let the schools essentially raise their children, in part because the parents were stretched to the limit attempting to keep their households intact and economically viable. Local communities some- times became complacent, assuming well-tended schools and periodic reassurances from educators indicated all was well. Business leaders did not view schools as partners or important contributors to their success. Educators were swept up in this laissez-faire attitude and, indeed, fostered it. They tended to view desirable school-community relations as a process of telling parents what they needed to do and when they needed to do it, and of insisting the business community not become involved in education except to provide resources. Schools did not build relations with other social-service agencies who served the same stu- dents and families as the school (neither did these agencies mount much of an effort to collaborate with schools). Epstein (1995) describes this state of affairs as the ?external model? of overlapping spheres of influence. In this model, the family, school, and community may be drawn together or pushed apart. There are some practices that each unit conducts separately and some they conduct jointly to influence children?s learning and development. The ?internal model? of interaction, on the other hand, shows where and how interper- sonal relations and patterns of influence occur. This model analyzes how these units interact at the level of the individual, with the student at the center of the model, and emphasizes the absolute interconnectedness of family, school, and community agency. This model is necessary, particularly in communities where parents and community agencies, for whatever reason, have not seen themselves as being in partnership with the schools. This is not to say that there are no examples of schools that have long histories of open relationships with their communities. Parental involvement is and always has been a way of life at some schools. Other schools effectively bar parents from becoming involved. In either case, involvement drops precipitously at the middle-school level and is nearly nonexistent in the vast majority of high schools. Many schools do have 262 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING active parent networks that raise funds (and, more recently, concerns) via site councils and other means of participation in policy- and deci- sion-making. In most American schools, community involvement still translates primarily into volunteer work in primary classrooms; atten- dance at sporting events, musical programs, and other forms of enter- tainment; and contributions of money or resources for various school projects or programs. Business involvement is defined as equipment or supplies donations, guest lectures, or, occasionally, plant tours. Ties with social-service agencies may now be in place, but the results may be almost imperceptible. New fiscal and demographic realities combined with rising calls for accountability are accelerating the need to change these traditional patterns of involvement. Numerous states have instituted requirements for more formal parental and community participation in decision- making. School administrators are much more concerned with how they are perceived in the community, and they are coming to realize the gap that separates them from their communities. This new sensitivity becomes particularly evident whenever a district seeks to pass a tax measure. The proportion of families with children enrolled in public school is often less than a third, or even a quarter. Most community members have little connection or communication with schools. Administrators find that business leaders do not under- stand or appreciate the challenges schools face, but at the same time the business community expects schools to improve dramatically before new funding is committed to them. Such realizations by school leaders have caused them to begin to rethink the relationship between schools and communities and to redefine the needs each can fulfill for the other. A new relationship may be emerging. Although it may not necessar- ily be welcomed by all schools, it is one that appears to be necessary for schools to survive and adapt in the future. This new relationship entails both parent and community involvement in the schools. Furthermore, it also involves the movement of children into the community for portions of their education. This alteration of the school-community relationship will be difficult, both because of the attendant expectations that accom- pany such a readjustment and the strongly ingrained norms regarding parental roles and involvement in schools. Three aspects of this new relationship are discussed here. One is the emerging role of the business community in shaping, directing, and determining the goals, methods, and content of the education of all youth. Many educators believe their central purpose should not be to prepare young people to be workers, yet the linkages between education SCHOOL-COMMUNITY RELATIONS 263 and economic viability for individuals and nations become stronger and more compelling. Another issue is the need to integrate the work of schools with all the social agencies that provide services to young people so that these efforts lead to enhanced student success. Finally, the relationship between parents and schools is changing and being rede- fined. THE ROLE AND EXPECTATIONS OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY What does the business community expect from schools and how are corporate leaders beginning to redefine their view of education?s role and goals? Four reports provide insight into these questions: the SCANS Report, the Workplace Basics report, an analysis conducted by the National Business Roundtable, and a series of recommendations from the California Business Roundtable. This section examines these documents and considers their potential impact on education. Two of the reports (SCANS and Workplace Basics) were discussed earlier, so are presented in summary form here. The Secretary?s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) released its report in July 1991 (Harp 1991). The report, a systematic analysis of the skills employers say they need for many broad employment clusters, is one of the first documents to attempt to system- atically identify the skills that will be needed by future workers. The report concludes that ?despite a decade of reform efforts, we can demonstrate little improvement in student achievement. One reason for the lack of educational improvement lies in the confusing signals exchanged between the education and business communities.? Five competency areas designed to produce the ?workplace know-how? needed by employers are identified in the report. The five competencies are defined as ?the productive use of resources, interpersonal skills, information, systems, and technology, built on a foundation of basic and thinking skills and well-developed personal qualities? (Harp 1991). The report states that ?real know-how cannot be taught in isolation; students need practice in the application of these skills.? It also implies that teachers need to employ student portfolios and other performance- based-assessment strategies to ascertain ?workplace know-how.? A second report, Workplace Basics: The Skills Employers Want, was produced jointly by the American Society of Training and Develop- ment and the U.S. Department of Labor?s Employment and Training Administration (Carnevale, Gainer, and Meltzer 1990), based on inter- views with employers throughout the nation. The report concludes that 264 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING employers are looking for workers who have ?learned how to learn,? who have the ability to listen and communicate effectively; who have pride in themselves and their potential to be successful (self-esteem); who know how to get things done (goal-setting/motivation); who have some sense of the skills needed to perform well in the workplace (personal and career development); who can get along with customers, suppliers, or coworkers (interpersonal and negotiation skills); who have some sense of where the organization is headed and what they must do to make a contribution (organizational effectiveness); and who can assume responsibility and motivate coworkers when necessary (leader- ship) (Carnevale, Gainer, and Meltzer 1990, p. 8). The National Business Roundtable, made up of the chief executive officers of 218 of the nation?s largest corporations, has initiated a process to identify the gaps between what each state has done and what it plans to do to conform to the group?s ambitious school-reform agenda, developed two years ago. This ?gap analysis? has already been con- ducted for several states. The following nine areas are examined: High expectations for all students; outcome-based education; strong and complex assessments; rewards and penalties for schools; greater school- based decision making; an emphasis on staff development; establishment of high-quality prekindergarten programs; provision of adequate health and social services; and use of technology. (Weisman, November 20, 1991, p. 22) A number of state business roundtables have developed policy recommendations for public education that go beyond recommenda- tions for well-prepared workers. These reports offer models for effec- tive school systems for all students, not just potential workers. In a concisely written summary of its proposal for school reform, the Cali- fornia Business Roundtable (Berman and others 1988) outlines the principles for a new education system, followed by six specific recom- mendations tied to the general principles: Principles for a New Education System ? Performance-based. Students, teachers, administrators, schools, and districts should be evaluated according to their performance and held accountable for results. ? School Autonomy. Principals and teachers should have the authority and support to provide quality education attuned to community needs and characteristics. ? Parental Choice and Flexible Alternatives. Parents should be able to choose schools and schooling appropriate to their children, including small-school, flexible environments in which parents are actively in- volved. SCHOOL-COMMUNITY RELATIONS 265 ? Incentives and Innovation. Teachers and administrators should have incentives for high performance, productivity, efficiency, and the use of modern technologies. ? Professionalism. Teaching should be an honored, respected, and well- paid profession in which teachers are compensated according to their ability, experience, and responsibility. ? Pluralism. The learning gap between poor minority and other children should be eliminated, and ethnic, linguistic, and cultural diversity should be treated as a strength. The Recommendations 1. Expand and focus schooling. A. Establish primary schooling for all students. B. Focus and consolidate elementary and secondary education on core academics. C. Institute a post-10 student option of specialized education. 2. Establish accountability based on performance and choice. A. Set student performance goals, institute state-wide exit tests, and deregulate schooling. B. Strengthen school performance reports and intervene in failing schooling. C. Support parental choice of expanded school options. 3. Establish school autonomy, and empower parents, teachers, principals. A. Provide schools with discretionary budget funding and authority. B. Involve parents, community members, and teachers in school gov- ernance. C. Expand teacher responsibilities and promote team approaches to instructional management. 4. Modernize instruction. A. Redirect staff development to advance implementation of effective practices. B. Enable all schools to integrate technology into instruction and management. C. Promote adoption of flexible educational programs. 5. Strengthen the teaching profession. A. Establish multi-tiered teaching system with higher salary rates. B. Upgrade process of becoming a teacher. C. Assure continuing high professional standards. 6. Capitalize on diversity. A. Build school capacity to provide English language acquisition. B. Assure foreign language proficiency for all students. 266 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING C. Establish critical and minority teacher shortage program. (Berman and others 1988, pp. 2-3) These four reports are comprehensive in the breadth and depth of the changes they are suggesting. They present an analysis of how schools function, what is wrong with them, and how the system must be redesigned from the perspective of the business community. This is a striking departure from the notion that professional educators should be charged with solving the problems of education in isolation. The reports, and others like them, portray the belief that education is an integral dimension of a nation?s well-being, not an activity to be valued prima- rily for its custodial and social-sorting functions, and that, by extension, the processes and outcomes of education are now, or should be, the concern of everyone, not just educators or parents. Many of the points contained in these four documents have at least something in common with recommendations coming from educational reformers regarding changes that are needed in curriculum and instruc- tional practices. The difficulty appears not to be so much at the level of general rhetoric, but at the level of specific curricular and instructional responses. It seems evident that the changes schools are contemplating under the banner of restructuring are unlikely to be sustained or institu- tionalized without support from the business community. It also appears that common ground exists for educators and business leaders to com- municate, to explore areas of agreement and disagreement, and to educate one another during this period of intense examination of public educational practices. Neither the business nor the education community knows exactly how to relate to the other, though awareness of the potentially symbiotic nature of the relationship is increasing (Amster and others 1990, Gordon 1990, Hurwitz 1987, Nancy 1989, Smith 1991). A survey by the Na- tional Association of Manufacturers (Weisman, December 11, 1991) indicates an awareness of the need for school-business partnerships but also reveals minimal collaboration. Up to 40 percent of the nation?s manufacturing firms say their efforts to upgrade workplace technology and increase productivity have been sty- mied by the low level of education of their workforce, according to a new study by the National Association of Manufacturers. The study also found that most manufacturers believe the workplace must be more integrated into the schools through such programs as appren- ticeships, job shadowing, and other methods of school-to-work transition. Nevertheless, it notes, only a handful of firms are participating in such projects. The report was based on a survey of 360 small, medium, and large manufacturing companies... SCHOOL-COMMUNITY RELATIONS 267 The survey also found, however, that few manufacturing firms are responding to their problems by becoming involved in education. (p. 5) Attempts are being made by some businesses to become more involved in education through a variety of programs and approaches. Although cooperative efforts between schools and private-sector orga- nizations are not new, the upsurge of interest and activity in this area is being described by some as the ?partnership movement? (Merenda 1989). Since 1983 the number of schools reporting that they were engaged in some form of partnership with a private-sector organization has increased from 17 to 40 percent (Heaviside and Farris 1989). The interest in partnerships expresses itself in a variety of types of programs and approaches. Merenda (1989) describes five levels of partnership, each closer to the classroom, that I have summarized as follows: Level 1: Policy Partnerships. These are collaborative efforts among businesses, schools, and public officials to shape the policy debate regarding education, and to develop policy recommendations, including legislation, that address issues raised in this debate.* Level 2: Partners in Systemic Educational Improvement. At this level, business people and educators work together to identify needed reforms and then work together over the long term to make those reforms happen jointly. Level 3: Partners in Management. In this type of partnership busi- ness provides schools with support and expertise in specific areas of management, such as labor relations, personnel and incentive systems, purchasing processes, plant and equipment management, strategic plan- ning, legal, finance, and tax issues, management-information systems, performance standards, productivity, public relations, or any of a wide range of possible areas. Executives on loan are one method by which such partnerships are enacted. Level 4: Partners in Teacher Training and Development. Busi- nesses involved in teacher and counselor training and professional development provide opportunities for educators to update, upgrade, or maintain skills, or to learn more about the labor market in the commu- nity. Activities might include summer internships that enable teachers to learn more about the business world, or specific courses for teachers in areas such as science and math. Level 5: Partners in the Classroom. In these partnerships, volun- teers from a business bring their expertise directly into the classroom, or bring the classroom to the business. Engineers might demonstrate de- sign techniques to students, or serve as tutors and mentors. 268 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING The high level of interest in (and perhaps unrealistic expectations for) partnerships is illustrated by the response of national magazines that cater to the private sector, such as Business Week, which featured an issue with the headline: ?Education: Can the Private Sector Save Our Schools?? The lead article, entitled ?Saving Our Schools: With America?s Classrooms Besieged on So Many Fronts, Here?s How the Private Sector Can Help? (Segal and others 1992), described ways partnerships could be developed, paralleling those presented above by Merenda. One example of a state business organization taking an active role to influence reform through a systemic approach can be found in Oregon. The Oregon Business Council (OBC), an organization comprising the forty-five largest nonpublic-sector employers in the state, has a multiyear involvement and investment in the state?s education-reform efforts. Rather than simply lending its support and hoping educators solve education?s problems, OBC has taken a more activist approach. It has commissioned and issued a number of studies and white papers (see, for example, Conley 1993), as well as developed an action plan for restruc- turing K-12 education (Oregon Business Council 1996). The plan con- tains five key strategies that OBC believes will support educational restructuring by serving as the ?leverage points for change that would have the highest, widest impact on schools.? These strategies include the following: ? High Standards. Engage forcefully to ensure high standards for Oregon?s Certificates of Initial and Advanced Mastery (CIM, CAM). Assemble hiring personnel from member companies to identify how to give value to the certificates in the hiring process. ? School to Work. Encourage member companies to become involved in school-to-work programs as a central element of education reform and to support the work-based requirements of the Certificate of Advanced Mastery. ? Public Support. Build public support and understanding of education reform by developing a public information campaign that emphasizes the importance of adopting high standards as the key component of education reform. ? Systemic Change. Encourage and support systemic change in education by engaging in high-level dialogue with educational leaders about busi- ness perceptions of the magnitude of change necessary in education, the urgency for such change, and the means by which to manage the process of systemic change. ? OBC-Model School District Partnership. Conduct an evaluation of the two-year partnership that has been in place between OBC and a local school district that has committed to move aggressively to implement SCHOOL-COMMUNITY RELATIONS 269 systemic educational reform with the support of the business commu- nity. (paraphrased and summarized from p. 19) Ahead lie many pitfalls to the development of new relationships between businesses and public education. Many business leaders? results-oriented people?are driven to distraction by the pace at which change in education is pursued, even in those schools identified as being on the leading edge of reform. They cannot comprehend the lack of a sense of urgency for change in most schools. Business people may become impatient when educators insist that they cannot be held respon- sible for producing a product, and that there is no equitable way to measure performance of teachers. Those in the private sector tend not to accept the argument of educators that little more can be done without additional resources; after all, most radical change in business occurs only after a company loses money. Financial rewards come as the result of a higher quality product, not in response to mediocre performance. Business leaders? interest in education reform has remained rela- tively constant throughout the 1990s. In a national summit meeting of forty governors and forty-nine corporate executives and President Clinton on March 26-27, 1996, in Palisades, New York, all participants pledged to continue their commitment to a dramatically improved education system (Lawton 1996). The meeting was notable in at least two other ways: education was the only item on the agenda, and each governor was asked to bring a business leader (not an educator) to this meeting. Walsh (1995), in an article that indicated flagging business interest in reform, cited a survey that indicated the opposite trend was still present: In a recent survey, Business Week magazine found that education reform remained a top priority for corporate leaders. The survey of 408 senior executives at large corporations found that improving the U.S. education system ranked second only to balancing the federal budget as the issue ?most important? to American business. (p. 11) Many educators, for their part, tend to view ?business? as a mono- lith, not making distinctions among large and small employers, progres- sive and conservative business people, or the corporate cultures present in every business. They are certain business people do not understand or appreciate the difficulties educators face attempting to teach the current generation of children without the resources they feel are minimally necessary. They believe that only they, the educators, are truly con- cerned about the development of the whole child. They believe the methods of business will not work in schools; businesses are places to secure resources and little else. Another unresolved tension between business and education is the employment of school-age adolescents during the school year. The 270 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING United States is alone in the industrial world in allowing students to work, sometimes as many as forty hours a week, in addition to attending secondary school. It is difficult to determine exactly what proportion of high school students work, but best estimates are around 50 percent, with the percentage increasing at each grade level so that by graduation perhaps 80 percent of the students will have worked during their four years in high school. These jobs are, for the most part, low-paying and dead-end. They are a means for young people to gain access to many of the rewards of a consumer economy. They can purchase and maintain vehicles, enjoy various forms of entertainment and food, and buy the clothes that they feel make the ?right? statement about their status and social outlook. All of this comes at a price, however, and that price is usually time to pursue a demanding course of academic study. The typical teenage worker is not a poor youth, but a suburban high school student from a solidly middle-income, if not well-to-do, family. Contrary to popular stereotype, working students are not mainly poor youngsters who are working because their families need their earnings, but middle- class youth who are working for additional pocket money to spend on themselves. National surveys show that almost none of the typical student worker?s earnings goes toward family expenses or into a college savings account. Most of it goes toward clothing, cars, stereo equipment, and socializing. In our study, for example, close to 60 percent of the workers we surveyed said they spent most or all of their earnings?on average between $200 and $300 monthly?on immediate personal expenses. Only about 10 percent said they saved most or all of their earnings for college, and only 3 percent said they gave most or all of their earnings to their family. (Steinberg 1996, pp. 167-68) Steinberg found that working a few hours per week, perhaps less than ten, does not seem to have much consistent effect on student performance. As the hours worked per week increase, student achieve- ment begins to decrease. Once students exceed twenty hours per week of work, the effect on learning can be pronounced. This is particularly troubling in light of the fact that about one-fifth of sophomores, one- third of juniors, and one-half of seniors exceed the twenty hour thresh- old. The net effect of increased student presence in the workplace is simply to create a powerful competitor for students? time. Schools cannot assume students are capable of completing complex assignments or doing the kinds of reworking or editing necessary to develop analytic or writing skills. In fact, getting working students to do any homework at all can be trying for teachers, who find their students having difficulty simply keeping their eyes open. High schools may start as early as 7:30 SCHOOL-COMMUNITY RELATIONS 271 a.m. to allow buses to be available for the later-starting middle and elementary schools. Teachers then encounter a student population of whom maybe one-third may have been working the day before, perhaps as late as midnight or 1 a.m. These young people are not the best candidates for rigorous academic engagement. The problem is exacerbated in an economy that is becoming ever more based on retail sales and services. Such businesses need only low- skill, low-wage workers, often on a seasonal basis. This dependence means businesses come to resist changes in the length of the school day and in the traditional summer vacation They may even begin to object if a school district or state adopts academic standards that require students to spend significantly more time engaged in school work. This depen- dence on young low-wage workers who work part-time and do not receive benefits creates powerful forces to preserve the present system. As was noted in earlier chapters, schools are developing school-to- work programs and career pathways and academies. They are doing this in partnership with local businesses, who are providing programs like internships and site visitations that involve young people in more pro- ductive work-related experiences and expose them to a wider range of possible jobs. Some businesses even discourage students from working during the school year. A very few are even considering examining high school transcripts of applicants to see how well they did in key courses. In states that are instituting ?mastery certificates,? a few businesses now examine a portfolio of student work samples or other evidence of skill and accomplishment. Students who did well in key performance areas would be rewarded with employment, access to company training and development, and even to a higher starting salary. Such incentives might make a difference to students still in school if they were ever adopted widely. These companies remain the exception, however, at least for now. As a result, schools often see businesses as a threat to student learning rather than as partners for improved achievement. Neither side finds it easy to view the world through the perspective of the other. At the same time, it appears as if the evolution of social and economic systems will force these two groups to reach much greater understanding of one another and to identify their true areas of common interest and potential mutual support. COOPERATION WITH SOCIAL-SERVICE AGENCIES In addition to developing a new relationship with the business community, educators, particularly those in urban areas or other settings 272 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING with significant needs for social services, are strengthening their ties with social-service agencies. It is becoming increasingly clear that schools cannot cope on their own with the complex social and emotional needs more and more students bring with them to school. Guthrie and Guthrie (1991) summarize the current state of the services provided by social-service agencies: A wide assortment of social service agencies has been organized to serve children and youth at risk; but the services often overlap, agencies are compartmentalized, and children are incorrectly referred (Fantini and Sinclair 1985, Heath and McLaughlin 1989, Hodgkinson 1989, Kirst and McLaughlin 1989, Melaville and Blank 1991, Schorr 1988).... ... Now is the time to look at the full range of functions that schools are being asked to perform and identify which of those the school is best suited to handle, which can best be provided by other institutions and agencies, and which can best be accomplished by joint efforts. The challenge is not simply to divide up responsibilities, but to reconceptualize the role of the school and relationships among the school, the community, and the larger society. The new arrangement must be designed so that it shifts the emphasis of each agency away from itself and toward the client: the child. (p. 17) There are many difficulties inherent in coordinating and integrating services between different public-service agencies to provide more comprehensive service delivery. The Education and Human Services Consortium, a group of twenty-two agencies that offer services to children, commissioned a detailed discussion of the strategies and struc- tures for interagency collaboration (Melaville and Blank 1991). As a result of these discussions, the following elements were identified as essential to a comprehensive service-delivery program: ? Easy access to a wide array of prevention, treatment, and support services ? Techniques to ensure that appropriate services are received and adjusted to meet the changing needs of children and families ? A focus on the whole family ? Agency efforts to empower families within an atmosphere of mutual respect ? An emphasis on improved outcomes for children and families (p. 36) Establishing collaborative interagency relationships is not easy. In fact, it?s incredibly difficult. Most agencies are bureaucracies that have little or no incentive to alter their practices, coordinate with other bureaucracies, or share resources. In practice these behaviors might actually be punished, with reduced budgets or reduced authority for the agency. Policy-making bodies will need to create new rules that support SCHOOL-COMMUNITY RELATIONS 273 or mandate cooperation and client-centered service provision. Other- wise, it is unlikely most agencies will put the energy necessary into solving the problems that inevitably develop when large, complex, bureaucratic organizations attempt to work together. This is not to say that some well-meaning (or desperate) agencies are not already moving voluntarily in this direction. There is evidence to suggest that such discussions are beginning to occur voluntarily, par- ticularly in large urban areas. Summarized below are Melaville and Blank?s (1991) guidelines for those who undertake interagency plan- ning designed to create client-centered service-delivery systems: Involve all key players. This includes representatives from all levels of each organization, as well as the clients whose lives will be affected. Choose a realistic strategy. Agreeing to coordinate existing ser- vices provides a good starting point. After cooperation is an established norm, true collaboration can develop. Small successes can breed larger successes. Establish a shared vision. ?Cooperative ventures are based on a recognition of shared clients. Collaborative partnerships must create a shared vision of better outcomes for the children and families they both serve? as the starting point for interaction (p. 37). Agree to disagree in the process. Conflict is likely, particularly as the relationship among agencies moves from the realm of general principles to specific programs. Conflict-surfacing and resolution mecha- nisms need to be in place before major problems surface. Make promises you can keep. Set attainable objectives, especially in the beginning, to create momentum and a sense of accomplishment. ?At the same time, sufficiently ambitious long-term goals will ensure that momentum is maintained? (p. 37). ?Keep your eye on the prize.? It is easy for collaborative initiatives to become bogged down in the difficulty of day-to-day operations and disagreements. It is important to refocus continually on the reasons for collaboration. Often someone outside of the direct-service community who is committed to the goals of the initiative and able to attract the attention of key players can help ensure that people remain focused on the original purposes of the partnership. Build ownership at all levels. The commitment to the success of the project must extend to all levels of all agencies involved. Involve as many different people as possible in planning from the earliest moment possible, and keep all staff informed regularly. Cross-agency training can be particularly valuable to enable staff to learn new skills, commu- nicate perceptions, and share information. Avoid ?red herrings.? Partners should delay the resolution of the ?technical difficulties? that impede the delivery of comprehensive ser- 274 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING vices to shared clients until partners have developed a shared vision and assessed the degree to which problems are the result of statute versus operating procedures subject to internal control. Most problems result not from statutory limitations, but from current patterns of behavior that can be changed. Such patterns should not be allowed to sidetrack the project. Institutionalize change. ?If changes in programming, referral ar- rangements, co-location agreements, and other initiatives are to endure, both service delivery and system level efforts will need facilities, staff, and a continuing source of financial support. Participants must incorpo- rate partnership objectives into their own institutional mandates and budgets and earmark? permanent resources to keep joint efforts going (p. 37). Publicize your success. ?Partnerships must demonstrate the ability to improve outcomes for children and families and express their suc- cess? in terms of dollars saved, current and future, and social benefit achieved. ?Well-publicized results that consistently meet reasonable objectives will go far to attract the funding necessary to replicate and expand innovation? (p. 37). Once partnerships are formed, there is still the matter of engaging the client with the service providers. Achieving this may require a reassessment of how best to reach clients. Social-service agencies and schools alike are realizing that clients do not come easily or willingly to environments they feel are hostile and alienating. Parents of many at- risk youth, in particular, have not necessarily had positive experiences with governmental institutions generally, and schools particularly. As a strategy to deal with this gap between home and school, the home visit is reemerging as a strategy to bridge the gap between institution and person, and to provide services where they are needed. This simple approach has proved highly effective. Home visits are ?one of the most promising vehicles we have? to make a positive impact on parents? and children?s lives, according to Edward F. Zigler, the Sterling Professor of Psychology and the director of the Bush Center in Child Development and Social Policy at Yale University (cited in Cohen, October 16, 1991, p.24). Howard A. Davidson, the current chairman of the U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse, stated that home visits offer a ?non-intrusive? way to support young families; they constitute ?the best-studied prevention program in terms of its proven impact? (cited in Cohen). Such strategies help overcome the advantage that middle-class families have when interacting with schools. These families tend to be more positively oriented toward schooling and to have had more posi- SCHOOL-COMMUNITY RELATIONS 275 tive experiences while in school. They are also more able to influence decisions and more likely to understand how the system operates. The parents of those who use social services have few of these advantages. Davies (1991a) describes the responsibility school people have to estab- lish more opportunities for the voice of these parents to be heard: School administrators and teachers must take the initiative and reach out to ?hard to reach? parents and to devise a wide variety of ways for them to participate. This means having appropriately prepared and sensitive school representatives go into homes to meet with families, having some meetings outside of the school in settings less intimidating and more accessible to many parents, using natural and informal settings to reach and talk with parents (churches, markets, social centers), preparing materials in other languages in the case of people whose English proficiency is weak, and scheduling activities that are attuned to the constituents being sought. But, the key point is that for many parents who are poor and from minority and immigrant groups, the initiative has to come from the school, and a diverse and persistent strategy is needed to break down barriers and establish trust. (p. 94) For educators, accustomed to meeting parents at the school during times convenient to the educator, the idea of visiting parents at their homes at times most convenient for parents is a novel concept. Many schools that conduct home visits view them as more valuable than traditional parent-teacher conferences, because they are opportunities to break through some of the barriers between home and school. Such visits are already being employed by other social-service agencies, such as health and welfare programs, and it would seem to be possible to integrate educational services into home visits through careful inter- agency coordination and support in many areas. Home visits also help teachers to develop a better understanding of the needs of individual students by observing firsthand the environment in which the students live. Not all home visits need be conducted by teachers. The Schools Reaching Out project, developed by the Institute for Responsive Educa- tion, helped sponsor the development of a ?home visitor? program at Ellis School in Boston, one of its demonstration elementary schools (Davies 1991b). The program recruited and trained four women who were residents of the community and had experience in community work such as adult education, counseling, or the care and education of young children. These women were paid $10 an hour to visit four or five families. In all, the program reached about seventy-five families. During these visits the home visitors provided information about school expectations, curriculum, rules, and requirements. They dis- pensed advice and materials to enable parents to support their children?s 276 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING schoolwork, and to encourage parents to read regularly to their children. They provided information on and referrals to other agencies that provided assistance in areas such as housing, health services, summer camps, and child rearing. They listened to the concerns of families regarding schooling and learned about their interests, then communi- cated this information to teachers. The home visitors discussed with teachers how to deal with parents? questions regarding homework and foster children?s language development (Davies 1991b). The goal of all these activities is to create schools where the needs of the student as client become the key force for the coordination of services offered by various agencies now operating in isolation from one another. The goal is not just to offer programs to those in need of support and assistance, but to ensure that clients are more successful members of society as a result of the programs and services offered. In this sense, all the agencies providing services to children will be judged in terms of outcomes (functional human beings), rather than processes (number and variety of programs), as was discussed earlier in the context of student learning. NEW EXPECTATIONS FOR PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT The relationship between parents and schools is evolving as well, as educators come to recognize the critical importance of active parental involvement if students are to achieve at higher levels. Epstein (1995) has studied families extensively in her role as codirector of the Center on Families, Communities, Schools, and Children?s Learning and as codirector of the Schools, Family, and Community Partnership Pro- gram. She finds that schools can build successful partnerships with parents, and in fact must do so in many communities. Surveys and field studies involving parents, teachers, and students at all grade levels identify some important patterns relating to educator-parent partner- ships: ? Partnerships tend to decline across grades unless schools and teachers work to develop and implement appropriate practices of partnership at each grade level. ? Affluent communities currently have more positive family involvement, on average, unless schools and teachers in economically distressed communities work to build positive partnerships with their students? families. ? Schools in more economically depressed communities make more con- tacts with families about the problems and difficulties their children are having, unless they work at developing balanced partnership programs that include contacts about positive accomplishments of students. SCHOOL-COMMUNITY RELATIONS 277 ? Single parents, parents who are employed outside the home, parents who live far from the school, and fathers are less involved, on average, at the school building, unless the school organizes opportunities for families to volunteer at various times and in various places to support the school and their children. (p. 703) Epstein (1995) states further that researchers have also reached some more general conclusions about the perceptions of families and educators toward one another: ? Just about all families care about their children, want them to succeed, and are eager to obtain better information from schools and communities so as to remain good partners in their children?s education. ? Just about all teachers and administrators would like to involve families, but many do not know how to go about building positive and productive programs and are consequently fearful about trying. This creates a ?rhetoric rut,? in which educators are stuck, expressing support for partnerships without taking any action. ? Just about all students at all levels... want their families to be more knowledgeable partners about schooling and are willing to take active roles in assisting communications between home and school. However, students need much better information and guidance than most now receive about how their schools view partnerships and about how they can conduct important exchanges with their families about school activi- ties, homework, and school decisions. (p. 703) Epstein (1995) then presents a framework for six types of involve- ment that can form the basis of school-home partnerships. For each dimension she offers some sample practices and expected results for students, parents, and teachers that I summarize from her framework as follows: TYPE 1: Parenting. Help all families establish home environments to support children as students. SAMPLE PRACTICES: Parent education and other courses for parents; workshops on parenting; family support programs; home visits at transi- tion from school to school, level to level. RESULT FOR STUDENTS: Enhanced respect for parents; improved attendance; awareness of importance of school. RESULT FOR PARENTS: Understanding of and confidence about parenting and adolescent development; awareness of own and others? challenges in parenting; feeling of support from school and other par- ents. RESULT FOR TEACHERS: Understanding families? backgrounds, cul- tures, concerns, goals, needs, and views of their children; awareness of own skills to share information on child development. 278 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING TYPE 2: Communicating. Design effective forms of school-to-home and home-to-school communications about school programs and children?s progress. SAMPLE PRACTICES: Yearly parent conference; monthly folder of student work sent home; student-led conferences; regular schedule of upcoming events; clear information for choosing courses, programs, activities. RESULT FOR STUDENTS: Awareness of own progress and of actions needed to maintain or improve grades; informed decisions about courses; understanding of school policies. RESULT FOR PARENTS: Understanding school policies and pro- grams; monitoring and being aware of child?s progress; responding effectively to students? problems; interacting more with educators. RESULT FOR TEACHERS: Increased communication with families and awareness of own ability to communicate clearly; appreciation for uses of parent communication network; increased ability to understand family views on children?s progress. TYPE 3: Volunteering. Recruit and organize parent help and support. SAMPLE PRACTICES: Parent room for volunteers; annual postcard survey to identify parent talents, interests; phone trees; parent patrols to aid school safety. RESULT FOR STUDENTS: Skill in communicating with adults; aware- ness of many skills, talents, occupations, and contributions of parents and other volunteers. RESULT FOR PARENTS: Understanding teacher?s job, increased com- fort in school; self-confidence about ability to work with children at home. RESULT FOR TEACHERS: Readiness to involve families in new ways, including those who do not volunteer at school; awareness of parent talents and interests; more time to attend to individual students as volunteers supervise some other students. TYPE 4: Learning at Home. Provide information and ideas to families about how to help students at home with homework and other curriculum- related activities, decisions, and planning. SAMPLE PRACTICES: Information for families on skills required in all subjects at each grade; information on homework policy and expec- tations; information on how to assist students in developing particular skills; summer learning packets. RESULT FOR STUDENTS: Gains in skills, abilities, and test scores linked to homework and classwork; homework completion; positive attitude toward schoolwork; view of parent as more similar to teacher and of home as more similar to school. SCHOOL-COMMUNITY RELATIONS 279 RESULT FOR PARENTS: Know how to support, encourage, and help student at home; understanding of instructional program and of what child is learning; appreciation of teaching skills; awareness of child as learner. RESULT FOR TEACHERS: Better design of homework assignments; respect of family time; recognition of all types of family structures, single-family, dual-parent, extended, etc.; satisfaction with parent in- volvement. TYPE 5: Decision-Making. Include parents in school decisions, develop- ing parent leaders and representatives. SAMPLE PRACTICES: Active PTA/PTO, advisory councils as ways to develop parent participation and leaders; independent advocacy group to work on school reform and improvement; information on school board elections; network to link families with parent representatives. RESULT FOR STUDENTS: Awareness of representation of families in school decisions; understanding that student rights are protected. RESULT FOR PARENTS: Input into policies that affect child?s educa- tion; feeling of ownership in school; shared experiences and connections with other families; awareness of school, district, and state policies. RESULT FOR TEACHERS: Awareness of parent perspectives as factor in policy development and decisions; view of equal status of family representatives on committees and in leadership roles. TYPE 6: Collaborating with the Community. Identify and integrate re- sources and services from the community to strengthen school programs, family practices, and student learning and development. SAMPLE PRACTICES: Information for families on community health, cultural, recreational, social-support services; service integration through partnerships with civic, counseling, cultural, health, recreational, and other organizations and businesses; service to the community by stu- dents. RESULT FOR STUDENTS: Increased skills and talents through en- riched curricular and extracurricular experiences; awareness of careers and of options for future education and work; specific benefits linked to programs, resources, and opportunities. RESULT FOR PARENTS: Knowledge and use of local resources by family and child to increase skills and talents or to obtain needed services; interactions with other families in community activities; aware- ness of school?s role in the community. RESULT FOR TEACHERS: Awareness of community resources to enrich curriculum and instruction; openness to and skill in using men- tors, business partners, community, and others to assist students and augment teaching practices; knowledgeable, helpful referrals of children and families to needed services. (pp. 704-06) 280 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING Many examples exist of schools or districts that have attempted to increase parent and community involvement along Epstein?s six dimen- sions. In Chicago, extensive parent partnerships were mandated by a 1988 school-reform law. School councils were to be elected and have considerable influence in the city?s 553 schools. Daniels (1996) reports that after eight years ?we?re happy to report that parent involvement works.? Workshops prepare parents to be involved in decisions regarding curriculum and other aspects of the school. The Parent Project (Vopat 1994) employs weekly workshops to immerse parents in the same types of lessons that teachers are using in the classroom. Each workshop is cotaught by a teacher and parent and focuses on the needs of the school. One workshop, for example, prepares parents to be docents to escort small groups of students through a prairie site used by the school for various student-research projects. Parents are engaged directly in other ways, such as family-history projects that require child and parent to discuss the family?s origins. From this framework, students learn about a variety of subjects related to their family?s history. One school invited parents to come to school with family snapshots for a celebration that was used as the basis for a family-literacy program. Davies (1991b) suggests there may be three common themes present in the new programs for parent involvement being put forth by many different scholars and researchers, including Comer, Levin, Epstein, Rich, Seeley, Zigler, Kagan, Weiss, and Cochran. These three common themes are as follows: 1. Providing success for all children. All children can learn and can achieve school success. None should be labeled as likely failures because of the social, economic, or racial characteristics of their fami- lies or communities. 2. Serving the whole child. Social, emotional, physical, and academic growth and development are inextricably linked. To foster cognitive and academic development, all other facets of development must also be addressed by schools, by families, and by other institutions that affect the child. 3. Sharing responsibility. The social, emotional, physical, and academic development of the child is a shared and overlapping responsibility of the school, the family, and other community agencies and institutions. In order to promote the social and academic development of children, the key institutions must change their practices and their relationships with one another. (p. 377) There is considerable evidence that as this involvement increases, so does student success (Henderson 1987, Mortimore and Sammons 1987). Parental involvement comes to be much more than bake sales and SCHOOL-COMMUNITY RELATIONS 281 PTA meetings. Parents can be effective partners only when they know what is happening in schools, know what is expected of them, and know how to provide the requested support. In return, schools can expect to be more willing to listen to parents? concerns and to involve them in decisions about their children?s educational program. Many school districts are engaged in attempts to redefine the role of parents. Chrispeels (1991) describes the rationale for and development of policies in San Diego that seek to enhance parental involvement, with particular attention to the needs of those not typically involved in education: In many instances, however, administrators? and teachers? low expecta- tions for and negative attitudes toward low-income or non-English-speak- ing children and their parents have prevented the development and imple- mentation of well-designed programs [of parental involvement].... In early 1988 the [San Diego City Schools] established a task force to explore ways in which parent involvement could be strengthened in the district.... The policy.... [developed by the task force] outlines a multifac- eted definition of parent involvement. The board [of education] commits itself to: ? involve parents as partners in school governance, including shared decision making and advisory functions; ? establish effective two-way communication with all parents, respecting the diversity and differing needs of families; ? develop strategies and programmatic structures at schools to enable parents to participate actively in their children?s education; ? provide support and coordination for school staff and parents to imple- ment and sustain appropriate parent involvement from kindergarten through grade 12; and ? use schools to connect students and families with community resources that provide educational enrichment and support. (pp. 368-69) The San Diego model for comprehensive school-based student services, dubbed ?New Beginnings,? has not been without its problems (Stone 1995). Although the idea of providing all the services students need and to which they are entitled at one site seems eminently sensible, achieving this goal has proved challenging. Demonstration programs have been perceived as ?top-down? and the superintendent?s ?pet? project. Agency and education-system heads have been able to agree in principle, but front-line workers in the agencies and schools have had a more difficult time learning to work together. Teachers have not neces- sarily found the social-service workers to be of help, since privacy laws prohibit the transmission of information back to teachers after they make referrals. 282 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING The San Diego school districts? personnel, such as counselors, have been pressed into service to support the interagency links, and as a result they are less available to teachers. Social-service agencies have a history of viewing families as ?dependents? rather than ?resources? or active participants in decision-making. Stone concludes that in spite of these issues, San Diego?s effort ?remains a ground-breaking effort to bring coherence to a fragmented human service system. This... illustrates the need for top-level planning but suggests a parallel need for effective cooperation at other levels? (p. 795). Dryfoos (1996) describes collaborative efforts to meet student needs at one site as ?full-service schools,? a term first used in legislation passed in Florida in the early 1990s. This term refers to one-stop centers where the educational, physical, psychological, and social requirements of students and their families are addressed in a rational, holistic fashion. (p. 18) Full-service schools seek to provide both a quality education and needed support services. The school district is responsible for revitaliz- ing the school by using techniques and strategies demonstrated to be successful in transforming schools so that students receive the instruc- tion and curriculum necessary to succeed in further schooling and in society upon the completion of their education. Other governmental agencies provide health, welfare, recreation, and life-enhancing pro- grams in various combinations. Successful full-service schools generally have principals who are advocates of this strategy, who champion the problem-solving and turf issues that accompany a program that spans bureaucratic boundaries. The schools also have full-time coordinators or directors who help integrate the services, and, more importantly, build understanding and support among all personnel so that each staff member understands what the others can and cannot be expected to do. A designated physical space is important to create a focal point for the services and programs present in the building and to offer community members a point of entry into all programs. Full-service schools face numerous obstacles, including turf issues, clashes over governance structures and the authority of different labor groups and applicable contracts. Lack of continuity when superinten- dents, principals, teachers, program directors, and social-service staff come and go with some frequency; and, finally, controversy over estab- lishing such programs in the first place. Controversy can often plague programs that propose to provide family planning, extensive health care, legal aid, substance-abuse treatment, welfare case management, and SCHOOL-COMMUNITY RELATIONS 283 other services some would like kept as far away from schools as possible. As might be expected, these programs cost more to run than regular schools. A school-based clinic costs about $100 per student user per year, while more complex services might raise the cost to $1,000 per user. The movement by federal and state governments toward block grants may create a potential source of funds for these cross-categorical services that now must be funded from an array of budgets and agencies. ACCELERATED SCHOOLS Family involvement is particularly beneficial in schools serving low-income populations. The Accelerated Schools program, developed by Henry Levin of Stanford University (Chenowith 1991; Rothman, October 30, 1991), emphasizes parent involvement as crucial to im- proved student performance. Webster Elementary School, in San Fran- cisco, has been cited previously as a school that implemented the Accelerated Schools approach. The school sought to make parents feel welcome, to help them work toward high school equivalency diplomas, and even to hire some parents as paraprofessionals. Enhanced commu- nication between home and school helped reduce student discipline problems (Rothman, October 30, 1991; Seeley 1989). The philosophy of the Accelerated Schools is counter to the trend in American society of delegating functions to government that has pre- vailed over the past 150 years. Services such as fire, police, sanitation, public health, welfare, and child care have all come to be responsibilities of government, not of individuals or groups of citizens. In this ?delega- tion model? (Seeley 1989), citizens fulfill their responsibility by paying taxes. Political office-holders and paid officials are then held account- able. This model may work well enough in other areas, such as police and fire protection, provided the community is supportive and engages in preventative behaviors. However, in education the model has serious flaws: Over the years, the model has become institutionalized in the roles, rela- tionships, and mind-sets not only of school staffs but of parents, students, and citizens as well. As a result, efforts by school leaders to involve parents frequently meet with resistance. Parents often signal, subconsciously or overtly, that they don?t have to be involved because the job has been delegated to the schools, just as they don?t have to be involved in putting out fires once the fire department has been given that job. Schools staffs, for their part, often do not see parent involvement as part of their profes- sional role and, indeed, can quite justifiably see it as an interference with the jobs that have been delegated to them. (Seeley 1989, p. 46) 284 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING The Accelerated Schools program seeks to counteract this model by establishing the principle that parental involvement is essential to the success of the school. Parental involvement is a necessity, not a luxury. It is not the specific activities that are the key to achieving this goal as much as the ability of the staff and parents to create what they jointly see as a collaborative community-learning center. Furthermore, these schools encourage another effective parental strategy??working the system.? Parents whose children do well typi- cally have success in mobilizing the school on their children?s behalf. They make it clear that they see the role of the school as helping to serve their children, and do not assume they can solve all educational prob- lems themselves. The Accelerated Schools model helps more parents learn how to shape education to meet their children?s needs. It allows parents to be ?insiders? rather than ?outsiders.? THE CHALLENGES AND REWARDS OF PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT Parental involvement can be a two-edged sword. In some communi- ties groups of parents may have strong feelings on particular issues. Schools may have prevented these groups from influencing decisions such as textbook selection or curriculum. However, with the advent of more decentralized decision-making, parent and community groups have both an entry point and a legitimate forum in which to raise their concerns. Schools do not tolerate organized pressure well, and they are ill-equipped to withstand conflict, overt challenges to the authority of teachers, or controversial issues for very long. Sometimes these challenges are crucial stimuli to true school im- provement, such as when parents demand access to schoolwide student- performance data and knowledge of what the school is going to do to improve student performance. At the same time, parental involvement can just as easily lead to the promotion of a particular agenda or world view that may be incompatible with the rest of the school?s instructional program. But parental engagement has been shown repeatedly to be closely related to student learning and success. Most educators acknowledge this, particularly when they fail to achieve success with a group of students. Lack of parental support is frequently invoked as an explana- tion or a lament when schools are asked to confront poor student performance. Schools have a stake in making parent involvement a reality. Steinberg (1996) found that involvement worked in two separate sets of circumstances: Because we studied children and their parents over time, we were able to separate out cause and effect in looking at parental involvement and school SCHOOL-COMMUNITY RELATIONS 285 performance. This was important to do, because it is very likely that, when students do well in school, this inspires their parents to become more involved in their child?s education. But while this turns out to be correct, the reverse is also true: being an involved parent actually leads to student success. For example, if we saw two students with equal grades in school at one time and followed them over the course of the next year, we would find that the student whose parents were more involved in his or her education would earn better grades over time than the student whose parents were less involved. (p. 125) Schools can help parents do a better job without taking over respon- sibility for rearing the child. But schools will need to be aware of the dynamics of parenting and be able to understand differing parenting styles if schools are to assist parents in becoming more effective part- ners. Steinberg (1996), who studied parenting styles extensively and systematically, states: We now know that there are three fundamental dimensions of parenting that differentiate good parents from bad ones, and accordingly, that differ- entiate the home environments of children who are successful in school from those who are not: acceptance versus rejection, firmness versus leniency, and autonomy versus control. Psychologists conceive of each of the three dimensions (acceptance, firmness, and autonomy) as a continuum along which parents vary (e.g., from extremely accepting to extremely rejecting, or from very firm to very lenient). Most parents fall somewhere between the two extremes of each range. Acceptance refers to the degree to which the child feels loved, valued, and supported by his or her parents. Accepting parents are affectionate, liberal in their praise, involved in their child?s live, and responsive to their child?s emotional needs.... [A]t the other end of the acceptance continuum are parents who are cold?either actively by rejecting, or passively aloof. These parents do not express much love for their child and are unresponsive to the child?s emotional needs.... Firmness refers to the degree and consistency of parental limits on the child?s behavior. Parents who are high on this dimension have clearly articulated the rules that the child is expected to follow, and they make demands on the child to behave in a mature and responsible fashion.... Lenient parents, who have few rules or standards for their child?s behavior or who have rules but enforce them lackadaisically or inconsis- tently, fall at the other end of the firmness continuum. Some parents who are low in firmness are deliberately permissive.... Other parents... are lenient not for philosophical reasons, but more from an inability to be firm and to exercise their authority.... Autonomy... refers to how much parents tolerate and encourage their child?s sense of individuality. Parents who are high in support for psycho- 286 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING logical autonomy solicit their child?s opinions, encourage their child to express himself or herself, and, in adolescence, enjoy watching their child develop into a separate and autonomous individual.... Since the late 1950s, literally hundreds of studies have been conducted that examine acceptance, firmness, and autonomy support and their conse- quences for the child?s development. The gist of these studies has been remarkably consistent: children develop in more healthy ways when their parents are relatively more accepting, relatively firmer, and relatively more supportive of the child?s developing sense of autonomy. (pp. 106-08) Studies have found further patterns in the way parents raise their children. These patterns can be categorized into three major groups: authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative. Of the three, the authorita- tive style seems to be the most effective. These parents are not as concerned with obedience as with responsibility. They want their child to be self-reliant and personally responsible, accepting the consequences of her or his actions. For parents who employ this style, their primary concern is not that the child be either obedient or happy, but that the child?s judgment matures in a healthy fashion, guided and nurtured by the parents, who model appropriate behaviors and strategies. These three parenting styles describe perhaps 70 percent of all families. However, a significant minority of families do not fall into any of the categories. Steinberg found that Many of these parents combined the ?worst of both worlds,? sharing emotional aloofness with the authoritarian families and disciplinary le- niency with the permissive ones. These parents seemed remarkably uninvolved in their children?s lives?either as sources of social support or as providers of guidance or structure. We termed these parents ?disen- gaged?.... It is hard to estimate the number of truly disengaged parents, but it appears to be somewhere around 25 percent. (Steinberg, p. 118) These parents and families pose severe challenges to schools, which sometimes simply operate as if all children came from the best and most supportive family backgrounds and seem to ignore the reality that many of their students do not. Even if they do not ignore it, schools may make few modifications to accommodate the issues that arise when parent, student, and teacher are not operating from the same set of assumptions. The results can be devastating: Compared with students whose parents are involved in their schooling, youngsters with relatively more disengaged parents earn lower grades in school, are less committed to school, and are less motivated to do well in the classroom. That nearly one in three parents is disengaged from their adolescent?s life is clear reason to worry about the future well-being of America?s young people. (Steinberg, p. 121) SCHOOL-COMMUNITY RELATIONS 287 Schools are just beginning to learn how to establish the mecha- nisms, traditions, and norms that can facilitate community involvement and linkages. Once everyone is more certain about the ground rules for involvement, the process can work effectively. Schools that move proactively to create credibility with their communities, to be open and responsive, to develop appropriate structures for community involve- ment and linkage, and to do so before a crisis exists, will create a reservoir of trust that can be tapped in times of potential controversy or conflict. Such trust will be more important as schools come to depend on their communities and interact with them in more substantial ways. A closer, more open relationship with the communities in which schools are embedded appears to be essential, inevitable, and potentially quite desirable. This changing relationship will have a strong impact on schools, many of which continue to see themselves as insulated islands. Schools that view partnerships as opportunities rather than threats will be able to capitalize on additional resources and to redefine relationships in ways that reaffirm the school?s role as the center of the community and that enable the school to fulfill its primary mission, that of enabling all students to reach high levels of intellectual and social functioning. 288 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING TEACHING AND LEARNING TIME CHAPTER 16 288 Many educators are frustrated with the way time limits their ability to adapt learning experiences to the needs and abilities of stu- dents. The urge to redefine the temporal limits imposed on education is often particularly strong in high schools, where the multiple-period day arbitrarily divides learning into several blocks of time, each about fifty minutes long. Most schemes for restructuring teaching and learning time focus on reducing the number of daily preparations for teachers and the number of students with whom teachers must interact. Discussions of the structure and allocation of time in education have two foci: how time is structured to facilitate teaching and learning; and how time can be organized or acquired to allow educators to rethink and redesign schools, and to attain the skills necessary to make such schools successful. This chapter discusses the first focal point, the structure of teaching and learning time. The discussion of time for adults to develop and implement new models of schooling is contained in part 4. WHY ALTER TIME? The organization of the school day into separate periods of time devoted to separate areas of study is so familiar to most people that anyone who went through school in the past fifty years assumes it has always been this way. This illustrates how quickly a practice can become so institutionalized that everyone forgets it is only one way of doing things. Learning can and does occur in many different temporal frame- works. It tends to be nonlinear and episodic. ?Teachable moments? can occur at the most unexpected times. Long periods can pass when no learning seems to be taking place. No one structure of time guarantees learning will take place. However, educators can attempt to create a relationship among what they are attempting to achieve with students, their learning goals, and the ways they organize time to achieve the goals. For example, if the TEACHING AND LEARNING TIME 289 material to be taught is essentially an endless stream of content with no real need to divide the learning into pieces, almost any structure for time will do. Today?s model of short periods of time each day is suited quite nicely to such goals. On the other hand, if the goal is student understanding of broad overarching concepts and ?big ideas,? or if students are expected to create high-quality products, or if they are to work together on complex problems, or if they are to think and analyze, then the current structure of learning time will not be well suited to those goals. For schools that are not making changes in the Central Variables of standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment, many different sched- ules will work. For those schools that have chosen to redefine learning goals, content, and teaching methods, a change in scheduling becomes mandatory after a certain point. The learning experiences simply will not confine themselves to the time allotted. A change in the structure of the schedule can create tensions within a school, since it is the type of change that affects all staff, regardless of their commitment to new ways of teaching. Canady and Rettig (1995) point out that changing schedules to meet the needs of the educational program can result in a series of benefits: ? More effective use of time, space, and resources, both physical and human ? Improved school climate as students focus more on learning and are less stressed by the demands of constant changes in learning activities, environments, and instructors ? Use of many instructional strategies not previously employed due to time constraints (for example, project-centered learning) ? A wider range of programs and student groupings (for example, students with special needs can be accommodated and supported in more ways) O?Neil (1995a) reviewed a variety of scheduling models, focusing mainly on block schedules, and concluded that ?in general, research has found that teachers and students like longer classes, and that students do at least as well on measures of academic achievement? (p. 15). REDESIGNING TIME IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS More change in schedules is occurring in secondary schools than in elementary. Most elementary teachers already have some control over how they allocate time, within broad margins, thereby lessening the 290 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING need to redesign schedules in elementary schools. With the rise of ?specials??teachers of art, music, and physical education and the proliferation of pullout programs such as Title I, resource rooms, and talented and gifted?even elementary schools must give much more thought to their schedules. But it is in middle and high schools that the greatest change is taking place. In fact, schedule changes in secondary schools may be the most ubiquitous manifestation of school reform to date. Many schools have moved away from the traditional ?7x5? or ?6x5? schedule where seven or six classes meet for something less than an hour each day of the week, generally for one or two eighteen-week semesters. This configuration, driven almost entirely by the time requirements of the Carnegie unit, has been the most common model in American high schools most of this century, with periodic digressions to explore alternatives such as modu- lar scheduling. Once again, secondary schools are considering alterna- tives. This time they are doing so to accommodate changing educational goals, student populations, curricular content, and instructional tech- niques. The goal is not to provide students more choices, as was the goal of modular scheduling, but to ensure greater student engagement and mastery of the curriculum. An example of an innovative model for reconfiguring time in ways that offer the potential for changes in curriculum and instruction is the Copernican Plan (Carroll 1990). Designed for use at the high school level, this plan centers around the idea of ?macroclasses? of differing possible lengths, from 70 to 226 minutes. It emphasizes the integration of subject matter through seminars. The curriculum would become less fragmented, since students would take fewer courses at any given time. Teachers would teach fewer classes each day, thereby reducing the number of students they see each day. One goal is to improve students? sense of belonging and to increase teachers? ability to meet students? individual needs. These benefits in turn can lead to greater student success and increased motivation. Carroll identifies some of the benefits of restructuring time in American high schools: Virtually every high school in the U.S. can reduce its average class size by 20%; increase the number of courses or sections it offers by 20%; reduce the total number of students with whom a teacher works each day by 60% to 80%; provide students with regularly scheduled seminars dealing with complex issues; establish a flexible, productive instructional environment that fosters effective mastery learning, as well as other prac- tices recommended by research; get students to master 25% to 30% more information beyond what they learn in the seminars; and do all of this more or less within present levels of funding. TEACHING AND LEARNING TIME 291 How? By redeploying its staff members and students so that teachers can concentrate on teaching students rather than on ?covering? classes.... ... The Copernican Plan proposes two alternative schedules. In the first, students enroll in only one four-hour class each day for a period of 30 days. (Each student would enroll in six of these classes each year, which fulfills the required 180 day school days.) In the second alternative, students enroll in two two-hour classes at a time for 60 days. (Each student would enroll in three of these two-course trimesters each year.) A school could schedule both 30-day and 60-day courses simultaneously, and the length of these large-block macroclasses could vary.... ... The increased efficiency of the Copernican Plan frees a block of time in the afternoons that allows the Copernican high school to offer seminars that help students integrate knowledge across traditional disciplinary lines.... ... A common response to the proposed schedules is that students cannot survive a two-hour lecture, much less a four-hour one. And the prevalence of that response is a major reason why the Copernican Plan is needed. Overuse of lecturing is a major problem of high school instruction. The Copernican Plan establishes conditions that foster the use of a variety of instructional approaches that are more personalized and more effective, and it stresses the importance of providing adequate support for staff members to develop these approaches.... ... Under the Copernican Plan, a teacher prepares for and teaches only one or two classes at a time. Furthermore, average class size can be reduced by about 20%. This reduction in class size is made possible because teachers traditionally teach five classes for the full school year. Under the Copernican Plan, each teacher teaches six classes a year, thereby increas- ing the number of classes offered by 20%. ... However, the key advantage of the Copernican Plan, whatever the size of the class, is that the teacher deals with only a small number of students at one time and prepares for only one (or two) classes at a time. Even with two two-hour classes for 60 days, a teacher?s daily student load drops more than 60%. The time classroom teachers typically spend prepar- ing for five classes can be spent on planning for small groups or even for individual students within a single class. (pp. 358-62) The Masconomet Regional High School in Boxford, Massachusetts, began to implement the first pilot Copernican model in 1989 (Carroll 1994). They named it the Renaissance Plan. Students could choose to participate. Since many of the changes created by this pilot were poten- tially controversial, a committee comprising both supporters and critics of the plan was convened to develop an evaluation design. A team from Harvard University conducted the evaluation using questionnaires and other methods. They sought answers to five questions, listed below with the evaluators? findings: 1. Will the students be able to function effectively in long ?macroclasses? of about two hours? Finding: Students are very flexible in adapting to 292 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING classes of differing lengths. Renaissance students preferred the longer classes. The quality of interpersonal relationship student to teacher and student to student was improved markedly. 2. Will the teachers find the intensity of teaching classes for roughly two hours draining? Finding: The teachers felt rejuvenated and believed they were teaching more productively than ever. They felt invited to rethink their pedagogical styles. 3. Will the students learn as much as they would under the traditional system? Finding: Students performed comparably on midterm and final examinations even though students in the program started at a lower academic level than those in the traditional program and had significantly fewer hours of class. 4. Will the students retain as much of what they learn? Finding: No consistent significant difference was found that favored students in one program over the other, even though Renaissance students might have had a nine-month gap since they had learned materials. 5. Will there be as much in-depth instruction in the Renaissance as in the traditional program? Finding: Oral exams designed to assess student capacity for problem solving and group work showed that Renaissance students performed significantly better than students in the traditional program. (Carroll 1994, pp. 108-9) To test the effectiveness of the Copernican Plan further, seven other schools that had implemented versions of the schedule were evaluated. Although the fidelity of implementation varied among the schools, the evaluation results were relatively consistent. Findings in- cluded the following: Impact on student conduct: ? Effects on attendance were not strong, but were positive. Four schools showed improvements, two showed declines and one showed no change. ? Four of five schools that were able to provide suspension data showed reductions in the rate of suspension. One school showed a small increase. Two schools without baseline data indicated im- proved conduct under the new schedule. ? Six of seven schools reported reductions in dropout rates ranging from 17% to 63%. The median change for the seven schools was a 36% reduction. Impact on academic performance: ? Students increased their academic mastery (improved GPA and increased number of courses completed) at a median rate of 18%. The two schools for which appropriate standardized testing data were available showed solid gains. (Carroll 1994; pp. 111-12) TEACHING AND LEARNING TIME 293 Wasson High School, in Colorado Springs, Colorado, developed another strategy for restructuring time within the school day (O?Neil 1995). A block-scheduling system that combines time in a manner somewhat different than the Copernican Plan, but toward similar goals, was proposed and implemented in the 1990-91 school year. This ap- proach is called a ?4x4 Plan? by some (Edwards 1995) because the school year consists of four ninety-day grading periods, and students take four ninety-minute courses each day. Wasson?s version of the 4x4 Plan includes the following key points: A. The educational program is offered in a school day of four instructional blocks of 90 minutes in length. There is a 15 minute passing period between the two morning classes and a 10 minute passing period between the two afternoon classes. Students and staff share a 50 minute common lunch period between the morning and afternoon classes. B. No staff member teaches more than three of the four blocks. Sopho- mores and juniors take four blocks. Seniors take a minimum of three blocks. C. Two-semester courses under a traditional system (180 meetings in 50 minute periods) are combined into a single semester (90 meetings of 90 minutes each). D. Semester-length classes under a traditional system are offered in quar- ter-length classes (nine weeks). Under this plan, students change classes at the end of each nine-week grading period. E. English/Social Studies and Math/Science are taught as blocks for two semesters by a team of two instructors per block. F. AP courses are expanded in length. An AP course which was formerly one semester in length is now three quarters. Students enroll in an elective related to the AP course during the fourth quarter. G. Some specialty courses meet daily during specified quarters. Band, Choir, Peer Counseling, Yearbook, and Journalism meet daily in 90 minute blocks during the quarters their program needs mandate such a schedule. H. Department chairs receive some release time in the form of reduced teaching load to provide instructional leadership to the process. I. The common lunch block of 50 minutes provides opportunities for clubs and organizations to meet within the instructional day. J. Assemblies are scheduled before lunch by taking 15 minutes from each block, providing one hour for the assembly and still leaving 1 hour and 15 minutes for instruction in each block. One-quarter of the teachers are available to supervise the assembly, since they are not scheduled into a block at the concurrent time. 294 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING K. Under this plan departments explore the expanded opportunities for: 1. Interdisciplinary teaching 2. Interdisciplinary cooperative teaching and teacher exchanges 3. Heterogeneous grouping (Adapted from Wasson Restructuring Committee 1990) Although a semester course meets fewer minutes than its year-long equivalent, teachers report that they are able to teach comparable amounts of material (though they may not ?cover? the same number of units they did in the past). Additional time is gained by decreasing the number of transitions and housekeeping tasks associated with beginning each class. The time available is utilized more effectively. Student involvement and attention are enhanced, and teachers and students are freer to interact. In addition, administrators and teachers report that students seem less stressed and more able to focus. A majority of students agreed with this assessment. A majority also report feeling better about coming to school, having fewer conflicts with teachers and fewer tardies, and believing that their grades had improved due to more frequent progress reports. Nearly 73 percent observe that teachers are using new teaching tech- niques. In a staff survey administered after the first year of the block schedule, teachers reported the following outcomes: ? In general, they noted an improvement in student achievement. ? They were able to provide more individualized attention and instruction to their students. ? They had implemented a variety of new teaching strategies and techniques. ? They were more willing to experiment with new assessment techniques. ? They spent more time preparing for each block class. ? Collegiality had increased. ? The time used for classroom administrative tasks had decreased. ? They felt better about the quality of their teaching. ? They made more parent contacts. ? Instructional units were less fragmented. ? Ninety-four percent would prefer to retain the block schedule. A more radical reconceptualization of time is embodied in the Dalton Plan, an approach that has been around for generations (Edwards 1991). This method was developed in the early 1900s by Helen Parkhurst, a teacher who had experimented with the ideas of Maria Montessori and TEACHING AND LEARNING TIME 295 wanted to apply them to a secondary-school environment. It was named the Dalton Laboratory Plan because it was first implemented at a high school in Dalton, Massachusetts, in 1921. Edwards (1991) describes this plan: The Dalton Plan involved a complete restructuring of the school day into subject labs, with students determining their individual daily schedules. From fifth through 12th grades..., traditional classrooms were disbanded, schedules were eliminated, bells were silenced.... [The Plan] was adapted by each school to fit its particular circum- stances, [and] was student-centered, self-paced, and individualized by means of monthly contracts. An efficient, easy-to-use system of charts helped students and teachers keep track of progress. Usually the mornings in a Dalton Plan school were devoted to the academic disciplines in the laboratories, while afternoons were given over to more traditional physical education and music classes and to extracurricular activities. Each academic area had one or several classrooms designated as labs. All textbooks and library books dealing with a particular subject, along with any required equipment, were kept in that subject?s lab. Tables and chairs replaced desks. Teachers were assigned according to their special- ties and remained in the subject labs to help students with assignments when needed, to organize small discussion groups, to counsel, and to encourage.... Central to the Dalton Plan were teacher-designed contracts that out- lined activities geared not only to learning basic skills and concepts, but also to independent thinking and creativity.... All students completed activities to ensure a grasp of the basics, but they could then choose which other tasks and activities they wished to pursue. The more they undertook and the better they performed, the higher their evaluations. Each morning, with guidance from their homeroom teachers, the stu- dents selected which contracts they wished to work on and proceeded to those laboratories. They were required to remain at least an hour in a chosen lab, but they were then free to move to another or to stay longer. There were no 50-minute classes, no bells signaling a mass migration of students. Students could finish one month?s subject contract completely before beginning others, or they could work on each contract piecemeal. If students completed work on all their contracts before the month was over, they could return to their favorite labs and do more, or they could request the next month?s contract and move ahead. To ensure learning in all disciplines, students could not get a new contract in any one subject until all the others were satisfactorily completed. Those who fell behind because of illness, personal or family crises, vacations, difficulty with a subject, or excessive absenteeism simply continued working on the month?s contracts until they were completed and then received the next set. (p. 399) Middle schools, in particular, are implementing approaches that create blocks of time by having groups of teachers and students stay 296 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING together for more than one period. The blocks create opportunities for these teachers to tailor time to the needs of the learning experiences they design. In such a model, one hundred students might each have the same teachers in the same order (periods 1-4) for the same subjects (language arts, science, social studies, art). Assuming forty-five-minute periods, the four teachers would have three hours in which to vary the amount of time each spent with students on any given day. They could also meet with larger or smaller groups of students each day. In other words, some days one teacher might take most of the students for some activity while the other three were free to work with small groups or individual students for an extended time. Canady and Rettig (1995) describe three models for middle school scheduling. The four-block model has students spend ninety minutes each in language arts, mathematics, and either social studies or science. The third block rotates every other day, every other unit, or on some other basis. The fourth block is spent in physical education, music, and/ or exploratory programs of study. In this model, students attend three academic courses each day. Language arts and mathematics teachers teach three groups every day for the entire year, allowing them to get to know students better and provide continuity in instruction and assessment. Social-science and science teachers never see more than three groups per day, but work with six groups over the course of the year. The fourth block can be structured in many interesting ways to move students among learning options; however, teachers in this block also never work with more than three groups at a time. Under the 75-75-30 plan (Canady and Rettig 1993) the school follows a typical block schedule for the first 150 days. There are two seventy-five-day semesters, leaving thirty instructional days before the end of the year. During these final six weeks, students enroll in special- ized courses created and designed by teachers. These courses provide additional learning time for those students who need it and academic- enrichment activities for all students. The concept-progress model (Canady and Rettig 1992, Canady 1989) has been used to provide mathematics instruction to heteroge- neous groups. Math classes meet on a six-day cycle with three teachers teaching one group of students. During day 1 and 2 all three teachers teach the same concept to all students. Then students are divided into two Progress Math Groups. These are flexible, homogeneous groups that are reconstituted frequently based on how well and which students understood the lesson presented during the two concept days. All groups work on the same math concept, though each group will be at a different TEACHING AND LEARNING TIME 297 level of challenge. Computer-based instruction also contributes to this model, with the software being adapted to the group?s skill level. This model provides whole-group instruction without the stigma of tracked ability groups. It also requires less testing on questions that some students know they cannot answer, and provides more opportuni- ties to add depth of understanding to those students who quickly grasp new concepts, rather than simply accelerating them through the mate- rial. Although block scheduling and its many variants are by no means new (see, for example, Vars 1984, O?Neil 1995b), larger blocks of time can be a valuable tool to enable faculties to achieve a number of goals simultaneously. Common planning time can be developed for teachers who work together in blocks. Teachers can discuss the problems and needs of individual students, since they are likely to know them better and are more able to modify practices to meet student needs or cope with the unique needs of particular children. The potential of block scheduling may still be underdeveloped. Teachers may not take advantage of the opportunities inherent in the restructuring of time, because of either the difficulty of finding the time to integrate their practices or the lack of desire to surrender their autonomy to a team. Planning to work together to achieve common goals for students is not a simple task, and most teachers do not have professional experiences with collaborative planning that prepare them for the intensive involvement and interaction that occur under a truly integrated block program. EXTENDING THE SCHOOL YEAR The notion of abandoning the agricultural calendar and extending the amount of time students attend school has been mentioned fre- quently in recent years (Barrett 1990, Pipho 1990). However, such suggestions are more often vaguely defined statements of intent than clearly defined, well-reasoned policy initiatives. The implications of an extended school year are profound, both in terms of the fiscal resources needed to accomplish this change, and in terms of the implications for social traditions surrounding family vacations and economic enterprises built around the availability of the young during the summer. The call to extend the school year is often based on the notion that children in other nations are spending more time in school and, as a result, are learning more than American students. It is often stated that Asian students spend 240 days a year in school. However, as Stevenson and Stigler (1992) point out, such statistics do not take into account that students attend only half-days on Saturdays, that recesses may last as 298 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING much as five times longer than they do in American schools, that lunch periods can extend an hour and a half, and that many activities identified in American schools as afterschool activities may take place within the school day. So although Asian children spend more time at school than American children, the difference in the amount of academic instruction is not so profound as the more general statistics imply. Perhaps more important than the total amount of time spent in school is the way in which this time is distributed throughout the year. In contrast to the two-day weekends and long summer vacations that provide discontinuities in the American school year, time flows more or less continuously in Chinese and Japanese schools. School vacations in Asia are shorter and spaced more evenly throughout the year. Learning is an unceasing process, maintained by the momentum developed during regu- lar classes.... ... Throughout vacation periods, clubs and activity groups continue to meet, children may continue to receive homework assignments from their teachers, and new academic projects are begun. In these ways Asian students do have a longer ?school? year, but much of the additional time is not spent in the regular classroom. (Stevenson and Stigler, pp. 143-44) Initial efforts to extend the school year may have to focus on the groups most in need of the extra time: students who require additional learning opportunities and teachers who need time to develop new resources and techniques. It may not be cost effective or economically feasible for all teachers and students to attend school for a longer time, but it may be possible to phase in the concept gradually by first focusing on the needs of those students who will benefit most from carefully constructed programs utilizing extended instructional time. Perhaps the results from these initial applications will support the use of additional time to develop students individually, not simply to present more con- tent to all. Another potential benefit of gradual implementation of a lengthened school year is professional development of teachers. An extended schedule can provide opportunities for many more teachers to engage in retraining to an extent not currently possible through inservice conducted during the regular school year. The year-round school is another strategy that provides additional instructional time for those students who need it and gives teachers more opportunities for professional development. The year-round school is not a new concept in areas where overcrowding has forced educators to accommodate more students in existing school buildings. In year-round schools, students usually attend three quarters out of four, or a total of approximately 180 days annually (Ballinger 1988). TEACHING AND LEARNING TIME 299 Between 1986 and 1994 the number of schools employing some form of year-round schooling increased from 410 schools enrolling 354,000 students to 2,252 schools enrolling 1,650,000 students (Ballinger 1995). These schools have at least six reasons for implementing a schedule that promises to help enhance student retention of basic skills (Ballinger 1995). ? Some students need more time than others. A year-round schedule can accommodate the needs of those students more readily than can a schedule that essentially requires that all students take three months off from school. ? Intersessions can be designed to offer remediation and enrichment and also provide a forum for testing new and innovative curricular ideas. ? Students whose first language is not English benefit by being able to continue to develop their language skills continuously without long layoffs from English. ? Student motivation and interest are heightened when periodic vacations occur throughout the year, allowing teachers and students to continue refreshed and ready to teach and learn. ? Cocurricular and extracurricular activities can take place through- out the year, including sports, clubs, and special activities such as preparing for college-placement examinations or special academic com- petitions such as science fairs or speech and debate tourneys. ? Teachers can take advantage of year-long staff development op- portunities by taking courses throughout the year and by applying some of their new skills immediately in the school where they normally teach, since school is in session even when a proportion of its teachers are off duty and taking courses. With some modification, models developed for year-round-school programs that have been implemented successfully throughout the na- tion could guide the transition to a longer school year. Such a transition could make teacher retraining easier, since teachers could be paid during their ?off? track to participate in training. They would also have a ready- made ?laboratory? in which to practice their new skills and techniques without the pressure of a full teaching load, since ?regular? school would be in session, and the teacher would already know many of the students. Beyond these approaches to extending the school year, some schools are experimenting with extending the school day, from early morning to late evening, to reflect changing realities of students? lives and to become in larger measure community centers. For example, the Murfreesboro, Tennessee, City Schools have doubled the amount of time that schools are open (Jones 1995). Elementary schools stay open 300 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING five days a week from 6 a.m. until 7 p.m. year-round, offering a series of recreational, academic, artistic, and life-skills programs. Parents pay for these services but at a rate that makes them highly affordable and desirable. Therefore, more children participate and the district is able to fund the program successfully. Title I funds also are used, and the district saves some transportation money since large numbers of chil- dren are dropped off and picked up by their parents. Teacher assistants work from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. helping provide coverage and continuity to afterschool activities. Teachers end their work day at 1:45 p.m. for a quarter of the year, leaving 67.5 hours to be assigned during extended school hours. Specialists are also hired to teach particular topics after school. School buildings are now in use twice as many hours as they were. The unfortunate reality is that the need for custodial care for chil- dren has continued to increase during the past two decades, and there is every indication that the trend will continue through the next decade. More children are in need of custodial care for two primary reasons: the increased participation by women (many of whom are single mothers) in the labor force, and the breakup of traditional community and of ex- tended and nuclear family structures. While many educators resist the notion of defining schooling as being primarily for the purpose of custodial care, few true alternatives exist in many communities. In any case, meeting this need provides continued institutional legitimacy to schools. To extend care beyond the boundaries of the school day requires interagency coordination, since schools do not have the resources to do so alone. However, school buildings represent an underutilized resource in most communities. Extending the amount of time they are available for children will not only help improve education for these children, but also can strengthen the sense of community that surrounds the school. The factors limiting school districts? ability to lengthen the school day and year are money, teacher resistance, and lack of organizational adaptability. Simply adding more days to the existing schedule costs money that few districts will ever have. Even if the money could be provided, teachers are reticent to work more days. A survey of Oregon educators? reactions to a multifaceted reform law passed in 1991 found teachers believed all aspects of the law, including more accountability for schools, site councils, and mastery certificates, would lead to improved student learning. The only element in the law they did not believe would improve student learning was lengthening the school year (Conley and Goldman 1995). Here is one change that throws the interests of adults and children into potential conflict. TEACHING AND LEARNING TIME 301 Similarly, the economic interests of many people are affected when summer vacations are changed or students are less available to work at afterschool jobs. Finally, most schools are simply too stuck in their ways to disrupt basic routines by changing the way time is structured. People are creatures of habit, and few habits get more ingrained than daily (and yearly) schedules. Changing the routines, though difficult, can open the doors to other more profound changes and can create a more adaptive organization. CAUTION: CHANGE IN THE ENABLING VARIABLES IS NOT NECESSARILY RESTRUCTURING Time is often the first variable examined by high schools when the idea of restructuring is raised. It is attractive because it appears to offer a ?quick fix? that leaves the content of instruction fairly intact. A coalition of faculty supportive of some sort of change in the arrangement of time can often be built. However, teachers may join this coalition and administrators may offer support for widely varying reasons. Some of the reasons may be more related to easing the working conditions for the adults than to improving learning conditions for the children. This is not to say that such investigations of alternative schedules are without merit; quite the contrary. At the same time, it is important to foreshadow here a series of issues related to the process of restructuring, issues that are discussed at greater length in part 4. One key issue to keep in mind when considering change in any of the enabling variables (learning environment, technology, school-community relations, and time) is that specific programmatic responses must be considered in relation to broader organizational goals or purposes, generally stated in the form of academic standards. These overarching statements of pur- pose help provide a framework within which specific actions or pro- grams might be considered. Making sure that programmatic changes, such as a revised schedule, are tied directly to enabling students to achieve the school?s standards helps prevent the spread of ?projectitis? and the subsequent failure of the project if coalition members cease to support the innovation. One of the problems with most of the approaches to modifying the allocation, organization, or amount of time devoted to instruction is that such changes are unlikely to make much difference so long as learning continues to be conceived of in terms of hours spent on a topic or in a course. This traditional conception of learning will always engender pressures to return to standardized and uniform application of time to learning tasks. And such pressure is understandable. As long as teachers 302 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING think of their subjects as being independent from one another, and think of learning as being the exposure of students to material for a specified period, they will demand their ?fair share.? Moving to performance- based, standards-driven systems can help to break the constraints im- posed by rigid structures of time. SOME COMMON THREADS IN THE FOUR ENABLING VARIABLES We have now come to the end of the four dimensions of educational restructuring that make up the subcategory of enabling variables. The common thread present in much of the discussion of these enabling variables (chapters 13-16) is the goal of recreating schools as communi- ties and of deepening student understanding and mastery of what they are learning. Almost all the changes examined here, particularly in the areas of learning environment, school-community relations, and time, are geared toward humanizing and personalizing the interactions that occur within schools and helping ensure as many students as possible get to high levels of cognitive functioning. Even technology is being conceptualized as a tool to enhance the social and cooperative dimen- sions of learning in addition to its role as a gateway to a much richer and more challenging curriculum. Changes in these enabling variables, then, support the transforma- tion of the learning environment into a place where students take responsibility for their learning, are assisted by many adults and other children, have strong feelings of affiliation with the school and the people in it, know what is expected of them, and are actively engaged in achieving standards that provide a framework for assessing their learn- ing. The supporting variables, which follow in chapters 17-20, help establish and define the organizational context within which this learn- ing takes place. They can be critically important because that context can either support or inhibit the ability of adults and children to bring about the changes in learning described up to this point. GOVERNANCE CHAPTER 17 303 Governance and three other dimensions?teacher and principal leadership, personnel, and contractual relationships?set limits on and define potentialities for change in educational practices, rather than directly causing changes within classrooms. For this reason, these four dimensions are classified as supporting variables in contrast with the central variables discussed in chapters 9-12 (standards, curriculum, instruction, and assessment) and the enabling variables in chapters 13- 16 (learning environment, technology, school-community relations, and teaching/learning time). Ideally, schools would begin their restructuring efforts by reach- ing some common agreements about how they wanted learning to look different and/or better by developing their goals for changes in the central variables. Then they would examine the learning context as represented by the enabling variables to align that context with the changes sought in the central variables. While such plans were being made, changes in the supporting variables of governance, teacher/ principal leadership, personnel, and contractual relationships would be prepared to allow or support the achievement of the goals being pursued through the central and enabling variables. In practice, change almost never occurs in such a logical, sequential fashion. Many, perhaps most, efforts at school restructuring start with or are defined as changes in the dimension of governance, usually in the form of decentralized decision-making. In fact, for many educators and scholars the term restructuring itself refers only to changes in gover- nance. Often schools begin with projects in the area of governance or perhaps teacher leadership or working relationships, proceeding on the belief that once organizational parameters have been altered, substan- tive change will follow. Although such alterations may facilitate and support changes in curriculum and instruction, it appears that they rarely cause change in these core dimensions. A number of schools have found that they have directed all their energy for restructuring 304 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING toward projects related to these supporting variables, and had little left to address fundamental issues of practice more closely related to the classroom and children. TWO STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE Change efforts in the governance of schools can be grouped into two general categories. One type attempts to decentralize power to school sites to enable those closest to the process of teaching and learning to solve the problems they identify; the other attempts to create external competition through a variety of strategies including vouchers, privatization, and charter schools to compel fundamental change in education and to challenge the monopoly held by the public schools. Changes in the first category come under names such as site-based management, decentralized decision-making, site-based decision-mak- ing, and participatory decision-making. All refer to greater decision- making authority and responsibility at the school site; these changes redefine power relationships within school districts. Changes that fall into the second category are generally referred to under the heading of ?choice.? Included are mild forms that allow greater choice within a school or district for students and parents; policy initiatives and pilot programs designed to allow interdistrict movement of students, generally attached to some mechanism that causes funding to follow the student to whatever school he or she chooses to attend; charter schools that combine elements of both decentralized decision- making and choice; more radical voucher programs that allow unlimited options for parents within and outside the public school system; and, in a limited number of districts, experiments with allowing private compa- nies to run schools. There is a linkage between these two strategies for changing schools, according to Hill and Bonan (1991), who state that ?the ultimate ac- countability mechanism for a system of distinctive site-managed schools is parental choice.? The underlying assumption in both approaches is that people outside the educational system need to exert more influence on schools and educators, and that these external forces will hasten the change and improvement process. What many reformers did not ad- equately anticipate is that this influence can take schools in any of a number of different directions, including ?back to the future,? toward very traditional models of education as the solution to today?s educa- tional problems. GOVERNANCE 305 I consider in turn each of these two strategies along with the policy implications and assumptions of each. I also look at some examples of the application of these concepts through state policy and school-site experiments. SHARED DECISION-MAKING, SITE-BASED MANAGEMENT, AND LOCAL SCHOOL COUNCILS As mentioned earlier, the perception people have regarding their relationship to large institutions in society may be changing. More people expect to be involved to a greater degree in decisions that affect their lives. Challenges faced by organizations are becoming so complex that most solutions require those closest to problems to be actively involved in developing and implementing responses. However, involv- ing people in decision-making has its own set of difficulties. As educa- tors move to involve more stakeholders in decision-making, they are beginning to wrestle with those issues and the tensions and tradeoffs that accompany changes in power relationships. The redistribution of power in organizations is rarely accomplished without stress and conflict. Participatory decision-making, site-based management, and their vari- ants are certainly no exception in this regard. As popular as these approaches have been, both among educators and legislators, it appears that they must be designed and implemented with great care if they are to have an effect on student learning. Jane David (1995/96) suggests site-based management may be ?the most significant reform of the decade?a potential force for empower- ing educators and communities. Yet no two people agree on what it is, how to do it, or even why to do it? (p. 4). She cites a series of examples from states that have embraced site-based management and participa- tory management whole-heartedly. Kentucky requires schools to have councils with teachers, parents, and the principal and allows the council broad discretion over fiscal matters and school policy. Maryland and Texas require schools to have school-based decision-making teams with more diffuse authority. Chicago places significant authority in the hands of local school councils, to the point of allowing them to hire and fire principals. Denver, Cincinnati, Memphis, and Dade County, Florida, all had decen- tralization programs that expanded the power of schools to make deci- sions. Oregon requires all schools to have site councils with responsi- bilities for school improvement and professional development. These diverse programs have been undertaken for a variety of reasons. In some cases the goal is to transfer authority from a central 306 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING office that has run the district with an iron fist and unquestioned authority. In other cases states seek to move decision-making power from the state level directly to schools with the goal of increasing school-level accountability for student learning. In some communities participation in decision-making is an end in itself, based on a belief that democracy in and of itself is a valuable tool that will eventually improve schools. Some districts have seen decentralization as a tool to save money by reducing central-office staff without necessarily considering how lost centralized services would be replaced. In some cases, decentralization and participatory decision-making are coming about out of frustration. All external efforts to change the schools over the last twenty years seem to have been largely ineffective, so why not put the responsibility on the schools themselves? David (1995/96) identifies a series of characteristics that sound site councils have in common. When councils are effective in addressing issues of student learning and school improvement, they tend to have the following elements in place: ? A well-thought-out committee structure ? Enabling leadership ? Focus on student learning ? Focus on adult learning ? Schoolwide perspective ? Long-term commitment from the district or state ? Curricular guidance in the form of broad learning goals or standards against which student learning is measured ? Opportunities for learning assistance ? Access to information on student learning, budgets, legal requirements, etc. (pp. 7-8) Guskey and Peterson (1995/96) believe that a variety of specific problems keep schools from improving teaching and learning through site-based decision-making. Several of the most important issues in- clude: ? The Power Problem. While a site-level structure for decision making is created, true power remains where it always has been?with school boards, central office staffs, and state authorities (Bimber, 1994). ? The Implementation Problem. Making local decision-making structures function well is an extremely difficult and complex process. There are procedural issues, skill training, confusion over goals and overlapping authority. GOVERNANCE 307 ? The Ambiguous Mission Problem. Councils need clear missions focused on improving student learning. Most do not have this clear focus and the authority necessary to have a positive effect on learning. ? The Time Problem. Meetings take time. Groups need to develop norms, take time to debate and discuss, and are generally less efficient than other modes of decision making. The school day allows few opportuni- ties for groups to engage in thoughtful reflection. ? The Expertise Problem. Those called on to make decisions rarely have had the opportunity to develop the expertise in areas such as research on student learning, effective schooling practices, methods of budgeting, etc. This can result more in shared ignorance than enlightened decision- making. ? The Cultural Constraints Problem. The culture of the school defines historical patterns of participation. School councils often violate these cultural norms, redefining roles and upsetting the social hierarchy. Many schools have cultures of isolation where teachers believe they should be left alone to teach, and that they should have unquestioned authority to make decisions within their own classroom. ? The Avoidance Problem. School councils may choose to deal with every issue except those that relate to student learning and practices within classrooms. In some cases this may be due to lack of confidence to make decisions in these areas. ? The Motivation Problem. The creation of school-level decision-making bodies assumes people at the school want to be involved in making decisions. Sometimes this is true; other times it is not. Participation in elections for site councils has been very low in many places (David, 1994). Many teachers look at the demands of a site council and opt to expend their energy in activities more directly related to students. (pp. 11-12) Wohlstetter and Odden (1992) suggest it is time to rethink school- based management. Their review of the research on school decentraliza- tion leads them to conclude ?that school-based management (a) is everywhere and nowhere, (b) comes in a variety of forms, (c) is created without clear goals or real accountability, and (d) exists in a state/district policy context that often gives mixed signals to schools? (pp. 530-31). Surveys by Clune and White (1988) and Malen et al. (1990b) con- cluded that school systems all over the country are involved in SBM. However, when programs are analyzed, the general conclusion is that the extent of decision-making responsibility devolved to the school is limited; consequently, site teachers and administrators have little to manage, par- ticularly with respect to budget, personnel, and curriculum strategies 308 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING (Clune & White, 1988; Malen & Ogawa, 1988; Wohlstetter and Buffett, 1992). Thus many studies conclude that SBM has not been much of a change because nothing real has been decentralized?SBM is everywhere and nowhere.... ... Although SBM is used as a generic term for a range of decentraliza- tion activities, there are three very specific forms of SBM, yet few studies differentiate among them.... One SBM governance model, ?community control,? shifts power from professional educators and the board of educa- tion to parent and community groups not previously involved in school governance. Thus lay persons, not the professional hierarchy, are in control and accountability is directed outward toward the community (Ornstein, 1974, 1983). The current reform strategy in Chicago, Illinois is an example of this model.... A second SBM model, ?administrative decentralization? (Ornstein, 1974), features teacher control by delegating decision making down the ranks of the professional hierarchy to building-level educators. Thus indi- vidual schools, typically through site councils where teachers have the majority, are empowered to make some decisions formerly made by the central administration. In Los Angeles, California, for example, local school leadership councils have between 6 and 16 members (depending on the level and size of the school) and half of the council seats are reserved for teachers.... A third SBM model features ?principal control? and, in contrast to the other two forms of decentralization, may or may not have a site council. In Edmonton, Canada, for example, district policy stipulates that principals are responsible for constructing the school budget ?in consultation? with staff, parents, and community members, but the principals are not required to establish site councils and much of the consultation is conducted infor- mally on an ad hoc basis (Wohlstetter & Buffett, 1992).... ...[R]esearch to date suggests that each form of SBM faces different obstacles and experiences different measures of success. Some SBM models of the past, particularly the New York City decentralization model of the 1970s, put the community in control; however, the general feeling is that New York City schools have not improved with the devolution of power from the central office to lower-level organizations (Fantini & Gittell, 1973; Zimet, 1973).... Other than being justified rhetorically as a means to improve schools, SBM plans rarely entail specific learning goals for students or have accountability mechanisms that assess SBM with respect to those goals or organizational improvements (Wohlstetter & Buffett, 1992). Rather, SBM?s impact is focused mostly on teachers and administrators.... ... Wohlstetter and Buffett (1992) found that district-initiated SBM programs often ran afoul of state rules and regulations and that state- initiated SBM reforms, even when implemented by some schools, often ran afoul of district rules and regulations. State-initiated SBM also can run into problems when districts and superintendents do not support it and/or GOVERNANCE 309 do not have complementary policies. As a result, site teachers and admin- istrators get mixed signals or contradictory support from different levels of the policy system. Both are a hindrance to real school-based decision making. (Wohlstetter and Odden, 1992 pp. 531-36) Hill and Bonan (1991), in a study of five school districts where site- based management had been employed extensively, conclude that sim- ply involving more people in decision-making is unlikely to lead to improved student learning outcomes unless it is viewed as being of central importance and considerable time and support are given to nurturing its success. Hill and Bonan view site-based management as a systemwide reform, requiring central-office administrators, principals, and teachers to rethink their roles. Site-based management ?cannot function simply as a new way of conducting labor-management rela- tions or increasing teacher job satisfaction.... [S]ite management must focus on instruction, not on labor-management tensions.? These two authors also emphasize that new accountability methods should accompany increased decision-making responsibility: ?Site-based management makes school staff, not the central office, accountable for school performance.? They suggest it may take schools two to three years to redefine roles and focus energies on instructional issues. As schools evolve, they will develop distinctive characters, goals, and operating styles. Ultimately, Hill and Bonan contend, parental choice will guarantee accountability in a site-managed school system. Malen, Ogawa, and Kranz (1990a), in a review of nearly 200 documents describing current and previous attempts to use site-based management in the United States, Canada, and Australia, conclude that ?site-based management in most instances does not achieve its stated objectives.? They found that site participants rarely addressed issues of central importance to schools: ?Teachers and parents frequently charac- terize the subjects councils and committees consider as ?routine,? ?blas?,? ?trivial? or ?peripheral?.? The councils busied themselves implementing district directives or tending to the operation of the building. The control exerted by principals limited the amount of teacher (or parental) in- volvement in decision-making. Councils rarely received the technical assistance, information, training, or funds necessary to function success- fully. Malen and others conclude that ?there is little evidence that site- based management improves student achievement.? More recent studies tend to affirm this conclusion. Conway and Calzi (1995/96) surveyed the literature on worker involvement in deci- sion-making and effects on productivity and concluded that about two- thirds of the studies found increased satisfaction, not necessarily in- creased productivity. They cite Weiss?s 1993 study of twelve high 310 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING schools in which he concluded that teachers in shared decision-making environments feel more professional and enjoy the increased authority and collegiality, but that the results do not translate into increased emphasis on teaching. As Weiss stated, ?So far it looks like an OK deal for teachers, but perhaps not a great one for students.? Kentucky is one state that has given local councils real authority. Under the Kentucky Education Reform Act, councils have decision- making authority in sixteen areas, including principal selection, text- book selection, curriculum, staff assignment, student assignment, school schedule, instructional practices, discipline, extracurricular programs, and alignment with state standards (Kentucky Revised Statutes 1995). These councils have experienced varying degrees of success, both as councils and as positive forces affecting student learning. By late 1995, councils functioned in 66 percent of Kentucky schools. The most effective councils were those that represented their local constituencies; had the support of the political structure within the local community, district, and school; avoided becoming consumed with legalistic questions and issues and focused instead on learning; and developed decision-making processes that promoted democracy with all its attendant difficulties and challenges (Lindle 1995/96). PARTICIPATION FOR WHAT PURPOSE? When educators consider strategies for increasing stakeholder par- ticipation in decision-making, they might benefit by asking one question first: Why are we doing this? Research on teacher involvement in decision-making in particular (Duke, Showers, and Imber 1980; Weiss 1993; S. Conley 1991) seems to indicate that such involvement in and of itself does not necessarily lead to improved organizational outcomes: Do students actually learn more or drop out less in a more participatory school environment?... [T]he indirect benefits of participation received by employees (e.g., satisfaction) provide an unpersuasive rationale for partici- pation in many organizations, because the benefits of participation are likely to be viewed by managers as one-sided (Shedd, 1987). (S. Conley 1991, p. 230) Processes for teacher participation in decision-making have yet to resolve problems that arise in determining what decisions teachers want to make. There is evidence (Bridges 1967; Mohrman, Cooke, and Mohrman 1978; Maeroff, November 1988) to suggest that teachers are not currently involved in decisions related to teaching and classroom conditions, despite the fact they have shown more interest in ?opera- tional decisions pertaining to direct student instruction than to strategic GOVERNANCE 311 school administration?; ?teachers appear to feel most deprived in deci- sions... that regulate the boundary between the classroom and the orga- nization? (S. Conley 1991, p. 236). Teachers want to be involved in decisions that they perceive as contributing to their ability to do their jobs more effectively. When teachers can be made to feel more in control of the conditions of their work environment, their sense of personal efficacy is enhanced (Fuller and others 1982, Lanier and Sedlak 1989, Rosenholtz 1989b). For most teachers, this sense of personal efficacy is a critically important con- tributor to the decisions they make and the behaviors they demonstrate. If teachers do not feel they can educate students successfully, they act one way; if they feel they can influence the conditions affecting success, they act another way. Herein lies one of the key potentialities of teacher involvement in decision-making: enhanced teacher efficacy. How might teacher involvement in decision-making be promoted in ways that are meaningful to teachers and toward ends that are valuable to the organization? S. Conley (1991) suggests that rather than simply assuming that established forms of participation are not working, the question becomes, What are the specific advantages and disadvantages of these forms? That is, to what degree have more conven- tional participation forms offered teachers opportunities for involvement in school decisions? (p. 245) How do traditional decision-making structures, such as departmen- tal organization, teacher teams, grade-level meetings, and various stand- ing and ad hoc committees function? What are their defects? Is the problem in the structure or in its implementation? The ways in which administrators support and facilitate involvement can be a critical factor in determining the degree of validity teachers ascribe to the process (Corcoran 1987). School-level decision-making can be a useful tool in the right context, for the right purposes, with the right support. However, these subtleties are often lost on policy-makers (and educators) whose well- meaning belief in democracy as a positive and desirable end in itself often obscures the gap between the potential power of participation and the true complexity of its actualization. The research to date paints a consistent picture of site-based man- agement as an innovation that requires a specific set of circumstances in order to be successful. When those circumstances exist, the innovation has usually met its designers? intention. Numerous examples exist of schools that have improved their effectiveness after adopting participa- tive decision-making, and an equally compelling body of evidence shows the positive effects involvement and participation can have on 312 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING student learning when the participation is structured in a thoughtful and meaningful fashion and is supported and nurtured by the organization (Murnane and Levy 1996; Short, Greer, and Michael 1991; Short and Greer 1993; Newmann and Wehlage 1995; McCarthy and Still 1993). Unfortunately, these success stories are lost when they are included within large-scale studies with dozens of other schools that have paid little attention to the contextual factors that must be addressed for site- based, participatory decision-making to have a positive effect on student learning. ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTIONS OF POWER New governance structures are being developed and employed in many schools around the nation (see, for example, Ayers 1991; Clinchy 1989; D. Conley, March 1991; Dentler and others 1987). These struc- tures will not automatically solve the problems of broad-based partici- pation in decision-making. S. Conley (1991) provides insight into the underlying cause of the tensions this process creates: New forms of participation, such as school governance structures (Malen & Ogawa, 1988), appear to be generating uneasiness among teachers and administrators as both parties reassess their respective roles (Lieberman, [May] 1988). Apprehension may be partially due to a failure to distinguish between two critical dimensions of power: authority and influence.... Authority deals with final decision-making power, referring to the ability of an organizational member to say yes or no to a particular decision. Authority stems from the legal right to make decisions governing others; for example, principals have the authority to assign students and teachers to classes, and teachers have the (de facto) authority to implement instruc- tion (Bacharach & Mitchell, 1987). Influence, by contrast, stems from the capacity to shape decisions through informal or nonauthoritative means, including personal characteristics (e.g., charisma), expertise, informal opportunity, and resources (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980). (S. Conley 1991, p. 253) Although the distinction between authority and influence is a useful one, there are perhaps additional ways to think about how power might be distributed and managed in organizations. Dunlap and Goldman (1991) and Goldman, Dunlap, and D. Conley (1993) describe an alterna- tive concept?facilitative power?and describe its use in schools. This representation of power relations parallels S. Conley?s analysis in many important respects. However, it employs different language and images to describe power relationships: Facilitative power has been neglected in theory and research about power in organizations, but school leaders increasingly use facilitative power as GOVERNANCE 313 an alternative to authoritarian power. In exercising facilitative power, leaders can create or sustain favorable conditions for subordinates to enhance their individual and collective performances. If dominance is power over someone, facilitative power is power manifested through someone, resembling the images of electrical or ecological circuits of power described by Clegg (1989) rather than images that describe objects (or people) being moved by force. Facilitative power is not zero-sum but is interactive and additive. Dunlap and Goldman (1991) suggest that facilita- tive power in schools involves (a) acquiring or arranging material re- sources that support staff activities and aspirations, (b) creating synergy by grouping staff who can work together effectively yet collectively possess the skill mix required for designated tasks, (c) supervising and monitoring activities to provide feedback and reinforcement, and (d) using networks to provide links between the school and the outside world. In addition, we suggest that there are (at least) three additional dimensions of facilitative power: (e) collecting and distributing information to allow greater control over the conditions of work and methods of teaching, and broader partici- pation in decision making; (f) lobbying informally to cause movement toward goals, as opposed to exercising authority in the context of formal meetings; and (g) serving as a role model of the organization?s vision. (Goldman and others 1993, p. 70, emphasis in original) In this concept of facilitative power, administrators (and teachers) create the organizational conditions for certain ends to be pursued. They work with and through people to achieve outcomes valued by members in the organization. New governance structures may be more likely to succeed if they are accompanied by new ways of thinking about power. There is nothing magical about a structure. At best, it increases the likelihood that certain things may occur, but a structural change guaran- tees nothing. If, at the same time, the players within the system rethink their relationships and, if possible, their conceptions of power, new structures can have remarkable effects. DECISION-MAKING AND CHOICE The next logical extension of decentralization beyond site-based decision-making is the notion of Education by Charter (Budde 1989). In this method, teachers and schools in effect become independent contrac- tors within the school district. They can apply for a special status, a charter, to operate on a contract basis to provide educational services to students outside the normal structure and regulations of the district. The board of education sets the procedures for establishing and evaluating educational charters, and the central administration provides certain services to all charters, such as payroll and planning. 314 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING Groups of teachers petition the school district to sign an ?Educa- tional Charter? that authorizes the teachers to create and provide a complete educational program for students?in essence, their own school?within certain legal and policy parameters established by the school board. They receive funding equal to the district per-pupil alloca- tion minus administrative and other fixed costs. The teacher team has complete discretion in organizing the educational program and in deter- mining how money is spent. Obviously, to sustain such a program economically, the teachers need to be able to attract enough students. There are basically two types of charters: those where new schools are created, and those where an existing school ?converts? to charter status. The more than twenty states that have adopted charter legislation fall into two basic categories as defined by Kolderie (1996): ?live? law states, where a strong law has resulted in the creation of numerous charters of varying descriptions; and weak-law states with legislation that makes it difficult or impossible to create a charter in actuality. Kolderie identifies a number of states with strong laws, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Co- lumbia, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Texas. Minnesota was one state of the first states to enact a law allowing both public and private schools to receive charters. Under the charter-schools measure passed by the legislature [in] May [1991], school boards can authorize one or more licensed teachers to create new public schools that would be free from most current rules and regula- tions. The law also enables existing private or public schools to become charter schools.... Such schools must meet state standards for what students should know, and may not screen students, charge tuition, or have a religious affiliation. The law allows up to eight such schools statewide. But the charter schools are to be educationally, financially, and legally independent: able to hire and fire their employees, devise their budgets, and develop their curriculum. Each school must be run by a board of directors, a majority of whose members are licensed teachers. (Olson, November 27, 1991, p. 18) In September 1992, California became the second state to allow charter schools (Olson, September 30, 1992). The California measure allowed for up to one hundred such schools to be established, providing many more opportunities than the Minnesota program, with its limit of eight schools. Furthermore, the California law allowed a district to convert all its schools to charter status. The measure was introduced at least in part to head off support for a private-school voucher initiative that was in fact defeated in the 1994 election. The voucher proposal GOVERNANCE 315 would have given parents the right to choose to send their children to public, private, or parochial schools at taxpayer expense. Charter schools amount to choice within the public schools, or within a structure controlled by the public schools or the state education system. In effect, they seek to combine a controlled voucher plan with incentives to stimulate the development of new responses and solutions to many of the ills that beset education?solutions that might not be possible in current public schools with their structural and political barriers to fundamental change. Charter schools hypothetically provide a middle ground between no choice and an unrestricted voucher plan, which would allow parents to abandon the public schools and take their vouchers wherever they chose. A typical system to allow a new charter school to be created or an existing school to convert to charter status would begin with a request to establish a charter school initiated by teachers, parents, or some combi- nation of the two. At least 10 percent of the teachers in a district or 50 percent of the teachers in a single school would have to sign the petition. The school board would then review the proposal. If approved, the school would be granted a charter to operate for five years, with five- year renewals. Schools would then be exempt from most state regula- tions. They must, however, specify their educational program, the out- comes students will be expected to meet, and how progress toward achieving these goals will be measured. The California law, for ex- ample, contains provisions to ensure that basic equity issues are ad- dressed for students; however, teachers? rights to remain part of a local bargaining unit are not maintained, raising the concerns of the teachers? unions. Charter schools can set admission criteria, but the racial and ethnic composition of the school has to reflect the student population of the district. If the local board of education denies a request for a charter twice, the decision can be appealed to the county board of education. Charters are distinguished by the increased involvement of parents, teachers, and community members. Most charters are founded by dedi- cated individuals who have a vision of what education can or should be. For the charter to succeed, a group of like-minded individuals must be attracted and committed to this vision. In this sense charters are like successful vision-driven schools. They can align their practices with their vision. They can do this more effectively than public schools primarily because they have more flexibility regarding whom they hire to teach and whom they admit as students. These schools generally require more ?hands-on? involvement in governance by parents and 316 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING teachers. As noted previously, this type of involvement is generally associated with enhanced student learning. Twenty-five states had some sort of charter-school law in 1996. In all, more than 225 charter schools were in operation during the 1995-96 school year (Finn, Manno, and Bierlein 1996). The first six states with charter-school laws granted the most autonomy: Minnesota, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Michigan. Nearly 250 schools were authorized in the legislation allowing charters in those states. In contrast, in the five states that enacted more restrictive laws?Georgia, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Hawaii, and Kansas?only eighteen schools were approved by late 1995. Other states approving restrictive laws in 1995 included Alaska, Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wyoming (Bierlein 1995/96). Charter laws approved in 1996 tended to be stronger. Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, North Carolina, and South Carolina all passed laws in 1996 (Johnston 1996). It remains to be seen whether the charter experiments in places like Minnesota and California will lead to the creation of new educational environments, or will simply recreate isolated versions of the existing public school system. Early research in California suggests that about a third of the districts were planning to disseminate effective practices used in charter schools; that metropolitan charters, while experiencing more resistance, offered greater hope as true alternative educational models than rural charters; and that charters have yet to capture the imagination of California educators (Dianda and Corwin 1994). The charter-school model does offer the potential for creating com- munities where people feel they have chosen to be there, and where those people can define themselves and organize their schools on the basis of distinct value and belief systems regarding education, thereby counteracting the bland bureaucratic sameness of most American schools. Early charters appear to be addressing some concerns about their willingness to educate students with special needs. Finn, Manno, and Bierlein?s (1996) site visits to thirty-five charter schools found that 19 percent of the students had disabilities or impediments that affected their education. ?Thus it appears that, contrary to some forecasts, charter schools are serving proportionately more disabled youngsters than are conventional schools.? Nathan (1996), who was heavily involved in the creation of Minnesota?s pioneering charter-school law, delineates the elements of a charter school and the key early lessons learned from states that have ?effective? charter-school legislation. In the following section, I have summarized Nathan?s observations. GOVERNANCE 317 ELEMENTS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS 1. The state will authorize more than one organization to start and operate a charter public school in the community. The ?exclusive fran- chise? of the public schools would be withdrawn. Other publicly ac- countable groups, that is, universities, city councils, county commis- sioners, could also sponsor schools. Anyone wanting to start a school could approach any of these agencies, not just the local school board. School districts would not be able to take students for granted. They would be motivated to improve their programs and meet student and parent needs. 2. The newly organized (or converted) schools would be public schools. They would not be able to charge tuition, discriminate, or have a religious affiliation. They would be open to all students and subject to applicable health and safety regulations. 3. The schools would be responsible for improved student achieve- ment. Schools would have three- to five-year ?performance contracts? with their sponsoring agency. If a school failed to meet its performance goals, it would be closed. 4. In return for this accountability for improved results, the state would grant an upfront waiver of virtually all rules and regulations governing public schools. This provision has many implications, includ- ing credentialing requirements for teachers, curriculum requirements, length of school day, accounting procedures, transportation obligations, school-lunch programs, and others. 5. The charter school would be a school of choice. Parents, stu- dents, and teachers would have to select the school. If not enough people selected a school, it would be closed. No one would be assigned to a charter school against his or her will. 6. The school would be a discrete entity. The school could choose its legal status and structure. Teachers might choose to bargain collec- tively, but would not be subject to a district?s contract. 7. The full per-pupil allocation would move with the student. The dollar amount would approximate the state or district average appropria- tion. Extra funds for special education or low-income students would also follow the student. 8. Participating teachers would be protected and given new oppor- tunities. They might choose to remain part of the state?s retirement and benefits system or establish their own cooperative. They might become a not-for-profit corporation. They might take a leave from their current school system and retain their seniority. 318 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING KEY EARLY LESSONS 1. Charter schools can have a positive impact on student achieve- ment, attendance, and attitude. A number of schools, in their own evaluations, have compiled evidence of improved student attitudes and student achievement. 2. Many charter proposals focus on low- and moderate-income youngsters. A survey in 1995 of 110 charters in 7 states found most had at least some focus on ?at-risk? students. Other studies found higher proportions of minorities in charter schools than in the comparable school districts. 3. Many talented educators will accept responsibility for results, in exchange for considerable autonomy. Once the ability to create charters was offered, many teachers and administrators from the public schools seized upon the opportunity. There is a reservoir of creativity in the public schools waiting to be unleashed. 4. Good ideas aren?t enough. Charters need people who know how to run a ?startup? operation. Many educators have spent their entire careers in the cradle of the bureaucracy and are ill-prepared to cope with the stresses of creating their own organizational structure, much like a small business. 5. Charter schools can be located in places other than a traditional school building. There is nothing magical about the institutional archi- tecture of schools. Storefronts, VFW halls, community centers, muse- ums, and many different places can house a school or serve as its ?home base.? 6. One of the biggest challenges facing charter schools is where to obtain startup funds. Charters do not have the authority to acquire bonded debt. Nor do they have access to capital-improvement funds from the state. This means that the ?big ticket? startup costs can easily overwhelm a charter. KEY POLICY LESSONS 1. The charter idea encourages school districts to improve. Dis- tricts that had ignored parent requests for new programs became more responsive when parents launched their own charter initiatives. The districts moved to ?preempt? the parent programs, which resulted in parent needs being met. GOVERNANCE 319 2. The strongest state charter laws produce much more activity. States that allowed charters to be sponsored by organizations other than school boards generated the most charter programs. 3. Many charter opponents have shifted legislative strategies. Rather than opposing charters outright, they now support more limited pro- grams where local school boards must approve the charter. 4. Charter-school legislation offers important opportunities for unions. Unions themselves are establishing charter schools. Some unions are learning how to subcontract with charters for specific services. Many charters retain union affiliation. 5. The charter-school movement can learn from the sometimes frustrating experience of successful innercity alternative public schools. Much of what is now being proposed as ?new? for charters was tried extensively in the late sixties and early seventies. In many cases, though, these alternative schools were limited to ?at-risk? student populations. As a result, the lessons were never generalized across the school system. (The above three sections were condensed from Nathan 1996, pp. 18- 22.) One of the unanticipated outcomes of the charter-school movement has been its appropriation in many places by groups of parents who have sought to create essentially ?public private schools?: environments that conform to rather traditional educational philosophies but allow parents to shield their children from what they perceive to be a public school system dangerously out of control. Such groups of parents are well-organized and sophisticated in their knowledge of their legal rights. They quickly learn the workings of the educational bureaucracy and are able to exploit it to gain permission to create a school that is not particularly innovative, but is consistent with the beliefs of one group of parents. Such charters do not place much pressure on public schools to reform (since the charter duplicates many of the practices of the public schools that surround it), but they do allow some parents enhanced control over the children fortunate enough to be admitted to these ?havens.? A few of these schools have had difficulties as the religious agendas of some parents have spilled over into the school, but generally speaking these charters function quite effectively. They are testaments to the ways in which policies devised for one purpose can easily come to serve exactly the opposite purpose. Several problems have beset charter schools: (1) lack of expertise in fiscal matters (some schools have closed due to lack of adequate fiscal controls or downright fraud); (2) inability to meet state health and safety requirements for school buildings; (3) internal turbulence over gover- nance issues; (4) failure to address the startup costs of a school such as the costs for a library and computers; and (5) inadequate planning for the 320 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING complexity of starting a school, resulting in schools that open without texts or a clearly defined curriculum. The charter-school movement generally has yet to face the conse- quences of the first real disaster: a tragedy such as an injury to a student in a school-sponsored trip where a volunteer is driving irresponsibly, a sexual offense by a teacher or volunteer or community-resource person, or an expos? by a local television station showing poor sanitation or dangerous practices at a charter. While the public schools have become (unfortunately) accustomed to such disasters, charters have yet to expe- rience them in earnest. These periodic incidents shake the public?s trust in public schooling. The effect on the embryonic charter-school move- ment of an event that causes the public to question its faith in these schools is yet to be determined. It may engender a backlash against deregulation of schooling. An early example of this type of incident is a case in Arizona, one of the most ?hands-off? charter states, where the Arizona State school board revoked the charter for Citizen 2000, a Phoenix K-8 school with a multicultural philosophy. The school?s owner had filed for bankruptcy. The school had been having administrative and financial problems since the state auditor general concluded that the school?s accounting struc- ture and fiscal controls were ?practically nonexistent, which is a matter of grave concern? (Schnaiberg 1996). The state?s investigation focused on the possible misuse of public funds. Advocates of charters defended the movement generally. The executive director of the Arizona Charter Schools Association, John R. Kakritz, stated that ?schools have been failing for years and they stay open. The failure of a school being connected with its closing only strengthens the movement? (Schnaiberg1996). The accuracy of this observation remains to be con- firmed. There is obvious danger in allowing publicly funded and sanctioned schools to reflect dramatically different beliefs and values through their instructional programs. As decentralized as American education has been, it has retained a common core of practices and values that have contributed to a sense of nation (while simultaneously ignoring the contributions of large groups of Americans). A key challenge will be to see whether charter schools will operate within the mainstream of the American value system to the degree that taxpayers will not object to their monies going to support the education that takes place in those schools while at the same time these schools will satisfy the needs of those organizing the charter. An additional challenge will be to see if such a system can be reconciled with the traditional collective-bargain- ing model of labor-management relations present in most districts. GOVERNANCE 321 SCHOOL CHOICE: THE ULTIMATE CHANGE IN GOVERNANCE The next step along the continuum of decentralization and restruc- tured governance of public education is school choice that extends beyond the public schools to include private and parochial schools, and, in some cases, home schooling. Choice can simply mean that parents can choose among educational settings within a school or school dis- trict. But the concept is more often interpreted to mean vouchers?an amount of money the state assigns to an individual student that the student can then take to any qualifying educational institution, instead of being restricted to a local school. Vouchers could set the stage for the ?privatization? of public educa- tion, the movement to a market system of schooling, where parents (and students) are ?consumers? served by a number of vendors, ideally competing for their business, each vendor providing a high-quality alternative. Chubb and Moe (1990, 1991) argue for the more radical and unre- stricted forms of choice. On the basis of their studies of private schools, they conclude that schools outside the public system may perform better and that parents should have a chance to choose between the two. They argue that market forces must be allowed to shape schools to a greater degree. ?We believe that the fundamental causes of poor academic performance are not to be found in the schools, but rather in the institutions by which the schools have traditionally been governed? (Chubb and Moe 1991, p. 18). They identify three basic issues that must be addressed for educa- tion to improve: the relationship between school organization and stu- dent achievement, the conditions that promote or inhibit desirable forms of organization, and how these conditions are affected by their institu- tional settings. The key to making schools effective lies in ?unleashing the productive potential already present in the schools and their person- nel. It rests with granting them the autonomy to do what they do best? (Chubb and Moe 1991, p. 20). This autonomy is achieved by freeing schools from external control, as embodied in the central bureaucracy, to the maximum extent possible. Chubb and Moe argue not simply for site-based management in public schools, however. The forces of bureaucracy are too strong within any public educational system, they contend. The pressure of the marketplace is the only way to guarantee freedom from stifling bureau- cracy. ?The system [must be] built on decentralization, competition, and choice.? 322 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING They challenge states to create a new system of public education based on the market principles of parental choice and school competi- tion. The properties of that system are summarized below: ? The state sets minimum criteria and charters any group that can meet the minimum criteria. ? The state will monitor enrollment and distribute public monies accordingly. ? The system of school finance will continue to be determined and controlled by the state. ? Scholarships will be available for at-risk students to make them attractive clients. ? Each student can attend any chartered school, with state funding following the student. ? Every effort will be made to provide tax-supported transportation to all students who need it. ? The state will provide a Parent Information Center to help parents choose among schools. ? The application process to schools must be equitable. ? Each school must have complete autonomy to determine its gov- ernance structure and internal organizational structure. ? The state will hold schools accountable for meeting the criteria set out in their charters, and for adherence to applicable laws. ? The state will not hold schools accountable for student achieve- ment or other dimensions that call for assessments of the quality of school performance. This is the function of the marketplace. Several key issues appear time and time again in the policy debate. Martin (1991) contends legislators and policy-makers are ?trading the known for the unknown? when they mandate programs of school choice. I have summarized below Martin?s ten recommendations about choice programs, which express the concerns many educators and policy- makers have regarding this approach. 1. Choice programs must be well planned. Careful attention must be paid both to family freedom as well as school improvement and educa- tional equity. 2. Choice programs must have equitable admission standards. Quasi- private schools cannot be allowed to skim off the most easily-educated students, leaving the rest for the public system. GOVERNANCE 323 3. Choice programs must inform parents of the ramifications of their choices. Parent information programs must be developed with consideration of the social and economic background of the parents who will be receiving the information. 4. Choice programs cannot guarantee that educational quality will increase. There is no compelling evidence at this point to confirm that choice leads to better education. 5. Choice programs must be but one part of the total reform process in education. Overall issues of program quality and of community involvement in education must be addressed, rather than simply relying on choice to solve all educational problems. 6. Choice programs must view the increasing racial diversity of America as a strength on which to build a world-class educational enterprise. These programs cannot become vehicles for greater segrega- tion and social sorting. They must actively promote the valuing of diversity if the nation is to survive. 7. Choice programs must assure citizens their rightful role in the governance and accountability of educational programs. Safeguards must be developed to guarantee parental involvement, even if parents are dispersed over a wide geographical area. Present protections, such as privacy laws and the civil rights of students, must be maintained. 8. ?Experimental? choice programs must begin collecting solid and hard evidence that will demonstrate their successes and failures so that the citizenry can learn from the experiments. As the new initiatives being developed by state legislatures, the federal government, and private entrepreneurs begin to come on line, adequate requirements that they demonstrate the impact of these programs must be adopted and enforced. 9. Developers of choice programs must confront the financial impli- cations of greater options for parents and students. Choice programs are not low-cost strategies for school improvement. Could the dollars being allocated to them be better spent to strengthen and improve the existing system, or develop a new one? The reality of the cost of choice must be acknowledged. 10. Choices will be limited in a choice program. There is a limit to the amount of information students and parents can and will process to make a choice. More options do not necessarily lead to better decisions beyond a certain point. These caveats notwithstanding, policy-makers have not been shy about attempting programs of choice. Many states, including Minne- sota, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts, have conducted limited experi- ments with choice. Nathan (1989) describes five basic types of school- 324 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING choice plans where choice is limited to the public system: local, program development, specialty school, open enrollment, and postsecondary option. Local: Plans offered by local public school districts include ?mag- nets, schools within schools, and/or alternative programs from which families select? (p. 53). Numerous urban districts have developed mag- net schools as a means by which to enhance choice and promote integration. Historically, however, some of these have tended to become elite through selective examination requirements. The challenge is to devise magnets that are able to compete successfully and that guarantee access to a wide range of students. Program Development: In these plans, ?states provide funds explic- itly to help school districts plan and develop different kinds of public school options? (p. 53). Specialty School: ?Statewide or regional magnet schools, drawing from several districts, are funded by cooperating districts or directly from the state? (p. 53). Minnesota, Colorado, and Oregon have laws with provisions that offer students a second chance through area learn- ing centers, second-chance sites, or alternative learning centers. Open Enrollment: These plans allow students to ?move across district lines under certain circumstances without permission of the district in which they live? (p. 53). Some districts, such as St. Louis and Milwaukee, use this as a strategy to promote desegregation within a metropolitan area. In other states, such as Massachusetts, this approach is being utilized as means to pressure districts to improve or face loss of students. Postsecondary Options: Students taking advantage of these plans ?may attend post-secondary programs with state and/or local funds paying their tuition and fees; families not in the district decide whether to participate? (p. 53). Minnesota, for example, allows public school juniors and seniors to attend colleges, universities, and vocational schools with state funds following them. Boyer (1992), in a report sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, concludes that claims about the benefits of choice programs ?greatly outdistance the evidence.? The report, School Choice, states that 70 percent of parents with children in public school have no desire to send their children to any other school, public or private. One reason is the distances most students would have to travel to reach a school in a neighboring district. The survey found that in those states with choice programs, fewer than 2 percent of eligible parents are participating. The report concludes that parents tend to use these choice programs for other than academic reasons. No significant GOVERNANCE 325 educational gains can be attributed to these programs at this time, the report states. Specifically, the limited Milwaukee experiment is pointed to as an example of a program that has not achieved the desired results: Most private schools involved in the program, which took effect in 1990, thus far have failed to report academic results?let alone demon- strate gains. And the small-scale experiment has failed to spark broader improvements in the school system (Olson, October 28, 1992, p. 12). The report does find some more successful choice programs within school districts. These programs, which enable all children and parents to participate, help revitalize schools, empower teachers and principals, and stimulate parents to consider which program is best suited to their children. It mentions Montclair, New Jersey; Cambridge, Massachu- setts; and District 4 in East Harlem, New York City, as examples. Boyer recommends that choice be used to supplement, but not supplant, neighborhood schools, and he recommends the creation of choice within schools, as well. He offers the following recommenda- tions for the development of effective choice programs: ? Programs should not be arbitrarily imposed. Parents must be actively engaged in the planning and be well informed about the alternatives available to them. ? Transportation must be provided to students who need it. ? No statewide choice program should be established until a series of essential requirements, such as equitable funding, have been met, and all existing programs should be held to the same stan- dards. (Olson, October 28, 1992, p. 12) Evidence regarding the effectiveness of the few moderate-scale choice experiments is mixed. Smith and Meier (1995), in an analysis of choice as a policy tool, conclude that ?social science research has managed to muddy the waters of the [choice] debate with a string of contradictory reports.? Witte (1992) reported no consistent improve- ment for low-income Milwaukee students who received vouchers to attend private schools. Additional yearly reports through 1995 reached the same conclusion. These results were challenged by Greene, Peterson, and Du, with Boeger and Frazier (August 1996), who found that stu- dents who continued for three or more years in the voucher program outperformed students who were denied entry into the voucher program and continued in the regular system. Discussing the research conducted on the Milwaukee voucher experiment, Christopher Jencks noted that more than 80 percent of the students attended one of three private schools. What the study essentially showed was that these three schools 326 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING may be more effective than the Milwaukee public schools collectively (Olson, September 4, 1996). New York City?s East Harlem model of multiple schools within a converted high school has shown near-miraculous results according to those closely involved in its development (Fliegel and MacGuire 1993). Richmond, California?s choice program was blamed for driving the district into bankruptcy. All of these experiments are on a limited scale and have yet to yield conclusive results. Smith and Meier (1995) reach one conclusion about the effect on public-school achievement of the movement of students to private schools. We found that public school performance did not affect private enroll- ments. But... as private school enrollments rise, public school performance drops. Combined with our earlier research, this offers strong evidence that private schools ?skim? the best students from the available enrollment pool. In other words, private school performance is likely to be a function more of enrolling the most educable students than of superior instruction or organizational structure. (p. 316) In all likelihood, policy-makers will continue to consider more substantial programs of choice over the next several years. It appears equally likely that such proposals will appear on state ballots, as well. Their potential impact will be far-reaching, yet their effectiveness has yet to be demonstrated. Choice programs are appealing as simple solu- tions to the complex problems that face the educational system. It seems much easier simply to walk away from public schools than to attempt to redesign them so they are successful with all students. This tempting ?curb appeal? of choice programs must be balanced against the realities that to date such programs have yet to demonstrate their benefit to a broad cross-section of students or to justify the appropriation of tax dollars to support nonpublic schools. Nevertheless, public educators will have to be ready to explain why they should not be subject to the same type of competition prevalent in the rest of the economic system, and how they are offering appropriate choices within the existing system. At the very least, school districts should consider ways in which to accommodate those parents who wish a choice, either within their own school or the district at large. Some real options for students and some sense of responsiveness to the wishes of patrons will go a long way toward dispelling the image of school districts as bureaucratic dinosaurs incapable of adapting to the needs and expectations of its clients. GOVERNANCE 327 In the final analysis, the greatest impact on public schools from programs of choice may not come so much from the actual adoption of them as from the threat of adoption. This may provide more of a lever or motivator to cause teachers, administrators, and board members to look more seriously at the need to accommodate the desires of parents for greater control over their children?s education, or at least the option to have some effect or influence on the way in which their children are educated. Choice (or the threat of choice) may be the external force that galvanizes some schools or districts to take action to improve their instructional programs and to think of parents and students as customers and clients who want their needs and goals to be considered to a greater degree than they are now. If programs of choice have this effect alone, they will have been a powerful influence on school restructuring. DECENTRALIZATION: THE ?MAGIC BULLET? TO SCHOOL RESTRUCTURING? All these strategies for changing governance have one common assumption: Decentralization of decision-making and responsibility will lead to improved academic achievement, whether such decentralization is in the form of a new structure of authority within the existing system (site-based decision-making) or a more radically decentralized educa- tion system (choice). It is an assumption that resonates well with policy- makers, who look at the private sector (and even traditionally noncom- petitive sectors of the economy such as medicine) and see examples of the decentralization and competition trends all around them. In education, there is little evidence that wholesale decentralization for its own sake will necessarily or automatically lead to improved learning outcomes. What is absent from almost every plan for decentral- izing decision-making is a concomitant increase in accountability to accompany enhanced authority to make decisions. Such accountability is critical to making decentralization work. Decentralization of authority without accountability to produce some agreed-upon, observable results can cause problems if those who make the decisions focus on personal agendas and quality-of-teacher- worklife issues. To date, all the decentralization models have had great difficulty developing appropriate accountability measures and systems. This is important, since the decentralization formula has two parts? increased authority to make decisions and increased accountability to improve learning. Advocates seem quite willing to accept the added authority but perhaps more reticent to assume responsibility for demon- strating enhanced student learning. 328 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING In the private sector, decentralization can be linked to clear results, generally expressed as ?the bottom line.? Such clarity is seldom present in education. There are many possible ways to increase accountability, particularly once a state, district, or school agrees upon the outcomes and assessments that will be employed to gauge student learning. Ac- countability in such an environment directly relates decisions made by adults to the effects such decisions have on children?s learning. If the decisions are having no effect or a negative effect, there is little reason to allow such an educational environment to function without scrutiny or intervention. If, on the other hand, a school is showing success, there is a strong rationale to enhance its method of decision-making, or certainly to refrain from intervening in governance issues. Kirst (1991) notes that ?school-based management is often seen as equivalent to restructuring, rather than a component of the overall plan.? Malen and Ogawa?s (1988) study of site councils in Salt Lake City schools indicates that even though highly favorable arrangements ex- isted to help ensure the success of these councils, ?teachers and parents did not wield significant influence on significant issues in [key] decision areas.? A report on the Boston school-based-management plan con- cludes that ?school-based management in Boston has not significantly altered instruction and has not shifted real authority to the schools? (Olson, September 25, 1991). In other words, simply creating new decision-making structures is no guarantee of restructuring. Involve- ment in decision-making can be an important component of a compre- hensive strategy to help students succeed, but it is only one component. Success, it should be noted, must be defined differently for each school. There is a ?value added? aspect of education that is not captured well by a blind comparison of test scores. The performance of a school in an affluent neighborhood with strong parental support and a rich experience base for students might better be compared, at least on some important dimensions, with other similar schools rather than with all schools. Likewise, schools with large numbers of students who require additional resources or pose unique challenges can make a case to be compared with other schools with similar student populations, and with their own performance over time, in addition to performance in relation to the norm. Such comparisons, however, do not in any way imply acceptance of the disparities between schools for the rich and schools for the poor. The comparisons are merely an additional tool to understand all schools better and to improve their performance by identifying effective practices and consistently poor performers. These compari- sons allow the effects of decision-making to be gauged more accurately. Such principles apply both to strategies of participatory decision-mak- GOVERNANCE 329 ing present in public schools and to programs of choice outside the public schools. There is little evidence that decentralization as the first (or only) element in a program of school restructuring is a successful strategy. Decentralization and involvement without focus, agreement on desir- able results, vision, and clear accountability to improve learning are unlikely to succeed as the sole strategy to restructure education. Changes in governance may be critical to restructuring when they occur along with other activities designed to enhance student learning, and when they function to support this goal. In other words, changes in governance appear to hold the greatest promise as means to ends, not ends in themselves. 330 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP CHAPTER 18 330 As noted in chapter 6, the principal?s and teacher?s roles are likely to change in significant ways if restructuring occurs. Changes implied in the literature on restructuring include greater responsibilities for teach- ers and greater decision-making authority over a range of factors affect- ing the teaching-learning process. Principals will have to be adept at managing continuous-improvement processes and enlisting teacher, par- ent, and community support for change. In short, the success of most strategies for restructuring assumes or requires a new type of leadership for professional educators. Teachers are expected to take on more decision-making responsibility both inside and outside the classroom, as well as to demonstrate the ability to shape instruction and the learning environment in many important ways. Principals are expected to facilitate and support teachers as they exercise authority to make decisions that improve student learning. The implications of such changes, both for the culture of schools and the role of teacher and principal, are profound. Professionalism implies a ?client-oriented and knowledge-based? view of practice (Darling- Hammond 1990), which may not be the norm in many schools currently. Moving from a bureaucratic to a professional conception of teachers and principals requires schools to change their views of ?the nature of learning, the characteristics of learners, and the requirements for effec- tive teaching? (Darling-Hammond 1990, p. 27). This is unlikely to happen without changes in the leadership roles teachers and principals exercise within schools. This chapter explores the rationale for greater teacher leadership, complementary changes in principal leadership, some of the implica- tions of such role changes, examples of ways in which school districts are creating new leadership roles for teachers, and the ways in which principals are exercising new leadership styles that support restructur- ing. TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 331 WHY DEVELOP TEACHER LEADERSHIP? Development of teacher leadership, like any other activity or pro- gram initiated to restructure schools, should have a clear goal and purpose related ultimately to student learning outcomes. New teacher roles or titles should not be created simply as morale-boosters or ?feel good? activities that serve primarily as ends in themselves. There are many valid reasons for pursuing teacher leadership as a component of a strategy for school restructuring. The current literature on school improvement and restructuring is replete with calls for teacher empowerment and leadership. Some advocate teacher leadership as a means to achieve greater application of democratic principles of partici- pation (Bolin 1989; Lieberman, February 1988; Louis 1992; Schmuck and Schmuck 1992), to enhance teacher satisfaction (McClure 1988), to build professionalism (Moses and Whitaker 1990; Brandt, May 1989), to increase the capacity for organizational change (Maeroff, March 1988), and even to improve the efficiency of schools (Darling-Hammond 1990). Smylie (1995) summarizes some of the more prevalent approaches to enhancing teacher leadership: The most visible opportunities for teacher leadership have come from now familiar forms of work redesign?career ladders; lead, master, and mentor teacher roles; and participative decision making. By the late 1980s, nearly every state had adopted or was studying some variation of these programs. District initiatives have proliferated beyond count. More recently, other opportunities for teacher leadership have arisen through programs of curricular and instructional innovation, new approaches to teacher preservice and in-service education, and the development of new school structures and professional communities. (pp. 3-4) Smylie also mentions the primary objectives of the effort to give teachers more opportunities for leadership: Efforts to develop teacher leadership generally aim to achieve three related objectives. First, they seek to enhance the quality of the teacher workforce by expanding and diversifying the nature of teachers? work, providing a wider array of incentives to attract and retain the most talented teachers in the profession. Second, they intend to establish new incentives, controls, and opportunities for professional learning and development aimed to improve the performance of practicing teachers. Third, these efforts seek to enhance the institutional capacity and performance of schools by plac- ing teachers in positions of leadership and decision making, thereby increasing resources and expertise available for improvement. (pp. 3-4) Hart (1995) suggests that teacher leadership challenges the tradi- tional views of school leadership that a modern school faces. The heroic 332 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING vision of the school leader is obsolete for two reasons: a modern school faces more complex problems and challenges than yesteryear?s schools did, and today?s teachers are more able to solve problems for themselves and to participate in decisions and school improvement. Teacher leader- ship has been a hallmark of many education-reform policies, says Hart, who notes five purposes for teacher-leadership programs: Some new work designs promote teacher leadership to further a more democratic, communal, or communitarian social system for schools and schooling.... A second purpose for implementing teacher leadership structures touted in reform literature is to draw on teachers? expertise and experience as a school resource (Griffin, 1995; Heller and Firestone, 1995).... Work design and incentives drive a third purpose of teacher leadership opportunities. In order to recruit, retain, and motivate the best teachers, proponents argue, these teachers? work values should guide the redesign of teachers? career opportunities (Hart, 1994; Hart and Murphy, 1990; Kim, 1993).... An acknowledged need for instructional and curriculum reform moti- vates a fourth purpose of teacher leadership roles in schools. Enthusiasts assert that teachers will make or break any serious attempts to reform instruction and curriculum. With their leadership, new techniques and approaches that fundamentally redesign teachers? work will be more likely to take hold and persist (Heller and Firestone, 1995).... Finally, teacher leadership structures seek to promote a more profes- sional work environment (Little, 1995). (pp. 10-11, emphasis in original) Development of teacher leadership can be thought of as having the potential to address these goals and others. However, teacher leadership might be most valuable as a means to enhance the professional growth and development of teachers, and as a means to revitalize their teaching and their interactions with their colleagues in ways that enhance student learning and increase the capacity of the school to adapt and improve. Devaney (1987) offers insight into teachers? perceptions of their motivation and satisfaction; in the following paragraphs, she summa- rizes research on the importance of professional development for teach- ers: During 1985 Milbrey W. McLaughlin and her colleagues at Stanford University conducted in-depth interviews of 85 San Francisco Bay Area teachers of widely diverse experience and work settings, both elementary and secondary. They sought teachers? testimony on the sources of satisfac- tion and effectiveness in their work. One of the things they found out is that ?the central career concern for teachers is professional development, not promotion.? Sylvia Yee, one of the researchers writes: ?... For a majority of teachers, career development resides not in external advancement struc- tures, but in opportunities for professional development.? TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 333 When they speak about professional development, Yee says, teachers value not the typical school district inservice training, but rather ?getting teachers to come together and share ideas and thoughts? in informal but rigorous ways over extended periods of time? ?a combination of sharing information, observing other teachers, offering and receiving collegial feedback, and cooperative problem solving....? Rosenholtz writes [that] three factors??task autonomy,? certainty about their capability to help students learn, and learning opportunities for themselves?are strongly linked to teachers? intent to stay in teaching. Rosenholtz also identified factors in the organization and management of those schools in which teachers said they had many and varied opportu- nities to learn to improve their work. The conditions that characterize a ?learning enriched? school, she found, are ?deliberate, collaborative goal setting? by the principal and the faculty together; teacher evaluation that gives frequent situation-specific feedback on the basis of clear criteria developed with teachers; teachers? agreement with each other about what is important in teaching; and collaboration among teachers??the ease with which teachers request and offer advice and assistance to colleagues.? (pp. 9-11) Teacher-leadership opportunities can be powerful motivators for teachers if they are not linked explicitly to external structures that might imply promotion, such as career ladders or administrative positions. Little?s (1990) examination of the ?mentoring phenomenon? indicates the difficulties teachers face when they and their duties as mentors are perceived to be external to the school, rather than an integral part of it: Ambiguity and conflict surrounding role definition have been greatest where mentor roles remain unlinked to any larger picture, where norms are unfavorable to professional growth or career mobility, and where teachers have been left to ?invent their roles as they went along.? Devaney (1987) mentions the norms that prevail within teaching (norms of conformity, competition, scarcity, isolation, and egalitarian- ism), the power these norms have as constraints on teacher behavior, and how teacher leaders can violate these norms, either inadvertently or deliberately. Most schools have cultures where teachers are united by their sense of personal powerlessness. They react by demonstrating a ?proletarian solidarity against authority? (Devaney 1987). Tacit agree- ments regarding competition and performance exist so that no one ?stands out? to threaten other teachers. In fact, some teachers known for their excellence will shun public recognition for fear of offending their peers. Scarcity norms evidence themselves in the reaction aroused when one teacher gains access to resources not available to all teachers. A release day, a computer, or additional supplies given to one teacher, however deserving, can create tension. Isolation is perhaps the most 334 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING deeply ingrained norm in public education. In some districts isolation is formally institutionalized through contracts that require administrators to receive advance permission from teachers before entering their class- rooms. Programs of teacher leadership frequently confront and chal- lenge these norms. There have been two basic schools of thought regarding approaches to the creation of teacher-leadership roles. One has focused on develop- ing formal programs such as mentor teachers or career ladders. An advantage of these programs is that they have institutional legitimacy and, frequently, resources in the form of time and money attached to them. They have the disadvantage of not being adaptable to the unique needs of a school, and of failing to capitalize on the skills, interests, and personalities of staff members within a building. They may also have problems achieving legitimacy with teachers, who may not have been involved in their design or may not agree with the selection criteria or the ways in which the criteria are applied. Sometimes such formal programs are successful, but in other cases they are not. Little (1990) estimates that the mentor relationship in the California Mentor Teacher Program ?appears to fail at least as often as it succeeds.? An alternative is to develop teacher leadership on an ad hoc basis. This method identifies interests and abilities of staff members and matches them with the leadership needs of the school. Training and resources are then tailored to the development of the individual. Legiti- macy is enhanced if others already view the person as competent in the area where he or she is assigned leadership responsibilities (Little 1988). Devaney (1987) calls this the ?light socket? approach to creation of leadership positions. It opens up a wide variety of roles, limited only by the needs of the school and the abilities of the staff. There is evidence that principals in schools that are having some success restructuring are creating the conditions within which the tradi- tional norms of teaching can be challenged and altered and diverse teacher-leadership roles can be created. Teachers link their personal and professional development with the restructuring process. This combina- tion can be a powerful motivator for teacher involvement in organiza- tional change (Goldman, Dunlap, and Conley 1991). Clearly the ?light socket? approach has limitations, since it is dependent on a supportive principal and a culture within the school that allows or supports teacher participation in leadership roles, whereas externally imposed programs can get around these factors. On the other hand, the externally imposed programs encounter severe difficulty when they are implemented into hostile environments. Therefore, the creation of teacher-leadership op- portunities may well depend in nearly all cases on the conditions present in individual school buildings. TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 335 CREATING A RANGE OF OPTIONS FOR TEACHER LEADERSHIP This section discusses the types of roles for teachers that might be available within a school as vehicles for the development of their leadership. It suggests a combination of the two methods discussed previously. Some of the leadership options are more formal programs that generally exist in a framework broader than the individual school; many more are merely opportunities that can be presented to or devel- oped with individuals or small groups of teachers. In combination, these options offer a broad range of leadership-development opportunities that can infuse the school culture and be available to all teachers in some form or another. There seems to be an assumption in many schools that leadership cannot be exercised until someone has been a teacher for a long time. When less-experienced teachers attempt to exert leadership, the reaction is often less than overwhelmingly positive. This norm tends to discour- age teachers early in their careers from developing their leadership abilities, or at least it dissuades them from viewing leadership as some- thing integral to the role of teacher. An alternative is to develop teachers? leadership systematically throughout their careers. Teachers can experience different types of leadership at different points in their careers. The following examples serve to illustrate the types of roles in which teachers might be involved over time: Club sponsor/coach/student-leadership advisor. New teachers fre- quently have responsibilities that they demonstrate in working with students. Rarely is this considered a form of teacher leadership or a forum for the development of the neophyte teacher?s leadership skills. This is a missed opportunity to develop future teacher leaders. Prot?g? to a mentor. While the leadership implications may not be immediately apparent, they become clearer if it is understood that by understanding the prot?g? role, the teacher is better able to understand the mentor role. Additionally, the prot?g??s leadership skills can be encouraged and developed by the mentor. Someone who has been mentored becomes a stronger candidate to serve as a successful mentor to someone in the next generation of teachers. (For a more detailed discussion of the prot?g??s role, see Krupp 1987.) Peer observer/peer coach. All teachers could conceivably benefit from this role throughout their careers, though it may be of most value earlier in the career path, since it helps teachers to learn to accept and value help from colleagues and to communicate with other teachers about problems of practice. These roles provide many opportunities for 336 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING substantive conversations about teaching, and they help alleviate the norms of privacy and conformity. In addition, many well-developed programs already exist and are available to be implemented. (For a discussion of peer coaching, see: Anastos and Ancowitz 1987, Garmston 1987, Hall and McKeen 1989, Joyce and Showers 1987, Munro and Elliott 1987, Phillips and Glickman 1991, Servatius and Young 1985, Showers 1984.) Chair or member of committee or site council. There are numerous ad hoc and standing committees in school districts and buildings. Par- ticipation is often seen as a duty (or punishment). In addition, many states have mandated or districts have developed site councils as a dimension of decentralized decision-making. If these committees or councils begin to have genuine power, and if teachers are well matched to roles and are provided adequate training, such work can provide opportunities for teachers to develop and apply new skills in relatively controlled situations. As they gain experience, participants can grow into more formal leadership roles, such as chairing a committee or council. Assuming such roles also allows teachers to begin to develop broader perspectives on the organization?and their role in the organi- zation?and to experience differing conceptions of power. As teachers become empowered to a greater degree, they begin to perceive their ability to influence the conditions of teaching. Leadership in this sense serves both to increase job satisfaction and to improve learning out- comes. Department (or division) chair/coordinator. The organizational struc- ture of secondary schools in particular is beginning to change in some schools. They are moving from traditional discipline-based departments to divisions or houses or teams, sometimes interdisciplinary in nature. At the same time, the role of department chair is also changing. The traditional role of department chair has rarely been seen as a way to develop teacher leadership. Rather, people in these positions often were expected to take a conserving posture?make certain their department did not lose resources or the principal did not do anything detrimental to them. Many of the tasks were clerical in nature. The reshaping of the role of department chair holds great potential for creating new leadership opportunities. Since most secondary schools already commit resources to this role, it is one of the few existing legitimized leadership roles for teachers. This level of leadership can be a natural next step, in many cases, for teachers who have been leading ad hoc school-improvement efforts and committees. However, for them to succeed, the duties of the department chair will need to contain a greater emphasis on school improvement and restructuring, curriculum im- TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 337 provement, instructional quality, and interdisciplinary relations. The people in these roles can have a significant impact on instructional practice if they are given appropriate skills and support (Acheson and Smith 1986). The expectations for the department chair should be considered in relation to the resources (in the form of release time or stipend) already devoted to it. Schools may want to ask the question: Are we getting our money?s worth?in school improvement and teacher- leadership development?from this role in return for the leadership and services being provided for it? Lead teacher. Devaney (1987) proposes a new role?that of lead teacher. This leadership role is tied much more closely to teachers? perceived needs and is designed to help them fulfill those needs. Lead teachers are neither administrators nor classroom teachers. While they retain their ties to the classroom, they are freed part-time to assist in the professional growth of their colleagues and to coordinate decision- making among a subgroup of the faculty. The lead teacher provides teachers with the following services: ? More time to prepare for and attend to individual students? unique learning needs ? More frequent, practical feedback?both affirmation and correction? on teaching technique and classroom organization and management ? Immediate, constructive help for teaching problems ? More relevant and stimulating opportunities for professional improve- ment?from observations of each others? teaching within the school to instruction provided outside ? Informal, continuing exchanges with other teachers about what they have learned from experience as well as new information they have garnered, and about new materials or projects they can develop together for their own classrooms or for the whole school ? A voice in the school?s organization, course of study, school day, schedule, budget, student policies, and plans for improvement (p. 16) Berry and Ginsberg (1990) present a similar argument for lead teachers and suggest that, ?like the manager of managers in other professional organizations, the lead teacher will guide and influence the activities of other teachers and serve as a catalyst for the decisions other teachers make that affect student performance most directly? (p. 618). They see the creation of lead teachers as a bargain of sorts: In exchange for even greater regulation of teachers through more rigorous and more professional teacher preparation, certification, and selection procedures, there will be less regulation of teaching. Policy makers will generate fewer rules regarding what is to be taught, how it is to be taught, and when it is to be taught. In essence, all professions whose members 338 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING must use discretion and judgment in meeting the unique needs of clients have struck such a bargain with society: the profession guarantees the competence of its members in exchange for retaining its control over the structure of work and the standards of practice. (p. 618, emphasis in original) Berry and Ginsberg acknowledge that there is some risk in creating differentiated roles among teachers, but they believe such differentia- tion can be legitimated ?if the working environment provides frequent opportunities for cooperation and interaction between lead teachers and their teams.? They believe that lead teachers should have a more active and direct role in improving instruction. Lead teachers should be en- gaged in: 1. classroom teaching 2. mentoring and coaching other teachers 3. appraising the performance of other teachers 4. professional development 5. peer reviews of school practice 6. building-level decision making (p. 618) Lead teachers might be employed at all levels, but elementary schools (and middle-level schools that have instituted interdisciplinary teams) seem more likely to utilize this role. Association representative. Rarely are the leaders of the teachers? association or the building representatives of the association seen as potential leaders, yet they can influence a faculty toward embracing or rejecting any given proposal and can set the tone for the building. Administrators might be well advised to attempt to understand what needs this role fulfills for the people who occupy it. There is no reason why the leadership skills of these people should not be developed systematically. If association representatives have good communication skills, know how to apply techniques for dispute resolution, understand the processes of school improvement and change, and have a broader picture of the organization and their role in it, they are only likely to use these skills in a fashion that encourages interaction between the association and the administration. They may also become interested in other leadership positions; if so, they may be more equipped than most other teachers to fill those roles in a competent manner. When teachers can move between leadership roles in the association and in the school, feelings of disenfranchisement and alienation can be alleviated. Teacher researcher. Some teachers have no desire to lead anyone else or to be involved in a committee. They may, however, be willing to contribute to school improvement and restructuring efforts by gathering TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 339 data about particular school practices. Some cynical teachers can be enticed (or challenged) to contribute by examining their beliefs about education (for example, statements made at faculty meetings: ?the parents don?t support us?; ?all the kids have jobs and can?t do home- work?; ?we give kids every chance to succeed?; ?the halls are out of control?). These teachers can be commissioned to collect data to prove or disprove the stated hypothesis. This type of research does not require extensive methodological training, but merely a commitment to intellec- tual honesty combined with appropriate data collection and analysis techniques. Such information also has high credibility with faculties, since it is collected within the school by peers. (For a discussion of teacher as researcher, see, for example, Bracey 1991, Sagor 1991.) Staff developer. Since the early eighties, the number of teachers who have assumed some staff-development duties has skyrocketed. This movement grew initially through the efforts of Madeline Hunter and those who have been trained to teach her materials. Subsequently a number of others such as David and Roger Johnson (cooperative learn- ing) and Bernice McCarthy (learning styles) developed ?training of trainer? programs to accompany their materials and training on specific instructional techniques. Many teachers became staff developers to teach ?Elements of Instruction,? cooperative learning, or learning styles to other teachers. Since the initial work of Hunter, the role of teacher as staff devel- oper has become much more complex. Many who began as instructional trainers have since become more like organization-development con- sultants, assisting the change process within a school or building. Still others organize peer-coaching and collegial-sharing activities. This role is appealing and revitalizing for many teachers at midcareer; it has been implemented in numerous forms by districts throughout the country. Teachers can serve in at least two kinds of roles as staff developers. One is the inbuilding staff developer, who helps teachers implement techniques learned from experts while continuing to teach part-time. This teacher is released from teaching for a fixed time. The other is the staff-development consultant, who works with teachers from many dif- ferent buildings and has expertise and training in a variety of areas and techniques. The staff-development consultant often retains the status of teacher and does not become an administrator. Titles such as Teacher on Special Assignment signify the unique status of the role. It is a role whose status can be ambiguous, particularly in cases where these people work closely with administrators in the planning of staff-development activities and in the implementation of particular instructional programs. In such cases, they may come to be seen as ?quasi-administrators.? 340 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING Noble (1987) describes some of the issues that arise when teachers are taken from the classroom and given the larger, more liberating perspective on teaching, learning, and schooling that the role of staff- development trainer offers: Teachers who serve as staff development trainers are usually enthusiastic, dedicated learners themselves, whose attitudes toward growth make them strong, positive models for their students. Yet, if our experiences in Greece are typical, these strong teachers may be the very ones who will then be drawn away from classrooms as a result of their involvement in staff development. Does this mean that we shouldn?t let good teachers become an integral part of the staff development training process because they may be on an inexorable course away from direct student contact? We have no definitive answer, only impressions and ideas.... First, teachers who also serve as staff development trainers could be encouraged to have the ?best of both worlds? by lightening their class loads or by making them part-time teachers, perhaps using job sharing strategies. A second idea, perhaps the one with the strongest implications for job satisfaction on both fronts, is to capitalize on the teacher/trainers? strengths in their own buildings. As trainers in a program to increase effective instruction who are also skilled in clinical supervision, teachers could have the unique opportunity to also take the role of coaches to their schools? principals. By serving as a ?peer? observer and coach, the trainer can help bring about real change and improvement in the principals? instructional supervision skills. (p. 31, emphasis in original) (For a more detailed discussion of this role, see: Bertani and others 1987, Leggett and Hoyle 1987, Marks 1983, Moye and Rodgers 1987, Tallerico 1987, Wu 1987.) Curriculum developer. Teachers have traditionally implemented curriculum, not developed it. They have developed activities to support curriculum that has been developed elsewhere, or written objectives against which curriculum adoptions can be judged, but the curriculum itself was the product of a publisher or a large curriculum-development operation, such as a university project. With the advent of information technologies such as CD-ROM, video, and electronic databases and networks, teachers can gather enough information to be able to assemble a sophisticated curriculum program in a relatively short time. By using scanners, desktop-publishing programs, and laser printers, they can quickly produce sophisticated products. Even the cost of mastering custom CD-ROM disks is not beyond the means of most districts. What teachers lack most is training in curriculum development as a conceptual task and the time to work on such projects. If teachers are provided training, time (available in the summer), and access to technol- ogy, they will be able to produce high-quality curriculum in much less TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 341 time and for less cost than is currently the case. If school restructuring succeeds in effecting change in the core functions of teaching, this kind of internal curriculum development will become more prevalent in school districts. Educational entrepreneur. To break the bounds of conformity, and to encourage free thinkers to remain in education, new leadership roles, such as educational entrepreneur, can be developed. The educational entrepreneur experiments with new techniques, develops new programs, taps new markets, and develops new relationships inside and outside the school. Many schools restrict this type of activity to special student populations, believing such approaches are fine with at-risk or special- education students, but are not appropriate for the general student body. Educational entrepreneurs need to have institutional authorization to compete with the traditional system, to put pressure on the rest of the school to equal their performance and results. Rather than being seen as fringe players, these innovators could be placed in positions where their efforts could be modeled and emulated by other, more cautious main- stream teachers. Reflective practitioner. No school moves very far without someone with a vision, a sense of what could be. This vision has to be developed somewhere, and it has to be spread throughout the school via some mechanism. The role of reflective practitioner is one that may be sought after by teachers who like to dream, explore, imagine, analyze. Teachers in this role lead discussions of books and articles, take the data generated by the teacher researchers and consider implications for the school, or question basic assumptions and practices in the school. They provide leadership and support for new ideas and promote examination of existing assumptions. Sch?n (1989) describes this process as reflection-in-action, the ability of professionals to analyze and ?self-correct? while engaged in the act of teaching. It requires teachers to be highly aware of the processes of teaching, to be capable of observing what is occurring and of analyzing what they observe or conclude. They also need to be able to reflect upon their reflection-in-action: There are times?when people get stuck and want to get unstuck, or want to help someone else learn to do something, or want to build on their own spontaneous artistry?when people also reflect on their reflection-in-ac- tion. Then people become observers of their own on-the-spot experiments, reflect on what they observe, and try to describe their knowing, their inquiry, and their change in view. They give themselves reason and try to make explicit the reasoning they have produced without having had to take thought. (Sch?n, pp. 204-5, emphasis in original) 342 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING Sullivan (1987) describes a program designed to increase the amount of professional reading and discussion in which staff at a pilot site engaged. Release time from classes was provided for thirteen teachers to engage in conversations with one another and with faculty from a local university along with state educational leaders. Coverage of classes was obtained by having university faculty alternate between substituting for the teachers one month, then participating in the discussions the next. The experience appeared to be particularly valuable for beginning teachers, but also served as a tool for building collegiality among all participants. There were indications that the seminars led to enhanced educational practices in classrooms. Teachers occupied a variety of leadership roles throughout the process. Beginning teachers were able to interact as peers with their more experienced colleagues. The tone of faculty meetings became more professional. Teachers, through en- hanced professional knowledge and interaction, came to exert more leadership and act in more professional ways. (For additional discussion of this role, see: Sch?n 1989, 1988, and 1983.) Administrative intern. Administration is another avenue for teacher leadership. Many teachers are unsure of their interest in an administra- tive position and need an opportunity to assume the role briefly, in a controlled manner, to determine if they are truly interested in pursuing full-time administrative positions. Such internships may be brief (1-3 days of shadowing, attending meetings with the administrator, and so forth) or extended (an entire year in which the intern is in charge in the administrator?s absence). They may be coordinated with an administra- tive certification program or independent of such a program. Such opportunities may require limited release time or be accomplished on the teacher?s own time. Many more opportunities of this nature can be made available to teachers within existing budgets and administrative structures. Mentor. Teachers can serve as mentors at almost any point after they have mastered the art, craft, and science of teaching. Usually if this is going to occur, it occurs somewhere between five and ten years into a teacher?s career. The role of mentor has been studied in some depth (Galvez-Hjornevik 1986, Gray and Gray 1985, Huffman and Leak 1986, Kram 1983, Little 1990, Stroble and Cooper 1988, Zimpher and Rieger 1988, Krupp 1987). The conclusions, in general, are that this relationship can be valuable, but it is not automatically so. Mentor relationships need to evolve, and there needs to be a good match between mentor and prot?g? in terms of personality styles. In schools where a culture of growth and support is created?where norms of isolation, conformity, and egalitarianism are not overbearing?mentor TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 343 0000000000 * This section is adapted from D. Conley, and P. Goldman, ?Ten Propositions for Facilitative Leadership.? In Reshaping the Principalship: Insights from Transforma- tional Reform Efforts, edited by Joseph Murphy and Karen Seashore Louis. 237-62. Newbury Park, California: Corwin Press, 1994. relationships can flourish. Where these norms are dominating, it is difficult for one teacher to offer support and advice to another. Teacher leadership, as conceived in this chapter, is multidimen- sional, encompassing various roles and activities throughout a career. The intent is not to limit the definition of leadership to administrative responsibilities. New conceptions of power require new theories of leadership, for teachers and administrators. Anything teachers can do to facilitate change and improvement in ways in which they interact with their colleagues has the potential for being a leadership role. The more opportunities of this nature teachers have, the more potential a school has to become a ?learning organization? (Senge 1990) with the internal capacity to take control of its improvement and evolution. THE PRINCIPAL AS FACILITATIVE LEADER Contemporary scholars (Dunlap and Goldman 1991; Dunlap and Goldman 1990; Dunlap and Goldman 1989; Goldman and Dunlap 1990; Goldman, Dunlap, and Conley 1991, 1993; Leithwood 1992; Prestine 1991; Peterson 1989; Kleine-Kracht 1993) have observed an emerging style of principal leadership characterized by high faculty involvement in and ownership of decisions, management of the school?s vision, and emphasis on significant change and improvement. They have reached the conclusion that new terminology is needed to describe the evolution of the principalship in the face of school restructuring, school-based decision-making, and teacher empowerment. Educational reformers have begun to develop a vision of schools as more fluid, adaptive, and cooperative environments, creating a new set of demands for teachers and principals who must work together for change to occur. In this section I explore the extension and evolution of the conception of principal as instructional leader, from an emphasis on mastery of multiple technical skills to the management of the energy flow within a school. I use the term facilitative leadership to describe how principals come to lead without dominating. The following ten ?propositions? for describing facilitative leadership in practice* were derived from re- search conducted by me and my colleague Paul Goldman from 1991 to 1993 in nine Oregon schools that were members of the Oregon Network, 344 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING 0000000000 ** The Oregon Network is funded under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Secretary?s Fund for Innovation in Education, grant #R215E10212. a federally funded grant designed to enable schools to take the ?next step? in school restructuring.** What these schools?three elementary schools, two middle schools, three high schools, and one K-12 alterna- tive learning center?shared was the attempt by their administrators to employ more facilitative forms of leadership as a means to effect school restructuring. Each of the following propositions includes a brief discussion of its meaning and possible implications. These propositions help identify the strengths and limitations of the concept of facilitative leadership. Fur- thermore, these propositions help identify and describe changes in the interaction among various organizational and system functions that result from altered conceptions of leadership and changed leadership behaviors. When principals employ facilitative leadership to help schools achieve their vision, certain tensions occur. The ten propositions are grouped under three broad headings: Cre- ating and Managing Meaning, Facilitating the Process, and Operating in an Organizational Context. CREATING AND MANAGING MEANING 1. Facilitative leadership is primarily the creation and management of tensions. All organizations contain tensions, and all successful leaders must be able to manage those tensions. The principals we studied seemed to accept tension-creation and management as defining dimensions of their role. Rather than simply reacting to organizational and environmental forces, they anticipated and directed energy in ways that caused staff to engage more in processes that could lead toward improved schooling. Directed tension-creation may help create a clear focus on common goals, standards for success, and accountability for performance. These principals did not simply establish a vision for the school, then step back and expect the school to align its efforts to achieve the vision. Their efforts to engage and direct faculty energy were highly purposive, at times creating conflict, or bringing it out into the open, rather than suppressing or sublimating it. One elementary principal used a series of retreats to focus staff discussion on ?ten commitments? that she believed were prerequisites to schoolwide change. These conversations were difficult. One staff mem- ber, in particular, felt he would not be able to meet the new, higher TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 345 expectations to which the staff was committing. His public displays of emotion regarding his fears and sense of inadequacy challenged the principal and faculty to deal with the complex interplay between sup- porting a colleague and improving their program to meet the changing needs of students. In one school, the staff could agree in principle to change, but could never agree on any specific program. The principal worked to manage the tensions between his ?pioneer? teachers, who needed to move forward, and his ?settlers,? who were comfortable where they were, even though they might acknowledge change (in the abstract) as desir- able. He attempted to validate the pioneers without segregating them from the rest of the staff, so that their ideas would continue to influence others. They were, however, frustrated that the principal could not (or would not) move more decisively to get the rest of the faculty to act. The principal tried a number of approaches designed to increase gradually the settlers? acceptance of the inevitability (and desirability) of change. As a result of a series of meetings the principal helped organize and support, all faculty agreed that the school would adopt a ?research and development? process whereby new ideas and programs could be implemented and evaluated. This strategy enabled the pioneers to continue their efforts, while the settlers had to acknowledge that change would result from these activities. The effect was to create tension in a way that it could be managed toward ends the faculty had agreed were desirable. 2. Successful facilitative leadership encourages shared visions. But there are tensions and tradeoffs that accompany the shift from bureau- cracy-driven to vision-driven systems. ?Vision? has been a much discussed and admired component of school restructuring (Bredeson 1991, Conley and others 1992, Fullan with Stiegelbauer 1991). The linkage between a vision-driven organiza- tion and facilitative leadership can disrupt both the bureaucratic struc- tures and existing culture of a school. Bureaucratic mechanisms gener- ally provide a sense of order and security, but they also tend to under- mine the members? belief that they are capable of solving their own problems or modifying their work environment to make it more effec- tive. In six Network schools where site councils or school-improvement committees were observed, participants were initially skeptical that their decisions or input would be respected. The actions of the principal helped overcome this skepticism and build confidence in and commit- ment to teacher-led decision-making and problem-solving. 346 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING Where schools have strong visions, participants may decide to disregard bureaucratic safeguards in order to pursue agreed-upon aims, but this creates uncertainty and anxiety for those accustomed to operat- ing within constrained work environments. Often frustration is symp- tomatic of insecurity among those members of the school who have been most successful playing under the old, known, predictable rules and value system. Vision-driven systems allocate opportunities and influence to those able to operationalize the vision. Both the principal and new teacher-led decision-making structures will likely be more sympathetic to staff who can put ideas into practice. Those who previously had special access to the principal must compete for scarce resources publicly with others who may be more able to adapt practices to the new vision. This competition and resource shift can induce previously powerful or influ- ential staff members to resist the dismantling of bureaucratic structures and mechanisms. In one Network school the principal made the budget available for public review. All major budget decisions were made by a committee of teachers and administrators. The process was open, and the principal could no longer be suspected of using the budget to promote his agenda (or vision) independently. When decision-making becomes more pub- lic, transactional leadership is constrained, and so are those who func- tion best utilizing ?squeaky wheel? tactics. Such behaviors are less successful when decisions are made publicly and where critics are expected to demonstrate how their criticism helps the organization achieve its goals. In facilitative environments, policies and procedures do not neces- sarily dominate and control behavior, since staff members are more free to be opportunistic and can create and communicate their own meanings to one another. This free-wheeling environment creates substantial disorientation for many teachers who want little part of the ambiguity that results. One superintendent described leadership in this situation as attempting to coax caged birds to fly (Mitchell 1990) Ironically, sharing decision-making can be most problematic for principals who have developed strong, clear personal educational vi- sions. Two Network principals mentioned the difficulty of ?letting go? of, or modifying, their personal vision. It was clearly very difficult for these principals to give up ownership of deeply held beliefs. When asked how they reconciled their vision to the group?s ability to define a collective vision, they indicated they did many things to ensure the vision that emerged was one with which they could live. TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 347 Part of the task of facilitative leadership is to negotiate the potential conflicts between staff and self in ways that allow continued modeling of the ?shared? vision by the leader. In at least one Network school, the principal?s vision was primarily intuitive, and the staff, not he, articu- lated a clear, focused vision. Meaning was negotiated and renegotiated more frequently when the principal was not the primary interpreter of the vision. 3. Facilitative leadership, together with vision, generates and capital- izes on opportunities. But if not monitored and facilitated systemati- cally, this opportunism can lead to fragmentation and factionalization. Vision-driven schools encourage individual innovation. They can also become fragmented and factionalized. Legitimated by the vision, any teacher can take the initiative to solve problems and develop programs. Such individual initiative can help schools to adapt more rapidly and to build a culture where change is an accepted value. It can also lead to deepened rifts between those with the strongest commitment to the vision and those with lesser attachment to it. Multiple initiatives, even if consistent with one another and with the school vision, create obligations and expectations that stretch both the collective energies of and fragile relationships among staff. Successful facilitative leaders work to manage this fragmentation. They support those teachers who are ready and eager to change, while trying to increase commitment and blunt criticism from those who have not yet responded positively to the new vision. Principals described the energetic teachers who took advantage of the opportunities offered by a vision-driven environment as ?thorough- breds,? ?pioneers,? and ?early adapters,? and tended to give them the greater leeway they needed. These teachers would run beyond the vision, pushing its limits and causing it to be redefined or to be operationalized more quickly. But their initiative, and the administrative support they received, also stretched building norms and sometimes created a backlash. The fact that their initiatives were vision-driven and sanctioned by a site committee did not erase the dominant scarcity norm: While teachers may have accepted having little themselves, professional jealously did occur when some received resources, opportunities, or recognition. Moreover, some teachers initiated projects requiring col- laboration. Such activities threatened longstanding and powerful norms of teacher isolation, as well. At least one principal was careful to ensure that every teacher had a role in restructuring activities during the year, which helped close the isolation gap. One significant project was a conference at the school that attracted several hundred teachers. All staff members were validated as 348 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING having contributed to the vision, and as being innovative educators. The effect of this inclusiveness seemed to be a greater openness among faculty to one another?s ideas, and a decreased defensiveness toward or fear of the accomplishments or ideas of colleagues. The conference helped manage factionalism by promoting involvement and positive interdependence among all staff. FACILITATING THE PROCESS 4. Successful facilitative leadership requires constant development of many new leaders and creation of new leadership structures. However, the creation of new leaders and structures upsets the existing social hierarchy. Principals who had the greatest success employing facilitative lead- ership to bring about changes in the school were those who fostered the development of leadership among a wide range of teachers. This leader- ship often came from people who had never given any indication of being either interested in or capable of taking a prominent leadership role. In one school, leadership arose around technology, which was central to the school?s vision. One teacher with significant knowledge of technology had evidenced little interest in or aptitude toward leadership. At a goal-setting retreat he established a mini-electronic network that enabled participants to work more effectively in a new, interconnected manner. The teacher?s expertise was validated, he personally contrib- uted to the effectiveness of the retreat, and he was subsequently viewed as more of a resource for reform efforts. He went on to design an electronic presentation that explained the school?s restructuring pro- gram. This led to his frequent role as spokesperson for the school, as he teamed with colleagues to make presentations. His commitment to change was strengthened, as was his role as a leader. Principals also developed new leadership by tapping teachers who had been previously excluded, sometimes because of their status. This might be a younger teacher, a veteran teacher who had quietly with- drawn in reaction to unsupportive colleagues, someone new to the school, or, in high schools, women who had not been previously in- cluded in ?the conversation.? In her study of three Network schools, Rusch (1992) concluded that ?participatory practices in schools disrupt[ed] traditional hierarchies of power and influence and create[d] new tensions among staff members? (p. v). Muncey and McQuillan (1993) noted a similar phenomenon in their study of the Coalition of Essential Schools. TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 349 There was a profusion of new governance structures and ad hoc committees at these schools, some of which were cumbersome, confus- ing, and ineffectual. However, the new structures and committees had two significant consequences: (1) they allowed many more teachers to develop leadership skills, and (2) they provided some alternatives to long-time governance structures without engaging in the costly political battles that often accompany the outright dismantling of an existing structure. Facilitative leadership by principals seemed to produce facilitative behaviors by teacher leaders (Goldman and others 1993). Teachers who took advantage of new leadership opportunities tended to involve oth- ers, rather than accrue personal power. There was less fear of being shut out of important decisions, or of needing to guard one?s resources. The breakdown of isolation that occurred when many teachers interacted regularly and took leadership roles both reduced fears and presented many more forums for concerns to be raised. New leadership roles and structures were tools to solve problems, not merely maintain the status quo. 5. In facilitative environments, principals span internal and external boundaries by nurturing communication and information exchange, and by identifying and exploiting opportunities. As power devolves within a facilitative environment, decision- making and information flow become more complex. More people make more decisions and take more initiative. Principals link internal groups, keeping them informed of one another?s progress, checking on the overall climate in the building, supporting new ideas, floating trial balloons, and working informally to develop consensus. These activities are especially critical in preparing staff to make decisions that require a strong faculty majority. Facilitative principals span external boundaries as well, securing resources for the school, initiating contacts, legitimizing the school?s change efforts with the community, sensing opposition and potentially controversial areas, and identifying opportunities of many kinds. Oregon Network principals were not necessarily overtly political in that they did not focus on accumulating personal political power either among their fellow administrators or within the community?s power structure. They worked more to procure ?raw materials? for the school in the form of money, equipment, human resources, opportunities, and ideas. It was typical to hear one of these principals say, ?We have a great opportunity to...? in describing a contact she or he had recently made. They made certain they were somewhat free from the daily management of the school to be ?out and about,? making contacts, meeting with 350 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING people, and exploring possibilities. Where these principals were suc- cessful in spanning boundaries, creating opportunities, and securing resources, few complaints regarding their absences from campus were heard. The principal?s entrepreneurial efforts may be imitated by staff members, as they too become more openly entrepreneurial and attempt to secure resources or develop programs that span organizational bound- aries. Schools with facilitative environments seem especially able to exploit the educational (and occasionally financial) benefits of partner- ships. But in the Network schools this sometimes led to situations where the principal did not always know everything that was going on, every contact that was being initiated, or the status of every program within the building. These principals seemed to be comfortable with this ambigu- ity. However, the potential always existed for someone in this expanded pool of leaders to overstep the bounds of authority and make unautho- rized commitments. In one case, a well-meaning parent did just this, making arrangements with a local business to host a fundraising event designed to help support the school?s reform program. The principal received a call from an executive in the company who was disturbed that the school had not followed proper procedures in requesting the use of facilities. In another example, a teacher who had become accustomed to solving problems on her own initiative invited a local professor to serve as a consultant to a district-level task force. She called back several hours later to put the invitation on hold, after it occurred to her that she did not have the authority to obligate district money. 6. Facilitative leaders understand the importance of creating readiness for change. Principals continue to play a pivotal role in deciding when to act, since total readiness is never achieved. One consistent theme that emerged while studying the Oregon Network principals was their role in creating readiness for change in their buildings. They listened carefully and observed frequently so they could regularly assess the staff?s willingness to change and determine how to motivate staff to build the psychological framework necessary for large-scale personal change. Most of the principals we observed used a variety of formal and informal strategies to build readiness. Professional conferences and visits to other school sites served as important tools to expose more teachers to new ideas. Generally teams would consist of a carefully selected blend of true believers, fence-sitters, and skeptics. These teams were frequently charged with synthesizing the information they were TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 351 receiving, and planning how they would report to the faculty on their findings. They took their job of finding and analyzing best practices seriously, since they believed their recommendations would be carefully reviewed and could eventually be implemented by their colleagues. This also enhanced group solidarity and allowed them to appreciate one another?s point of view. Some of these principals also read voraciously; others did not appear to do so. However, in nearly every case they valued articles, books, and other sources of relevant written material, whether discov- ered by them or brought to their attention by staff, and either copied the best of the materials or alerted staff to their availability. Principals found ways to create discussion and share ideas within the faculty to enhance the sense of intellectual ferment, and to challenge staff members who held more static world views. These principals used data to help make decision-making more inclusive. One high school had a well-developed set of data that was very easy to read and contained information to which the staff could refer as they considered what improvements were needed next. With these kinds of materials at hand, it became both easier and more logical to turn decision-making over to teachers. Significantly, in this school, teachers came to expect to have data available to make decisions, and tended to demand data if they were not already provided. Staff expected new programs to collect data to determine effectiveness and to make midcourse corrections. Attention to readiness did not necessarily eliminate conflict once it was time to act. Facilitative principals were still called upon to move the change agenda forward when further readiness activities were unlikely to yield results. Knowing when continued pursuit of readiness would be only marginally useful was more an artistic than scientific decision for these principals. They could not always articulate how they knew when to encourage action. When pressed, they said they followed their in- stincts. It should also be noted that their instincts were not infallible. 7. Successful facilitative leaders balance process and product, activity and action. An excessive emphasis on process as an end in itself can become dangerously addictive. Principals in Network schools understood the value of process. All utilized retreats, ad hoc task forces or committees, early release days, and other mechanisms by which they found the time to involve all faculty in discussion, dialogue, analysis, and planning. Most used out- side consultants to intervene at times. Consultants made presentations, reviewed plans, resolved conflicts, recommended new structures, gath- ered data, facilitated group goal-setting, and taught others to do these tasks. 352 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING Teachers in these schools commented on the value of these pro- cesses, of having the time to talk with one another, to get the ?big picture,? to think, dream, analyze, design. Many came to enjoy the spirited interchange that often accompanied such activities. These pro- cesses themselves were valuable ?products? in and of themselves; they helped establish an environment within which it was possible to initiate substantive change. Almost all the principals we studied were skilled in moving beyond process to product. They established the importance of action as well as activity. The net effect was to raise the level of concern and interest surrounding most ?processes,? such as planning or goal-setting. This gave any process they employed meaning and value, since participants were convinced something would result from it. Everyone wanted to be involved and to contribute. The schools developed mechanisms to communicate and examine their visions and goals regularly. Most had some form of retreat, either on- or off-site, once or twice a year, combined with opportunities throughout the year for extended discussion among groups of staff members. These sessions allowed for the creation, clarification, and recalibration of shared meaning. There was an almost palpable sense of expectation that accompanied retreats, work groups, study committees, and other settings charged with making recommendations. Those in- volved took their work seriously. It was the principal who helped establish these norms and expectations, and followed through by imple- menting decisions or recommendations that resulted. The schools we studied all employed some form of consensus in their decision-making. However, both the forms and the underlying definition of consensus varied greatly from site to site. The successful principals seemed able to shift the purpose of consensus from reaction to action. Consensus was employed primarily to affirm decisions and agreements already negotiated through a variety of mechanisms. But in a few schools, the consensus requirement served primarily as a blocking mechanism. In several of the Network schools, consensus had symbolic as well as political import, serving as the means by which faculty affirmed decisions already reached in committees or informal interactions. This need for extensive informal involvement and continued modification of major change proposals resulted in slow movement initially. But once an agreement was affirmed through consensus, the school was able to move more consistently and relatively quickly. Agreement was more likely to be permanent than perfunctory. TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 353 However, the commitment to consensus led at times to inaction or worse in at least one school where the principal felt it was manipulative to lobby informally or negotiate before decisions were made by the faculty as a whole. A group of teachers realized this principled position enabled them to block any proposal by simply refusing to participate prior to the final decision. Therefore, they did not engage in informal negotiations or modifications of major proposals. There were no mecha- nisms to force their involvement, or to require them to take responsibil- ity for their actions. They simply waited for the call to consensus, then refused to agree. The principal recognized the problem and started over. First he got agreement on a new definition and new rules of consensus. Then he made sure all staff were surveyed and interviewed by teacher leaders before important decisions were made. He helped teachers organize ?key communicator? networks. Supporters could then talk with resistors before it was necessary to confront one another in public. He, however, continued to remain somewhat aloof. But these communication efforts benefited from the institutional legitimacy the principal?s support gave them, and the revised decision-making process changed the dynamic between those centrally involved in change and those who were not. 8. There may be value to reinventing the wheel when it creates owner- ship of an idea. However, there is limited energy available. Facilitative leaders make careful choices regarding how this energy is expended. As we have noted above, Network educators attended many re- gional and national meetings, and they read extensively. They fre- quently brought back ideas or concepts that allowed (or caused) the faculty to create their own meaning or program. However, there was only a finite amount of time and energy available for staff to adapt ideas or develop programs. Principals had to know how to walk a fine line between adopting or adapting someone else?s ideas and developing programs or structures from scratch. In one elementary school the principal organized a two-day session of teachers and community members to develop outcome statements in literacy and numeracy. These statements were to serve as frameworks by which the staff could come to understand outcome-based education. Participants examined and even used outcomes already developed by other districts and states, but synthesized and reconceptualized them in a unique fashion. These activities occurred at the same time the state department of education was attempting to define statewide outcomes. Many schools had decided to wait and simply adopt the state?s final product. This principal, however, felt that her staff would comprehend outcomes 354 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING much more completely, take ownership of them, and transform their teaching to a much greater degree if they first developed their own statements, then compared them to the state?s product. The two days devoted to developing outcomes were not much more than other dis- tricts would have to allocate to explaining the state?s outcomes to their staffs, but the ownership and understanding that resulted at this school would enable staff to understand and adapt state outcomes relatively easily. Such positive results alert us to a dilemma. Facilitative leaders use judgment to help the staff decide when and where they should reinvent the wheel, and when and where they should take advantage of existing ideas, packages, curricula, and so forth. When do the leader?s decisions reflect those of the group, and when do they clarify conflicting priori- ties? Network principals made relatively few mistakes identifying school- site development projects. This success helped staff maintain a willing- ness to explore and adapt new ideas and programs. OPERATING WITHIN AN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT 9. Unresolved questions relating to accountability continue to surround facilitative leadership as a method for making decisions and solving problems for which parents, school boards, and community members expect someone to be responsible. The principals in our studies had not resolved accountability issues in any systematic manner. This should be a matter of some concern when considering facilitative leadership and the emerging role of the facilitative principal. In these schools, policies, goals, and procedures are being decided by faculty or committees, but principals remain responsible for their implementation. This potential conflict of authority and responsibility has, so far, not been problematic. There appear to be several possible reasons for this. First, all the decisions faculty have made are ones the principals have been able to support. No principal was put in the position of being asked to do something she or he felt was fundamentally bad for children, or for the school. One principal was implementing a discipline and tardy-prevention system he believed treated only symptoms, not causes, but he felt obligated to implement it, since it resulted from one of the faculty?s first applications of a new consensus process. He planned to collect data on the effectiveness of this system, compare it to the previous system, and share this information with faculty when appropri- ate. In this way he hoped to change their attitude over time. TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 355 Second, no decision involved a radical departure from existing practice, and all schools were showing improvement (or no decline) on traditional measures of success. One high school decided to move to four ninety-minute periods a day and to require all students to demon- strate mastery of certain core skills before being allowed to move to the next level of the program. An elementary school reorganized into ?tribes? of one-hundred students and four teachers grades 1-5. While potentially controversial, such adaptations were comprehensible to the community and consistent with less dramatic changes the school had initiated previously. Dropout rates were stable to declining at all high schools; one school had the highest standardized-achievement-test scores in the state; several others won state and national awards and recogni- tion. Third, these districts held principals accountable almost exclusively for managing schools, not for improving education or achieving goals. Since all the principals (save one) were highly effective managers, they were able to proceed with little interference or accountability. This is likely to change in states, such as Oregon, that are requiring much more detailed and public reporting of school goals, student performance, attendance and dropout data, and other indicators of educational produc- tivity and effectiveness. As educational-accountability demands increase, so will the pres- sure on the principal to be responsible for the performance of the school. This will have interesting implications for facilitative leaders. It is worth adding parenthetically that there is little evidence to suggest that highly directive leaders will be any more successful in achieving the types of improvement necessary to satisfy the public in many communities. Facilitative leadership may offer the best hope; however, issues of accountability must be addressed in ways they have not been to date. 10. Facilitative leadership is still the exception in many school districts. Facilitative leaders need support to sustain their efforts and counteract isolation. The focus of the propositions up to this point has been on the behavior of principals in the context of their school building. However, one of the most consistent frustrations these principals had was their feeling of isolation, both as facilitative leaders and change agents, within their school districts. Many indicated they did not feel supported by either the central administration or fellow principals, and could point to evidence that their efforts were being undermined at times. Issues of leadership transition underscore the fact that the Network schools all exist in a broader organizational context. They are vulnerable 356 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING at transition points if the district administration does not understand or value this type of leadership. One school with a tradition of shared decision-making had four principals in four years. Each year the staff was forced to start anew with principals who did not necessarily understand or value facilitative lead- ership. This constant readjustment was made all the more difficult because teachers were not involved in the selection process. This particular school had great difficulty sustaining a common vision over time. Staff members had gained recognition and attention because of a set of structural changes (innovative schedule, students grouped into learning teams) they had made several years before. Each successive new principal wanted to roll back one or more of these structures, as a way of putting his ?mark? on the school. These principal behaviors may have been designed to demonstrate who was in charge, to send a message to teachers accustomed to being involved in decisions and solving problems. They indicated the central administration?s ap- parent lack of understanding or appreciation of the fragility of facilita- tive leadership. This lack of organizational support highlights one of the contradic- tions of decentralized decision-making. While central administration works tentatively to devolve authority, some schools move very rapidly to enable staff members to take control of their professional environ- ment and begin its transformation. Just as the pioneers within some schools may be perceived as threats, so may some facilitative principals be viewed with suspicion by their fellow administrators. Schools that are able to move toward distinctive responses and adaptations develop what we have referred to elsewhere as nonstandardized solutions (Goldman and others 1993). Such solutions result in schools beginning to look different one from the other. While districts may have adopted the rhetoric of decentralized decision-mak- ing, there is still difficulty accepting schools that look different and affirming change models that involve many teachers and community members. This should not be surprising, since such approaches threaten the traditional role of central administrators. Network principals frequently found themselves caught between worlds. They were expected to bring about change and improvement, but were viewed with suspicion by their supervisors or peers when they ?gave away? too much authority or power to staff. It should be noted that there were fellow administrators in each district who did support these facilitative principals; sometimes it was even the superintendent. How- ever, the organizational culture as a whole did not necessarily support their efforts, which made it more difficult for them to feel part of the school district or to share their successes and frustrations openly. TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 357 These principals repeatedly expressed the value of the support network that a group of like-minded colleagues provided them. They brought teams of teachers, parents, and support staff to Network re- treats. They sought out one another socially and professionally. It was not unusual for high school staff to visit an elementary school in another district where they would learn about a technique such as portfolio assessment. Elementary principals felt comfortable interacting with middle school and high school principals. Their common link was their belief that staff should be involved in and have ownership of decisions that affected their capacity to teach effectively. DISTINGUISHING FACTORS OF FACILITATIVE LEADERSHIP What distinguishes these schools from their neighbors? Perhaps the key difference is a heightened sense that all staff are both obligated and able to take control of their professional lives and work environment, that they can and must make a difference in their school. The importance and potential power of this attitude have been noted elsewhere (Rosenholtz 1991). When facilitative leadership is successful, most members of the organization seem to hold a different psychological perspective on their responsibility to participate in solutions and on their capacity to solve problems. Teachers, classified staff, and even parents and students expect to be the ones who identify problems, suggest solutions, and take the responsibility to improve the conditions and products of their school. This occurs not as much through political transactions as through nego- tiated shared meaning and values that provide a framework for indi- vidual and collective action. Principals mediate this process so that all the participants feel they are capable of creating the conditions neces- sary for improved individual and collective performance. This world view stands in sharp contrast to schools where staff and community alike are cynical and frustrated, where they look upon leaders primarily as scapegoats or objects of blame or derision, and where the solution to any problem is always beyond their reach or ability to influence. Unfortunately, this portrayal seems to describe far too many schools. This profound sense of inability to affect one?s work environment may result from a combination of several mitigating fac- tors, including highly directive or political styles of leadership; rigid bureaucratic structures; diffuse accountability for performance; and contradictory educational policies that isolate and fragment teaching and learning, thereby creating dependencies on the formal leader. 358 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING I have not used the word or concept empower in this chapter because I take this to mean someone granting power to someone else. This is not the concept I have sought to communicate. Instead, I have described environments where power and leadership are shared, where partici- pants would tend to reject the notion of ?empowerment? as inadequate and excessively narrow as a description of their relationship to power and influence in the school. This distinction between granting and sharing power is subtle and may be difficult to grasp by many who are moving to involve more people in decision-making. It is an important one, since it goes to the heart of one?s conception of power. Hallinger, Murphy, and Hausman (1991) and Bredeson (1991) both observed the difficulty principals experienced as they viewed role change. Specifically, principals were worried about losing control, giving up power. The notion of ?giving up,? which is implied by empowerment, may be very threatening to those who view power as an entity they are being compelled to transfer to others. Incremental shifts of power may in fact be more difficult for many administrators to accept than a new conception of their relationship to power. Facilitative notions of leadership require a ?letting go? of the illusion of control and an increasing belief that others can and will function independently and successfully within a common framework of expectations and accountability. Empowerment often focuses on the negotiation of formal roles, structures, and procedures. While such issues must be addressed in any organization, a primary concern with governance, not improvement, may take considerations of power more toward issues related to working conditions of adults than student performance and teacher efficacy. Formal structures exist to constrain abuses of power, and to the degree such constraint is needed within an organization, these structures serve a useful purpose. However, the creation of these structures does not necessarily add to the organization?s capacity to adapt and improve its practices. Facilitative leadership does not seem to have as its primary purpose the enhancement of workplace democracy as an end in itself. Its focus in practice is on improved performance of the work group and enhanced learning by students. This focus on improvement rather than governance appears to be one of the defining elements of this type of leadership. There is less concern with developing and refining governance struc- tures than with moving the organization forward, enhancing adaptabil- ity, solving problems, improving results. Issues of power are processed through the lens of organizational effectiveness and student needs. TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP 359 Broad-based participation is achieved through a variety of strategies, one of which may be formal democratic structures. Is facilitative leadership the answer to all of a school?s problems? Can this style of leadership be practiced by everyone? Is it realistic to expect all schools to function in this manner? The answer to these questions is probably no. There are times in the life of some organiza- tions when highly directive leadership may be both necessary and desirable, at least for a time. It also appears likely that many principals will not be able to reshape so radically beliefs and behaviors developed over the course of a career. Some communities may not be capable of exercising shared leadership without abusing the rights of the minority and the disenfranchised. Some principals may confuse facilitative lead- ership with laissez-faire leadership. The concept and practice of facilita- tive leadership continues to have many unanswered questions and po- tential problems. At the same time, there is evidence that truly exceptional things can happen in environments where facilitative leadership is exercised. And many more schools and leaders may be challenged to perform excep- tionally during the period of rapid adaptation in which public education is currently engaged. Facilitative leadership contributes to the capacity of schools to meet this challenge. SHARED LEADERSHIP: THE NEW CONCEPT Changes in teacher and principal leadership will have to take place simultaneously. It will not be possible to develop teacher leadership within schools where the principal remains autocratic. Nor is it feasible for a facilitative principal to achieve success in environments where teachers do not develop their own leadership abilities and actively participate in the process of reshaping their school. The interactive nature of leadership development is often over- looked as schools focus on one or another dimension of restructuring. Several studies confirm this conclusion, including Heller and Firestone (1995), Louis and Miles (1990), Short and Greer (1993), and McCarthy and Still (1993). Hart (1995) cites Blau (1964) to make the point that the exercise of power and leadership is complex and unique: As Blau (1964, p. 17) cautioned 3 decades ago, ?There are fundamental differences between the dynamics of power in a collective situation and the power of one individual over another.? Collective enterprises like schools involve interactive influence processes, beliefs, effort, knowledge, and communication. Multidirectional, interactive, and adjustive approaches to leadership provide a more authentic map for planning and development in 360 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING education (Lindblom, 1993; Smith and Peterson, 1988), and they support and affirm, rather than dilute, the effects of leaders in schools. Leaders in restructuring schools are beginning to recognize these facets of leadership and to work more collaboratively to assist each other in the mutual development of leadership skills for use in bringing about change and improvement. PERSONNEL CHAPTER 19 361 Who is qualified to teach? What combination of human resources is necessary to maximize student learning? These two questions are of central importance to schools undergoing restructuring. Traditionally, the only person deemed capable of teaching a class has been an adult with a teaching certificate. This definition is being reexamined. At the same time, the ways in which adults are used to support the education of young people are also being reconsidered. The use of support staff and paraprofessionals is being refined and ex- panded. More flexible ways of contracting for services are already in place in many districts. The roles of counselors, special-education teachers, Title I teachers, teachers of the gifted and talented, and those involved in other pullout programs, along with administrators, are being rethought in an effort to provide more support to those students who need it. The skills of adults outside the school are also being utilized. These potential areas of change?in the definition of teacher, the role of support staff, and the use of a wider range of adults to instruct? are politically volatile, yet necessary to confront, given the labor- intensive nature of education. Along the same lines, the performance expectations of teachers and the necessity that essentially all teachers must be able to meet the more demanding needs of today?s students require an overhaul of the hiring and evaluation procedures employed with nontenured teachers. The teachers coming in to education over the next few years will need to adapt rapidly throughout the course of their careers to a changing profession, a changing student population, and a changing social con- text for education. This chapter examines changes in personnel prac- tices, beginning with a reconsideration of the role of the certified teacher as the sole legitimate source of student learning. CREATING NEW DEFINITIONS OF TEACHER As teaching becomes more professional in nature, and as teachers acquire new responsibilities and skills required by their changing roles, 362 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING it becomes increasingly necessary to examine the assumption that the certified teacher is the only person in the school building capable of teaching students. As long as teaching is defined as something that can only be done by someone with a certificate, little progress will be made in dealing with the ?twin towers? present in most teacher-contract negotiations?higher salaries and lower class sizes. It is clear that with the present resource base it will be impossible to make significant progress on both issues simultaneously. Orland and Cohen (1995) studied school financing patterns from 1970 to 1994. They concluded that ?per-pupil education spending in all states grew substantially in real terms between 1970 and 1992.? During this time, much of the increase was used to improve teacher salaries and to reduce class size, both costly items. Their report did not hold much hope that salaries could continue to increase and class size could con- tinue to decrease at the same rate they have over the twenty-two-year period of their study: Our findings suggest that growth in per-pupil education spending is un- likely to continue at its 1970-to-1992 rates. The principal factors associ- ated with strong spending increases since 1970 (i.e., economic growth and declining school enrollments) are changing. Economic projections antici- pate generally lower levels of economic growth in the years ahead. Demo- graphic forecasts predict school enrollment increases in most states. In addition, greater demands on state and local budgets can be expected from other government service sectors as a consequence of reduced federal financing. Such conditions will make it exceedingly difficult for most states to continue making per-pupil education increases comparable to those of the past two decades. Recent spending data from 1990 to 1994 reveal that a marked slowdown has probably already begun. (p. 3) However, it may be possible to continue to increase salaries and reduce class size if the roles and responsibilities of school personnel are reexamined, and if state policies and regulations are modified. This can occur only if all parties make sincere efforts to rethink the rules govern- ing who is allowed to teach students and in what capacities. Shanker (1990) discusses the difficulty of solving education?s prob- lems solely by raising teachers? salaries: Our schools need to add several thousand dollars to each teacher?s salary to begin to bridge the gap between the education ?industry? and the private sector. However, it takes only quick calculations to demonstrate that this is not likely to happen. Since we have 2.2 million teachers, every thousand dollar increase means a $2.2 billion increase in the nationwide education budget. If we took an average competitive professional salary to be about $35,000, and added pension and Social Security costs, we would face a staggering $30 billion beyond what we now spend for education. The PERSONNEL 363 largest federal education program, Chapter 1, has an annual budget of about $3 billion. Therefore, when we speak of increases to make teachers? salaries competitive with other professions, we?re talking about a huge sum that is unlikely to be allocated to just one item in the overall education budget.... ... Here?s the bottom line: Though the reform movement has brought about significant and long-delayed improvements in teachers? salaries, it is unlikely that the new levels alone will offer sufficient incentives to enable us to restaff our schools as they are now structured with the caliber and quantity of candidates that we need for the twenty-first century. (p. 357) Shanker continues by discussing the other solution offered by many? lower class size: In short, a substantial reform of class size would still leave us with slightly better but essentially not very good working conditions, and, most impor- tant, probably no significant change in education quality. ... [T]he numbers just don?t add up for such an improvement. A 20 percent cut in class size would mean an equal increase in staff and education budget?a huge and utterly unrealistic increase for one item. And if, by some magic, the money were there, it is unlikely that we could begin to find that number of extra teachers because of the demographic facts of life. (p. 358) How, then, should educational reform and improvement be ap- proached if increased teacher salaries and reduced class sizes are not the solution? Shanker suggests that part of the solution lies in greater flexibility in the staffing of schools: In a restructured school, teachers will need to be able to call on paraprofes- sionals, undergraduate ?interns,? and/or peer tutors. Our schools will need to form alliances with private industry that can ?lend-out? short-term staff, particularly in such shortage areas as math and the sciences. We will have to explore a variety of staffing strategies if we want to break away from the rigidity of the prevailing system. (p. 360) It might be considered unusual that the president of the second- largest teachers? union would advocate allowing more noncertified people to work with children in schools, but Shanker explains that there is little choice (cited in Sparks 1991). The existing pool of certified teachers would simply not be large enough to meet the demand if large- scale educational improvement is carried out. Enhanced career options for many groups, particularly women, have caused a decrease in the number of talented people choosing education as a career. This trend is not likely to change, particularly given demographic trends that suggest a shortage in college-educated workers generally by the late 1990s. Shanker describes potential roles that may be created in schools and how these positions would affect teacher salary and class size: 364 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING There might be more adults, but they wouldn?t all be called teachers. We could use something like a hospital model in which we might have roles comparable to that of nurse, technician, general practitioner, specialist, and so forth. There would be more adults in the schools, but only some of them would earn more money. The salary issue will not be solved unless we have a different staffing structure.... That?s also true of class size.... The same thing is true with trying to provide teachers more time for profes- sional growth. All of this means that the only way we can realize the traditional aspirations of teachers and their unions and professional associations is by moving to staff differentiation, team teaching, the use of technology, and other things like that. (cited in Sparks 1991, p. 3) In Wisconsin, for example, a wide-ranging report containing many proposals for school improvement suggested permitting school districts to obtain waivers to allow them to hire ?teachers in private practice? (?Thompson Endorses Hiring Private-Practice Teachers,? February 13, 1991). The waivers would give schools greater flexibility in staffing to meet student needs better. Many states experimented with alternative routes to certification and with the use of noncertified teachers throughout the 1980s in a series of programs. The issue in the 1990s may go beyond these early pilots to question at a more basic level exactly what it is that a certified teacher brings to the classroom that other adults do not, and how a variety of adults with different degrees of education, training, and specific knowl- edge can be employed to meet the needs of children in the most cost- effective manner possible. NEW CONCEPTIONS OF THE PARAPROFESSIONAL?S ROLE Public schools currently lack the type of salary and role differentia- tion present in some other professions. For example, there are roles and career paths for highly trained paraprofessionals in the medical and legal professions that are absent in education. Although the term paraprofes- sional is used by some school districts to refer to classroom aides, the roles to which it is applied are not comparable in terms of training and responsibility to paraprofessionals found in other fields. Restructuring may provide opportunities to experiment with a wider range of roles. Some early experimentation has already occurred in Dade County, Florida, and Baltimore, Maryland, where Educational Alternatives In- corporated (EAI) secured contracts to manage public schools. Part of their plan involves using ?instructional interns? in place of the tradi- tional paraprofessionals. Schmidt (1992) describes the distinction be- tween the two: PERSONNEL 365 The paraprofessionals... typically have high school diplomas and perhaps a few college credits, and work at union-negotiated wages starting at about $7 per hour and averaging about $10 per hour. The interns, on the other hand, are required to have college degrees, but need not have any experience in education. They are paid about $7 per hour, and receive no benefits. (p. 19) Initial reactions by paraprofessionals were not positive to the idea that they would be replaced by more highly educated personnel who would be paid less. EAI planned to use the savings in cost to place an intern in each classroom. The assumption was that the intern is ?far better prepared to help run a classroom? (Schmidt 1992) than the paraprofessionals, and that placing these interns within classrooms will have more of an impact on student learning than many of the tasks performed by paraprofessionals outside the classroom. The EAI experiment ran into numerous problems and was eventu- ally dropped by the Baltimore school system. The superintendent at the time attributed at least some of the problem to ?disgruntled unions? (Schmidt 1994). The Baltimore experiment demonstrates, at the very least, the complexity and potential conflict associated with changes in personnel roles, titles, requirements, and compensation. Conlin (1991) and Bradley (1990) describe how EAI applied its techniques at South Pointe Elementary School in Dade County, Florida. At South Pointe, many more adults with various degrees of training and skill are being matched with student needs. As a result, the school is meeting students? needs while simultaneously achieving greater eco- nomic efficiency. The goal is to lower pupil-teacher ratios in the range of 12-to-1 by pairing veteran teachers with more junior teachers who might be a trained paraprofessional or instructional intern, a recent graduate of a teacher-education program, or an intern from a local university. Under such a plan, traditional positions such as counselor and librarian are eliminated. Principals and lead teachers decide if the school wants specialists in fields such as music, art, and physical education, who are usually assigned to elementary schools, or whether those resources should go to reducing class size across the board by hiring more instructional interns. For this strategy to succeed, school districts have to be committed to continuing the professional development of these employees. They might be among the first personnel to adopt new teaching strategies. It would be important to be able to move these paraprofessionals around much more easily than is possible with certified teachers, who often have protection in their contracts against forced transfer. The ability to move paraprofessionals within a district would give administrators the 366 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING ability to concentrate resources in a particular area or school for a limited time to address particular problems. Paraprofessionals could help buildings with ?unhealthy? cultures to develop new norms and procedures, and they could help invigorate veteran staff by offering support, energy, and enthusiasm. This role might also serve as a training ground and screening mechanism for those interested in entering teaching. It would be pos- sible to identify those with potential to become excellent teachers, and to encourage their development. The conferring of a teaching certificate could be based more on the demonstration of mastery of a complex set of skills and behaviors, rather than on completion of coursework and a structured field experience. Haselkorn and Fideler (1996) cite data from the National Data Resource Center of the National Center for Education Statistics that calculates the total number of full-time and part-time teacher aides in all sectors of K-12 education at greater than 450,000. The national ratio of teachers to paraprofessionals is 5 to 1. Over 30 percent of teachers received some assistance from an aide in 1991 (National Education Association 1992). Title I programs make extensive use of aides for a variety of reasons, including to increase language and ethnic diversity in schools, improve school-community relations, and save money (International Reading Association 1994). In many districts and classrooms, aides have not progressed greatly from 1962, when a report labeled them ?secretaries for teachers? (Turney 1962). However, in certain circumstances they already do essentially the same work as teachers with lesser pay. Special education and bilingual classrooms are examples of such situations. As aides? responsibilities have increased in certain areas, while simultaneously stagnating in others, there has been a growing sense that the role of an aide should be reconceptualized. The term paraeducator has been coined as one way to define the responsibilities of paraprofes- sionals in a way that focuses on their support of learning, not necessarily of teachers. School districts in states with burgeoning enrollments and increas- ing ethnic and linguistic diversity are the most likely to be in the lead expanding and redefining the role of the paraeducator, since paraeducators provide the largest and most available pool of potential candidates for future teaching positions. Paraeducators can successfully participate in teacher-education programs and become certified, thereby increasing the diversity of a district?s teaching staff. Such programs create a form PERSONNEL 367 of career ladder within a district, and offer hope for paraeducators who wish to continue in the profession. The importance of this potential pool increases when projections about the number of teachers that will be needed in the next decade are taken into consideration. It appears highly unlikely that teacher-prepara- tion programs will be able to provide enough qualified candidates through traditional certification routes. Paraeducators will play an im- portant role in the staffing of schools over the next decade. Districts that learn how to create a range of roles for noncertificated personnel will benefit in a number of ways simultaneously. THE CHANGING ROLE OF CERTIFIED SUPPORT STAFF The deployment of certified support personnel is an issue of increas- ing interest to educators involved in restructuring. While pupil-teacher ratios have gone down in absolute terms during the past twenty years, the ratio of students to teachers in regular classrooms has not decreased nearly as much. The overall decrease has been caused mostly by the addition of specialists who work with small numbers of children or who have no teaching responsibilities. This group includes counselors, spe- cial-education teachers, Title I teachers, talented and gifted personnel, and various teachers on special assignment in nonclassroom roles. These roles are especially vulnerable in times of budget cuts. More and more schools are beginning to assess the effectiveness of the deployment of these professionals outside the classroom. Often there are governmental regulations that seem to block changes, and yet some schools are beginning to challenge these by integrating support staff into classrooms, or by reducing overall pupil-teacher ratios by assigning all certified staff some teaching responsibilities. This strategy has its dangers, particularly if careful thought is not given to the needs of special student populations. It has, however, in some cases led to lower class sizes in which the needs of all students can be addressed more directly, leading to improved student-learning outcomes for those stu- dents. Central Park East Secondary School in New York is one example of a school that decided to concentrate all its resources on the basic literacy and socialization needs of its students. The school was able to reduce class sizes to more manageable levels by assigning responsibility for literacy and socialization issues in some form to all adults and by eliminating as many special or pullout programs as possible. The role of counselors can be expected to change dramatically if curriculum and instruction change. The traditional counselor at the 368 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING secondary level has become more of a ?traffic cop? in some important respects than the advisor to students initially envisioned when the role was created and promoted. Counselors often are relegated to making schedule changes, checking students into and out of classes and school, dealing with transcripts, writing letters of recommendation for the college-bound, and, in some schools, serving in an ill-defined quasi- administrative capacity. The preeminence of these tasks is a source of frustration for both the counselor and other teachers in the school, who may not understand what value the counselor is contributing to the school. As students become ever more needy of support and intervention by school personnel, some counselors have already begun to offer services such as support groups and referrals to social-service agencies. If high schools reorient their programs around career pathways and put much more emphasis on applied learning, teachers and mentors will become more important advisors to the students regarding their career choices. Counselors will have to learn how to support this process and ensure students are not being shunted into careers based on ethnic, class, or gender stereotypes, for example. They will become ?facilitators of facilitators,? helping teachers in ways the teachers need, such as with connections to the community. Counselors may come to work more closely with schools-within-schools or career pathways, becoming much more familiar with a group of students, teachers, parents, and commu- nity members. Many of the traditional duties of record-keeping may be relegated to technology. Parent volunteers, for example, can help students with many computer-based systems of career advising, college application, and scholarship and financial-aid searching. As more of this type of information moves onto computers and the Internet, counselors will no longer be the key gatekeepers in these areas. They will be free to evolve their roles to serve students and teachers in ways more closely and directly related to student learning. Similarly, the librarian, or media specialist, will be challenged to become truly a specialist in information access and utilization. These personnel may not necessarily need to have highly developed technical skills in the use of technology, but must, at a minimum, be highly expert in the accessing and analyzing of information from an exceedingly broad range of possible sources. A high degree of familiarity with the Internet will be an absolute starting point. Beyond this, media specialists will need expertise in multimedia, video, and computer-based presenta- tion modes. While some technical skill is useful, their contributions will PERSONNEL 369 be more in the area of how to organize and sequence the presentation of information via video and multimedia. As students begin to demonstrate their knowledge via presentation, they will need more assistance in how to develop quality presentations. Here is an area where a media specialist can be expected to work with local resources outside the school to ensure state-of-the-art knowledge is available to students. While books will remain important well into the future, their pro- cessing need not be handled by people with teaching certificates. Such expertise will have to be devoted to value-added activities such as those described relating to information access, organization, and presentation. Another response to the need for additional flexibility in the alloca- tion of human resources in schools may be the use of more part-time and specialized employees, a practice increasingly common in the private sector. Variations on career ladders for teachers offer still another option: A neophyte might begin his or her career in education as an apprentice, later become tenured, and eventually be able to attain master-teacher status. Enhanced flexibility in personnel assignments and roles will be increasingly important in schools that redefine their purpose and direc- tion, their curriculum and instructional program, and their learning environment. Such schools will need to have more adult-child interac- tion and allow some specialization of teacher roles to emerge. The ability to staff schools with a variety of adults in a variety of roles will become ever more important. ENHANCING THE PERFORMANCE OF NEWLY HIRED TEACHERS Restructured schools are likely to demand teachers with high skill levels, positive attitudes toward change, and the ability to work collaboratively. More attention to hiring practices and to evaluation prior to granting tenure are two inexpensive ways districts can begin to upgrade the quality of their personnel in support of school restructuring. Policies in this area are particularly important considering the num- ber of new teachers that will be coming into the profession over the next ten years as the teachers hired in the late 1960s, the last period of truly rapid hiring, begin to retire. This demographic phenomenon presents a real opportunity to bring about change in schools if it is handled in a systematic, goal-oriented fashion. Candidates for positions in restructuring schools should possess beliefs that are consistent with the philosophy of the school where they 370 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING 0000000000 * The following paragraphs have been adapted from Conley, David T. ?Eight Steps to Improved Teacher Remediation.? NASSP Bulletin 75,536 (September 1991): 26-41. are to work, understand and believe in its vision, and be committed to demonstrating both personal growth and flexibility, understanding that they may be asked to adapt their skills and roles frequently throughout their teaching career. This is a far cry from the situation today, where some teachers may become upset if asked to move from one classroom to another, let alone add new instructional skills or teach in a different educational setting. Newly hired teachers should be socialized into their roles as change agents by means of mentors, professional-development opportunities, and positive support from administrators. They should not be allowed to be ?taken under the wing? of the nearest veteran teacher, some of whom may pass on a jaundiced or cynical view of teaching, students, and the school. The first three years of a new teacher?s career are crucial and should not be overlooked. Programs that attend to the needs of these teachers can yield benefits in support of change. For example, support groups where new teachers talk with one another help them maintain perspective and establish an external frame of reference for the socialization that is occurring in schools. Staff development helps them create norms of lifelong learn- ing. Mentors (formal and informal) give them a place to turn in a crisis, to help them avoid the natural human tendency to teach as they were taught rather than mastering the techniques necessary to be successful with the group of students they have. Supervision and evaluation poli- cies and procedures give administrators a chance to see new teachers in action and to talk with them about what is happening in their classrooms. Evaluation of nontenured teachers may not seem like an important restructuring strategy until one realizes that a teacher, after receiving tenure, is likely to remain in the school for a generation or more. The ability of schools to adapt to changes in the next century is being determined by the processes employed and decisions made by those granting tenure to teachers today. In this context, it is apparent that more attention should be paid to the growth, development, and evaluation of nontenured teachers. The following suggestions pertain to hiring and tenure practices and development of nontenured teachers.* Develop comprehensive hiring procedures that include evidence of previous teaching competence. In this era of the video camera, it is not unreasonable to ask candidates to provide a video of themselves in a classroom setting. Ten minutes of videotape can reveal more than hours of interviews. PERSONNEL 371 In the absence of a video, asking candidates to view a video of a teaching situation and describe what was done well and what might need to be changed can be highly informative. In Berliner?s research, differ- ent conclusions were reached by novices, postulants, and master teach- ers as they viewed teaching situations (Brandt 1986). Ensuring that a comprehensive reference check is undertaken before a contract is extended should be insisted upon in all cases. Anecdotal information from administrators indicates that when established proce- dures were bypassed or performed in a cursory manner, problems often occurred later. This simple advice applies in particular in situations where someone is hired at the last minute (a common practice). It is easy but misguided not to inquire about the person once they are on board and seemingly doing an acceptable job. Develop a mentor program for all new hires. The mentor program should allow visits by the mentor to the new teacher?s classroom. This can help the new teacher adjust quickly to the expectations of the school and the community. The mentor should not be expected to deal with serious performance problems, but can help the new teacher avoid developing habits that can lead to difficulties later. A mentor program is valuable because it allows beginning teachers to receive frequent high- quality feedback on their performance (Peterson 1990). School districts and states have already put considerable effort into developing mentor programs for teachers. This experience can be drawn upon by other districts interested in developing mentor programs. Provide teachers in their first year of employment with an extended contract. Have new teachers report to school a week before other teachers, not just to decorate their bulletin boards, but to learn about the district?s performance standards and expectations, evaluation proce- dures, and sources of help and assistance. Have them meet with their mentor on a regular basis. Expect them to videotape their lessons and discuss them with others. Provide them with some release time to see other teachers in action. Give them a day or two at the end of the first year to reflect and develop a plan of action to pursue over the summer and into the coming school year. Demonstrate to them that they are in a culture that supports and values excellence. Be certain to observe all new hires in the classroom during the first week of school. In many schools there is an unwritten agreement be- tween principals and teachers that principals will not be in classrooms during the first several weeks, to allow the teachers to ?get things settled down.? While formal observations may be inappropriate during the first days of school, Emmer and Evertson?s research (Emmer and others 1980, Evertson and Emmer 1982, Evertson and Harris 1992) has dem- 372 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING onstrated that most management problems develop as a result of teacher behaviors during the first weeks of school. It is much easier to identify problems as they are developing than to try to undo them after they are firmly established. Don?t grant tenure to mediocre teachers. Allow only excellent teachers to achieve tenure or permanent-employment status. This is stated as a goal in many districts. In practice, however, it is often the exception rather than the rule. Following the recommendations that have preceded will help ensure that teachers who are being considered for tenure have been thoroughly scrutinized as well as supported and nurtured. Allowing a teacher to gain tenure may be one of the single most important responsibilities that an administrator has. It should be treated as such. One of the key ingredients required to make restructuring succeed is a caring adult, one who wants to work with young people. No training program or new educational structure can transform all teachers into caring people. At the same time, the types of changes discussed here have the capacity to make schools places where there are more adults who genuinely care about children. Staffing schools with adults who care about kids is as important as any of the more spectacular changes being considered. CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS 373 CHAPTER 20 CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS 373 Many of the ideas and trends discussed in part 3?on topics from learning standards to personnel?have broad implications for the codification of working relationships within the school district as em- bodied by the contract. This chapter examines the relationship between educational restructuring and labor-management relations. The first three sections trace the evolution of collective bargaining in education from its roots in industrial trade unionism, examine the transition to a focus on teachers? professionalism, and ask whether conflict can be avoided. Then, the next section looks at how the restruc- turing movement is putting pressure on both management and unions to change their roles and relationships. The final section describes collabo- rative strategies that are offering new models for working relationships. ROOTS IN INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM The current model of working relationships is based on principles of trade unionism honed in the 1930s in the industrial sector of the economy. From the midsixties to the end of the seventies, these principles were applied effectively to schools, if increases in wages and improvements in working conditions are used as indicators of success. By the midseventies, however, the limits of this model of labor relations began to become evident. The percentage of district budgets allotted to total employee compensation reached the 80 to 90 percent range in many cases. There was little room for improvement in the arena of wages and benefits, the so-called ?bread and butter? issues. Unions shifted their attention to issues related to working conditions, such as length of the work day, amount of preparation time, specific teacher duties, policies for assignment, transfer and reduction-in-force, grievance procedures, and, ultimately, class size. Unions made significant gains in negotiating working conditions in the seventies and, according to Goldschmidt and Stuart (1986), on through the mideighties. More contracts contained specific language 374 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING defining and delimiting how teachers were to be treated, and what administrators could and could not do. Goldschmidt and Painter (1987- 88) argue that this process actually began as early as the sixties: ?Over time, teachers and school boards have increasingly discussed and agreed to contract provisions that determine important educational policies (e.g., curriculum, student placement, teacher assignment, retention and development)? (p. 18, see also Perry and Wildman 1970). Emphasis on working conditions and compensation issues varies in negotiations in the 1990s depending on the financial condition of the school district. When less money is available, the emphasis shifts to working conditions. It appears less likely that gains as significant as those in the seventies can be made by teachers? unions in either of these areas. In fact, Goldschmidt and Painter (1987-88) cite Cresswell and Spargo (1980) to suggest that the wage increases teachers attained as a result of collective bargaining in the 1970s might have been as low as 1 percent to 8 percent more than what they might have expected to gain if they had not engaged in collective bargaining. Other studies cited similar ranges (Lipsky 1982, Cooper 1982). If large wage gains cannot be expected as a result of collective bargaining and the application of the industrial-trade-union model to education, the motivation for shifting the emphasis of bargaining to policy issues becomes even more evident. Both labor and management appear to have settled into roles that have become familiar, almost comfortable when approaching one an- other across the negotiating table. The rituals of collective bargaining are practiced with great predictability, and the outcomes can often be foreseen before the process begins. The amount of money is finite and fairly well fixed in its distribution before talks begin. Negotiation of compensation becomes an almost predictable activity since more and more of the elements are already locked into place and effectively cannot be redistributed. The area most attractive for bargaining then becomes the domain of educational policy as manifested in terms of specific working conditions. This development is significant when con- sidering restructuring, since most of what constitutes restructuring po- tentially relates to working conditions. Collective-bargaining provisions related to policy (class-size limi- tations, transfer policies, and so forth) are highly visible and must be enforced with uniformity. This uniformity results in reduced adaptabil- ity and runs counter to the image of school districts as loosely coupled systems (Stuart and Goldschmidt with Painter 1986, Pitner and Goldschmidt 1987). When negotiators fix educational policy choices for the term of an agree- ment, they void or minimize traditionally available opportunities for indi- vidual teachers and administrators to exercise alternative professional or CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS 375 political judgment. A reduction in autonomous behavior has a potentially significant impact on the organization of schools (Meyer and Rowan 1978; Weick 1976). (Goldschmidt and Stuart 1986, p. 357) The net effect of the shift in the emphasis of bargaining to working conditions may have been to reduce the already limited adaptability and flexibility present within most educational organizations. The contractualization of working conditions reduces the capacity of admin- istrators and, more specifically, principals to respond and adapt to shifting conditions, resources, and expectations for public education (Goldschmidt, Bowers, and Stuart 1984; Goldschmidt and Stuart 1986). Goldschmidt and Stuart (1986) emphasize how standardized proce- dures have already tended to immobilize administrators, particularly principals, and have created the conditions for greater centralization of decision-making in school districts that codify working conditions in the contract: As school districts set criteria for staff selection, assignment, and transfer, establish processes for student assignment and discipline, and employ specialists to manage the contract and ensure compliance with its man- dates, the discretion of the school administrator closest to the operation of each school building is sharply reduced in favor of the central office.... Taken together, the effects of centralization and specialization are to fix administrative behavior. In the same way that a contractually mandated curriculum establishes a necessary minimum offering, the legal require- ment to comply with provisions of a contract dictates some of what administrators must do and cannot do. As a result, both the organizational structure and the work roles and responsibilities of individuals within the organization change to accommodate the special interests and processes in collective bargaining. (p. 358) This loss of flexibility would not be as much of a concern if today?s schools were not under such pressure to adapt. The codification of working conditions would serve a useful purpose in stable environments and could be very desirable, particularly if there was widespread agree- ment about what constituted effective educational practice. This does not seem to be the case currently. This emphasis on bargaining over a wide range of working condi- tions will likely collide with a counterforce present in many states and districts?the movement to decentralized decision-making. Because most contracts are based on the notion that all teachers are one class of workers and should be treated in the most uniform manner possible, settlements that focus on creating standardized working conditions may also inhibit the ability of individual school buildings governed by site councils to develop nonstandardized solutions or procedures they deem best for their situation. Goldman, Dunlap, and Conley (1993) examined 376 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING a group of schools that were leaders in reform. The capacity of those schools to make their own decisions was an important dimension of their success. Goldman and colleagues considered the implications of this shift toward school-based decisions and strategies: As educators begin to explore the possibilities of new arrangements and techniques for education, the almost sacred notion of ?one best system? of schooling will be challenged. Educators at the school site level may employ the knowledge and skills they acquire... to develop many more ?nonstandardized? solutions to the problems and issues they define as most critical to the improvement of their practice. The implications that flow from such a restructuring of the notions of authority and power have the potential to reshape the image and structure of schooling. (p. 91) Schools appear to be in a period when the capacity to adapt rapidly to changing conditions, populations, expectations, and resources avail- able may be a key characteristic for survival. Even in many of the districts involved early in restructuring, there has been a tendency to incorporate restructuring procedures into the master agreement, often severely limiting the potential effectiveness of such activities. The parties have chosen this course because they continue to think in terms of traditional collective-bargaining models as the vehicle for expressing all agreements and resolving all conflicts. The industrial-trade-union mindset is a powerful mental model present in many, perhaps most, school districts. It stands unquestioned as the basis for relations between and among teachers, administrators, and boards of education. These basic tenets and assumptions may be coming under examination as educators struggle with the distinction between unionism and professionalism. UNIONISM VS. PROFESSIONALISM Has collective bargaining led to a greater sense of professionalism on the part of teachers, since they can now influence the conditions under which they work? Or has it encouraged teachers to think of themselves as laborers who have little responsibility for the ultimate outcome of their teaching activities? These questions have been debated among those who study the phenomenon (Kerchner and Mitchell 1986, Lieberman 1980, McDonnell and Pascal 1988). Teachers? unions, or professional associations as most prefer to be called, have gained mastery of collective bargaining, grievances, arbi- tration, fact-finding, strikes, and all other manifestations of the trade- union model of labor relations. Management and boards of education, after a slow start reacting to collective bargaining in the seventies, CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS 377 caught on to the new rules of the game and became versed in these methods as well. Although many school-board members and central- office administrators complain bitterly about collective bargaining, most appear comfortable with the predictable patterns, cycles, rituals, and roles of the collective-bargaining process and of traditional trade-union labor-management relations. Public education has only recently institu- tionalized the exact model of labor relations that the industrial sector is currently seeking to redefine. Why did education choose to adopt the industrial model of labor relations when the goals and processes of education are so different from those of a factory? Shedd and Bacharach (1991) suggest that it is the structure of management and the prevailing logic educational managers employ in their administration of schools that predetermined this choice: Teachers and their unions adopted factory union strategies because the administrators and school boards they faced insisted on acting like factory managers. Indeed, one of the basic reasons so many teachers chose to join unions was that the prevailing logic of education management was itself patterned on the industrial model (Cole 1969; Callahan 1962). The struc- tures, processes, and myths of industrial unionism complemented and in some ways even supported the top-down managerial ideology that existed in most school systems when teacher unions first won recognition, just as they fit the factory management systems of the 1930s. If there are grounds? and there are?for believing that unions and employers in public education are now in the process of inventing a new form of collective bargaining, it is because that management ideology itself is under serious attack. (p. 177) Kerchner and Mitchell (1986) and Johnson (1987) argue that educa- tion is in the process of adapting collective bargaining to its unique needs and structure. It is likely, they say, that much of the emphasis in bargaining will be on policy issues, as teachers? unions come to perceive control over working conditions as a focal point that responds to teach- ers? desires to be perceived as professionals. Meanwhile, the process itself remains consistent with many aspects of the trade-union approach to organizational relations. Whether this focus on policy issues will occur, particularly in the face of tight fiscal times where unions tend to become more confrontational around bread-and-butter issues of salaries and benefits, remains to be seen. Shedd and Bacharach (1991) speculate about the path that an evolu- tion of collective bargaining in school districts might take. If collective bargaining is indeed undergoing a major change from a traditional labor-union model to one specifically adapted to public education, they say, then it is possible that the seemingly contradictory evidence of bargaining effects may be drawn from school systems at different points in such a 378 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING transition. The evidence that collective bargaining has produced rigidity, centralization, diminished supervisory authority, and a ?laboring? concep- tion of the teacher?s role may be drawn from settings where a traditional (industrial) model of collective bargaining continues to predominate. The evidence that bargaining has produced increased flexibility, responsive- ness to public concerns, respect for the leadership role of building princi- pals, and teacher involvement in professional decision making may reflect labor-management relationships in settings where the parties have made the transition to a newer form of collective decision making. The evidence of increased conflict and bitterness in education bargaining may be charac- teristic of relationships in transition between these two approaches, as one party struggles to reconstruct the labor-management relationship along lines that the other refuses to accept. The basic outlines of this argument are sound. It is well documented in the general research on industrial relations that the parties to collective bargaining relationships tend to adopt substantive and procedural rules that reflect the characteristics of their particular industry (Dunlop, 1958; Kochan, 1980). It is equally well documented that the most serious conflicts in labor-management relations tend to occur when one or the other party attempts to change the structures and processes of bargaining itself (We- ber, 1964; Chamberlain and Kuhn, 1965). There are good reasons to believe that school managers and teacher unions are, in fact, creating a new set of rules to govern their relationships?a set of rules uniquely tailored to their particular environment. (p. 167) This analysis suggests that schools may be in the period of greatest danger as they attempt to make the transition from the known to the unknown; significant conflict is most likely when roles are being rede- fined. What is the goal? How should unions function if their relationship changes? CAN CONFLICT BE AVOIDED? The current model is premised on confrontation and potential con- flict, not collaboration, as its primary method for resolving differences. Many of the new visions of the union?s role are really restatements of the old role with conflict reduced. Shedd and Bacharach (1991) describe the characteristics of this new vision: Rather than being adversarial and concerned with preserving their own power, the new unions will be cooperative and nonconfrontational. Rather than opposing efforts to improve the quality of teaching, they will actually assume responsibility for the quality and quantity of their members? efforts. Rather than negotiating rules that restrict flexibility, they will look for ways to relax restrictions on both teachers and administrators. Rather than insisting that teachers? rights and benefits be allocated equally or else CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS 379 on the basis of seniority, they will insist that the responsibility and compen- sation of teachers be differentiated, ordered hierarchically, and allocated on the basis of professional competence. (p. 168) But can conflict be eliminated from labor relations in school dis- tricts? Is this even a reasonable goal? Or is conflict an inherent part of the relationship among teachers, administrators, and boards of educa- tion? Shedd and Bacharach (1991) suggest that this may not be an either-or question, that the goal may not be to eliminate all conflict, but to employ strategies that allow new sources of conflict to be identified and resolved: The argument that conflict and lack of cooperation are defining character- istics of traditional labor-management relations?as opposed to particular labor-management relationships? is open to serious challenge, and the conviction that cooperativeness will be a defining characteristic of the new labor-management relations in public education is probably misleading as well. A bargaining system tailored to the markets, work processes, and management systems of public education undoubtedly will remove some of the present sources of conflict in teacher bargaining. But such a system will almost certainly expose other sources of conflict that until recently have been sheltered behind assertions of management prerogatives and union indifference. (p. 169) RESTRUCTURING REQUIRES FLEXIBILITY Where school restructuring is occurring, it is putting pressure on the negotiated agreement and on traditional management relationships. Dis- tricts are having to learn how to make exceptions or unique accommoda- tions to allow greater flexibility for individual teachers or school sites to function more independently within the framework of a collective- bargaining agreement. In districts that are restructuring, schools need to be able to request waivers from the contract. Decision-making and rule interpretation may become decentralized and idiosyncratic. Individual faculties and faculty members often chafe under rules designed to protect workers from the arbitrary actions of management, particularly when the distinctions between labor and management have become less clear. In these situations teachers are ready to take greater responsibility for their working conditions, to operate in a more professional relation- ship, and to abandon the security of the contract as they negotiate the rapids of change. They may have less interest in a model whose funda- mental premises are that all members of the organization with the same job title should be treated in the same manner and that they should act in 380 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING solidarity when dealing with management. This uniformity conflicts with the needs and desires of some to determine for themselves issues such as the hours they work, subjects they teach, responsibilities they have, and decisions they make. There will probably continue to be a role for elements of traditional collective-bargaining models in school districts, particularly related to wages and benefits. The area where bargaining strategies may undergo change is in how working conditions are included in contracts and how such decisions are made by individual school sites. This is where most systems need greater flexibility, and where teachers are beginning to exert influence as site-based management and participatory decision- making are implemented in schools. Teacher involvement in decisions related to working conditions (schedule, budget allocation, class size, teaching loads, and so forth) causes difficulties for the traditional trade- union model of labor-management relations. How does one teacher file a grievance against a decision made by a group of teachers? Who is the target of the grievance? Who is a teacher and who is an administrator? These issues are as troublesome for management as they may be for teacher representatives. Concrete issues such as these are beginning to emerge. For example, charter-school programs have run into opposition from state teachers? associations, which are concerned that teachers in charter schools might not be certified. Similar concerns have been raised around distance education and the use of technology more generally. The ability of various support staff and community mentors and volunteers to instruct children has come under discussion in contract negotiations where the unions see such practices as potential incursions into the legitimate domain of the teacher. ISSUES RAISED BY SCHOOL-SITE COUNCILS Changes in governance structures, particularly the addition of mecha- nisms such as site-based school councils, capture the attention and interest of teachers? organizations, as they attempt to ensure that the interests of their members are properly represented on such councils. Unions? desire for representation on site councils raises a funda- mental issue: Do council members represent organizations, or do they serve as ?leaders? acting as ?people of good will? charged with solving the school?s problems by means of their collective perceptions? In other words, does the parent represent the PTA; the school secretary, the classified employees union; the teachers, the teachers? union; the princi- pal, the principals? association and the central administration; and so CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS 381 forth for the purpose of interacting within the parameters of a contract? Or do they represent diverse viewpoints with the primary goal of creating a more effective learning environment for children? Do site councils serve to address issues related to the working conditions of adults independent from or in close relation to the learning needs of children? This issue is often unresolved when such councils are formed. The distinction can be crucial. Councils that represent formal constituent groups may do little more than serve as a form of shop steward meeting. No decisions will likely be made without referring to the contract, returning to poll members, or consulting superiors for guidance or interpretation of the group?s policy on an issue. These groups seem handicapped in their ability to help a school develop new visions and solutions to complex problems. They reflect the old assumptions and fears about labor relations. They may serve primarily to maintain the status quo and allow the school to function more smoothly within existing rule-and-authority systems. On the other hand, school-site councils that do not follow these restrictions find themselves in uncharted waters. They serve at the pleasure of their peers, with little guidance regarding their authority and charge. Principals often feel threatened by such groups (Hallinger, Murphy, and Hausman 1991), and there are few precedents to instruct participants when they are thrust into new and unfamiliar roles. These councils can threaten the very existence of the union, particularly if they are able to address issues of working conditions. If each school can create its own working conditions, the master contract is limited prima- rily to issues of compensation and benefits. Indeed, tight financial times are creating situations where there is considerably less room for negotia- tion even of compensation issues, thereby further restricting the union?s role. Will unions be willing to cede control over policy issues to such bodies at a time when those very issues may help rally the membership to support the union? And will the central administration want to lose control to site councils? REDEFINITION OF ROLES Restructuring seems to be more successful in situations where some trust between ?management? and ?labor? can be developed. The process of developing trust starts on a small scale and builds on each success to allow greater risk-taking on both sides. Districts that are redefining working relationships are often doing so gradually, with each side demonstrating its intent in controlled situations. For example, the two 382 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING parties may form joint labor-management committees to address issues not specified in the contract. When such committees exist and function successfully, both sides may be more willing to leave many provisions out of the contract, to be discussed and resolved jointly as issues arise. In essence, the bargaining process continues constantly throughout the period of the contract, with as many issues as possible being resolved as they arise. This continuous process can help to decrease the number of issues to be addressed during formal bargaining. Most school districts see the need to redefine the role of the profes- sional association as one key dimension of its restructuring strategy. At the same time, they will benefit by redefining the role of management, as well. So long as school systems organize themselves using turn-of- the-century private-sector models, such as Taylor?s notions of scientific management and bureaucracy, they will invite teacher responses based on this model. If treated like laborers, teachers will act like laborers within an industrial-management model. Not only must unions change, but management must change in step. Rarely can the union be expected to take the initiative. It is generally up to management, both boards of education and administrators, to rethink their philosophies of organiza- tion and of employee relations as a first step toward new bargaining models. Top-down, or hierarchical, management models are comfortable to many, both teachers and administrators. Movement away from such structures is threatening to those who have learned how to survive and prosper within such a system. School systems, however, may not actu- ally function best as top-down systems that can be directed or controlled centrally: The top-down strategies that have ostensibly guided school management have never made more than partial sense in public education and have never been strictly observed. At one moment teachers are treated like workers on an assembly line, at another like bureaucrats executing general directives, at still another like independent professionals who are expected to figure out for themselves what it is they should be doing. (Shedd and Bacharach 1991, pp. 179-80) New models imply more teacher participation and involvement in decision-making on issues central to teaching and to the design of learning experiences and environments. They imply fundamentally dif- ferent relations between administrators and teachers, but also among teachers themselves. The primary purpose for this change is not simply to satisfy the needs one group has for power and control over the other, but to create an organizational environment that is more adaptable and effective in responding to changing goals and heightened expectations CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS 383 for accountability. School districts that cannot meet student needs and improve student learning will receive ever greater scrutiny and will not automatically receive more money. This one factor alone may engender greater cooperation and collaboration among traditionally adversarial groups in education. Is there a future for teachers? unions in a new, more collaborative educational environment? Will teachers? unions disappear if top-down management practices cease? Or will such changes create a power vacuum into which unions will step? Perhaps none of these will occur. However, teachers? unions are in a position to redefine their roles if such changes in management philosophy take place. They are uniquely dif- ferent from industrial unions and can exploit the fact that teachers are both workers and managers in a real sense: Teacher unions may be threatened by the demise of top-down management strategies, but they are also in a good position to take advantage of that demise.... [P]ressing for collective teacher involvement in school and district decision making offers the possibility of overcoming the split between union and professional factions within their own organizations by shifting the focus of thinking about professional issues away from indi- vidual autonomy. Perhaps most important, such a shift might allow teacher unions to finally take advantage of a source of potential influence (or, to put the matter more bluntly, a source of power) that industrial union principles have always required them to overlook: Their members, as individuals, already manage much of what goes on in most school systems. (Shedd and Bacharach 1991, pp. 182-83) Both management and unions are going to change their roles and relationships, in all probability, as public education adapts itself for the twenty-first century. While the distinction between the two groups is unlikely to disappear, and in fact the distinction can serve a useful purpose in helping areas of conflict to surface and be resolved, the evidence suggests that schools will become more collaborative work environments, where teachers are both workers and managers, and principals are facilitators and organizers, not merely bosses. This transi- tion to a more collaborative model will be challenging for school districts steeped in the culture of industrial models of management and labor relations. COLLABORATIVE BARGAINING AND POLICY TRUST AGREEMENTS Two early manifestations of this transition in bargaining are col- laborative bargaining and policy trust agreements. Both are attempts to 384 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING develop new methods to solve old problems within a context that suggests new relationships between management and labor. Each is discussed briefly with some examples of its application in school dis- tricts. COLLABORATIVE BARGAINING Several techniques have been attempted over the past several years to make traditional collective bargaining less confrontational. Smith, Ball, and Liontos (1990) use the term collaborative bargaining to describe a variety of experiments in bargaining that seek to move beyond the limits of collective bargaining. They distinguish between traditional collective bargaining and collaborative bargaining: Collaborative bargaining is not an alternative to collective bargaining, but rather is an alternative form of collective bargaining. Just as there are many different methods of traditional adversarial bargaining..., there are many varieties of collaboration being instituted by school districts and teacher unions.... Some districts, particularly those in big cities, are finding, how- ever, that collaboration is not only a worthwhile end in itself, but an extraordinarily effective means to achieve a higher end: school reform. The district and union leaders in these cities are using collaborative bargaining as a vehicle to initiate school-based management, mentor teacher programs, performance accountability mechanisms, and other re- forms. (pp. 2, 4, emphasis in original) There are common elements as well as widespread variation in the ways in which collaborative bargaining is developed and practiced in districts throughout the country. At the heart of the approach is the idea that bargaining should ultimately be a win-win proposition. Many issues can be addressed outside the traditional collective-bargaining sessions by teams of teachers and administrators who understand the problem being addressed much better than members of negotiating teams who may be dealing with several dozen issues simultaneously. Furthermore, most collaborative-bargaining models include provisions for continued discussions throughout the period of the contract, and even the reopen- ing of specific sections of the contract if changes need to be made before the contract expires. The idea is that the contract continuously evolves based on the needs of the organization and its constituent groups. Issues do not pile up awaiting formal bargaining sessions. When bargaining occurs, it is focused on fewer issues that can then be addressed more directly and conscientiously. Smith and others (1990) provide examples of how collaborative bargaining was developed and practiced in a number of school districts: CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS 385 Glenbard [Illinois] established a steering committee of school board and union representatives to research the win/win negotiating system and draw up a list of benefits and drawbacks. Among the advantages of win/win bargaining that the committee found were contract settlements with slightly higher teacher salaries (approximately 1/2 of 1 percent higher), increased union cooperation with school boards, and improved teacher morale. In February 1987, the steering committee outlined a negotiation sched- ule. It was to begin in April with an all-day session at which both sides would put contract issues on the bargaining table.... Once issues were on the table, a committee of board and union leaders met in a followup session to divide the issues into two categories: issues to be negotiated formally (such as salaries) and issues to be resolved through less formal talks between board and union members. Subcommittees, formed to focus on specific issues, met two evenings per week. On the final session day, teacher salaries were still being negotiated and the session stretched to sixteen tension-filled hours before the contract was signed. The Glenbard attempt at win/win bargaining was termed a success: A contract had been signed three months before the old one expired, and the district enjoyed improved teacher morale and board/union cooperation in 1988. (p. 28) Warwick Valley Central School District, New York, had only re- cently emerged from a period of intense contract negotiations conducted by third-party union and board negotiators. The sessions had dragged out over sixteen months. The district decided to develop a process that encouraged frank discussion and debate and that discouraged confronta- tion and posturing: Their attention landed on the only successful feature of the previous contract negotiations: a joint committee that had researched and made a recommendation on stipends for staff who perform cocurricular activities. The joint committee process had worked so smoothly that the district decided to negotiate the entire new contract on the basis of recommenda- tions from joint committees. Tagged a ?good faith experiment,? the process included an agenda committee (comprising the school board president, another board member, the president and vice president of the teacher union, and the superinten- dent), which established the timetable and some basic guidelines. The agenda committee... was also charged with reviewing and, if necessary, discarding negotiations items, under the agreement that a few small com- mittees would concentrate on a few genuinely important issues. Limiting the agenda was credited with making the new process work by helping board members and teachers define priorities. Ten items, including teacher salary, were the maximum number that could be introduced. Once the agenda was set, four committees each containing two or three teachers and at least one board member went to work. Joint committees reported back to the agenda committee, which strove to include at least 386 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING portions of each committee?s recommendations in the contract, written up at the table by the board attorney. The three-year contract, ratified over- whelmingly by union and board, was put together in a timely manner without confrontation and disruption of the educational process. (Smith and others 1990, pp. 29-30) POLICY TRUST AGREEMENTS Policy trust agreements are another mechanism by which collabora- tion can be promoted and problems can be anticipated and addressed outside the formal bargaining process. In California the Policy Analysis for California Education worked with twelve districts to put policy trust agreements into place. The goal, as Smith and others (1990) explain, was to develop new forms of school organization and new patterns of relation- ships among teachers and school administrators and to expand the range of labor/management discussions from technical, procedural work rules to the essence of educational policy.... ...[A] policy trust agreement ?is a written compact between a school district and its teachers, as represented by their union? [Koppich and Kerchner 1990]. Its purpose is ?to specify educational problems of joint concern to teachers and school managers and to establish mechanisms for working on these problems.? The trust agreement encourages a sharing of decision-making responsibility between teachers and school administra- tors, thereby altering the traditional, hierarchical authority relationships in the school district. Trust agreements are not considered to be alternatives to collective bargaining, but a process to strengthen teacher responsibility in innovative programs that tend to fall outside the scope of the collective bargaining agreement. Nor are trust agreements intended primarily as devices to reduce conflict.... ... Trust agreements differ from collective bargaining contracts both in their conceptions of work activities and in their procedures for implemen- tation and problem resolution. Contracts ?seek to specify rules,? says [Douglas] Mitchell, whereas ?trust agreements develop shared goals. This difference is extraordinarily important.? Rules mandate behavior and de- lineate employee rights, then they hold the parties accountable for not wavering from mandated actions. By contrast, ?the goals specified in a trust agreement define the purposes of teaching work activities and iden- tify the resources to be used in pursuing those purposes.? In other words, trust agreements encourage teachers and administrators to cooperate in deciding what needs to be done. The emphasis is on joint planning rather than on accountability. (pp. 33-34, emphasis in original) CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS 387 GUIDELINES FOR BEGINNING TO COLLABORATE While collaborative bargaining and policy trust agreements are concepts that are still evolving, there is much that can be learned from them and from the experiences of districts that develop and employ these strategies. These arrangements seem to be extraordinarily difficult to sustain, particularly when the ?champions? of these approaches depart. It may be that in some districts (perhaps most) there will be a period where the bargaining moves a step or two toward collaboration, then back toward traditional methods. The transition may take time and patience, and the final result may bear little resemblance to early efforts. Some lessons have been learned from those districts that have been involved in experimenting with collaborative bargaining. Smith and others (1990) offer the following guidelines for those interested in pursuing collaborative bargaining along with those who might choose to incorporate aspects of collaboration into their collective-bargaining process: Before Bargaining: ? Consider holding an informal forum where representatives of all interested groups can openly discuss previous conflicts and frustra- tions. ? Build mutual trust. ? Conduct an inclusive forum to discuss past bargaining failures and possibilities for future efforts. ? Jointly research the alternative methods of negotiating contracts and resolving problems. ? Enhance communication and negotiation skills. ? Establish a timetable and some basic guidelines for the process, including an ?escape clause? that will allow you to return to traditional collective bargaining. ? Form an agenda committee and limit the agenda to essential issues. ? Choose team members wisely. ? Remember that communication is crucial. During Bargaining: ? Meet in comfortable, informal surroundings. ? Have patience. ? Don?t try to accomplish everything at the bargaining table. 388 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING ? Carefully and cooperatively approach the issue of salaries. ? Keep communications open. ? Keep information flowing. ? Negotiate with a spirit of problem-solving. ? Maintain good community relations. After Bargaining: ? Publicize the gains that collaborative bargaining has achieved. ? Maintain union leaders? legitimacy in the eyes of their members. ? Keep a tickler file of problems encountered in negotiations and in administering the current contract. ? Ascertain that agreements are being honored. ? Set up joint committees to handle issues. ? Keep the bargaining continuous. ? Keep staff updated. (Excerpted from pp. 51-59) SOME EXAMPLES OF PROFESSIONAL UNIONISM Kerchner and Koppich (1993) provide a series of examples from several school districts that have taken concrete steps to redefine rela- tionships using a more professional model of teaching. They describe programs in Louisville, Kentucky; Pittsburgh; Cincinnati; Greece, New York; Glenview, Illinois; Dade County (Miami); Rochester, New York; Toledo, Ohio; Poway, California; and Chicago that have shown how the working relationships between teachers and administrators can be rede- fined in a variety of areas considered in many districts to be inevitable sources of conflict. These programs included the following kinds of efforts: ? the use of intensive training and staff development as a precursor to organizational decentralization and the contractual agreements supporting it (Louisville) ? the union?s attempt to define professionalism and link it to teacher responsibility for quality assurance (Pittsburgh) ? a means of ensuring continuity of change even though the union officers who created the initial breakthroughs were retired from office by the members (Greece, New York) ? the exchange of the labor contract for a joint labor-management constitution that restructured the district?s operations into a series CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS 389 of committees that incorporated the teacher union as a full partner (Glenview, Illinois) ? a districtwide reform program in which the union was a full partner that included a site-based decision-making plan that allo- cated substantial resources and authority to schools (Dade County, Miami, Florida) ? a district that adopted teacher incentives, accountability, and quality assurances and struggled to implement the programs in partnership (Rochester, New York) ? the use of peer review and assessment of teachers by teachers in ways that allowed the union to represent the rights and interests of their members and still advance the quality of teaching (Toledo, Ohio; and Poway, California) ? state-imposed reforms in which the school administration and teacher unions were the objects of reform rather than its agents (Chicago). (Kerchner and Caufman 1993, pp. 5-6, paraphrased) Koppich (1993) describes these activities as ?professional union- ism.? Professional unionism represents a radical departure from the classic industrial-style unionism that has characterized American education labor relations for nearly three decades. At its core, professional unionism is anchored in three mutually reinforcing tenets: joint custody of reform, union-management collaboration, and concern for the public interest. Each of these principles of the emergent unionism breaks with tradition, giving a different cast and a new shape to the organizations that embrace them. (p. 194) Koppich (1993) offers four essential preconditions (summarized below) for unions and school districts that hope to move toward profes- sional unionism: 1. Understanding that change is not an option. All the key players must understand that the district must change, and that the district, in fact, will change whether or not they lead the change. 2. Keeping politics at bay. Districts that wish to establish more professional working relationships must accept that such changes can- not occur in permanently contested terrain. A zone of tolerance within which experimentation can occur must be created. 3. Moving beyond anger. Industrial-style unionism is organized around anger?worker?s anger about working conditions. This creates a classic ?we-they? dynamic. Professional unionism cannot occur in such an atmosphere. Replacing conflict with cooperation does not necessarily mean the superintendent and union president must develop a warm 390 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING personal relationship. However, it does mean that conflict must become depersonalized and name-calling must end. Communication remains open regardless of how turbulent issues become. The focus of disagree- ments over time become educational issues more than working condi- tions. 4. Believing in the necessity of teacher professionalism. The key players must believe in greatly expanded professional roles for teachers. This imperative must come from the board of education and be commu- nicated clearly to central-office administrators who often have a history of antipathy with the unions. At the same time, teachers must be willing to be partners and take responsibility for solving thorny issues that may involve colleagues. The union must be prepared to let go of standardized work rules. The contract must be seen as a framework for teacher professionalism, not detailed specifications of procedures and duties. These examples of an evolving sense of professionalism at the local level serve as a model and in some senses a challenge for the large parent organizations, the national teachers? unions. These organizations are exhibiting evidence of rethinking themselves as well. CHANGES OCCURRING IN THE NEA AND AFT The nation?s two largest teachers? unions, the National Education Assocation (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), are struggling with the notion of collaboration between themselves and are contemplating a changing role for unions in education. They have gone as far as to merge their membership in districts such as San Francisco and Los Angeles and to launch a network of twenty-one local teachers? unions that will look at how unions can play a leading role in promoting change in education while protecting teachers? rights and benefits. The Teacher Union Reform Network brings together leaders of local affiliates of both the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. They represent locations ranging from Los Ange- les, the nation?s second-largest school system with 650,000 students, to the 3,430-student Westerly, R.I. district. But the union members say they share a common desire: to learn from one another and to craft a new vision of teachers? unions, in tune with changes both in education and in the teaching profession.... ?The question is how do you maintain traditional union values while behaving in a different way in a different world?? said Helen F. Bernstein, the outgoing president of the United Teachers of Los Angeles, who will direct the network. The project?s goal is to create new models of teacher unionism that could be used by other affiliates. Union leaders will examine how orga- CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS 391 nized labor functions in ?high-performance organizations,? which are characterized by labor-management cooperation and intense worker in- volvement in decisionmaking. ?We don?t want others to have to go through the pain we?ve gone through,? Ms. Bernstein said of her and her colleagues? efforts to secure a more active role for teachers in education reform. ?Each of us has been under attack by our own membership for stands we?ve taken.?... For Wayne Pike, the president of the Memphis Education Association, the project offers the hope of distilling the union leaders? collective wisdom into a model for future action. ?We are moving away from the old adversarial behaviors to more collaborative behaviors,? he said. ?We are looking at a role that is different than just to sit down at the bargaining table and bargain teacher contracts and rights.? (Bradley, May 8, 1996, pp. 1, 9) There are other indications that unions are beginning to show a willingness to reassess their purposes, goals, and practices. The NEA has shown more interest in reform and has launched efforts to portray the union as supportive of more flexible thinking and a stronger orienta- tion toward educational improvement. In the past year, officials of the nation?s largest teachers? union have taken steps to position the 2.2 million-member organization at the forefront of reform. Among those steps are an internal reorganization of the union?s bureaucracy and a new, research-based program to help affiliates evaluate the quality of their schools. ?We are shifting the focus of the N.E.A. so we place more emphasis on education reform and we place more emphasis on the public schools of America improving,? Don Cameron, the union?s executive director, said recently. ?We are focusing virtually all our human and financial resources into those goals.?... The union?s leaders have backed these gestures with internal changes meant to focus the union?s resources more sharply on educational issues rather than on collective bargaining and advocacy.... (Bradley, July 12, 1995) The Center for Teaching and Learning, created last fall to be the union?s brain trust on educational issues, merges all the union?s school- reform and policy programs, including: ? The National Center for Innovation, created in 1990, which houses the union?s Mastery in Learning and Learning Laboratory restructuring projects; ? The teacher education initiative, through which the N.E.A. is collaborat- ing with 17 colleges of education to improve teacher training; ? The National Foundation for the Improvement of Education, which is in the midst of a two-year study of professional development; and 392 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING ? The Center for Education Technology, which explores ways technology can help restructure the educational environment. The Center for Teaching and Learning also includes the N.E.A.?s efforts to track key issues in the teaching profession, including national certification and the accreditation of teacher-preparation programs. Lynn Coffin, the senior director of the National Center for Innovation, said blending the reform initiatives and the union?s policy analysis reflects the maturation of the union?s forays into restructuring. The Center for Innovation plans to distill what it has learned from the Mastery in Learning and Learning Laboratory sites into useful information for teachers. (Bradley, July 12, 1995, pp. 1, 11) The AFT was the early leader in embracing reform, which included pioneering collaborative efforts in Rochester, New York, and Dade County, Florida. The union continues its exploration of reform issues in a number of areas, including charter schools, where the NEA has also launched attempts to understand and define charters within an overall framework of a unionized work force: In its first major report on charter schools, the American Federation of Teachers has endorsed the concept, while urging greater attention to employee rights and academic standards in charter legislation. ?The lack of common standards, baseline data, and requirements for teacher certification and bargaining rights is highly problematic,? AFT President Albert Shanker said in a statement. ?These things can be fixed, however, and states that want to give charter schools a serious shot at success should fix them.? The 2.2 million-member National Education Association has also given cautious approval to the idea of publicly funded schools that operate free of many state and local regulations. The NEA is working in five states to help the first union-sponsored charter schools. (?NEA Seeks To Help Start Five Charter Schools,? April 24, 1996.) (Ponessa, August 7, 1996) These early activities by unions may serve as the springboard to new relationships among teachers, administrators, and boards of education. At the same time, unions might seek to coopt reforms like site-based decision-making and charter schools in order to control them so that the status quo is not threatened. It may take several more years to determine what the true intent and direction of the nation?s teachers? unions are. These unions remain very powerful entities at the national level. Change will be difficult for such organizations, accustomed to success using their current methods and tactics. However, leaders within these organi- zations, benefitting from their national perspective and local connec- tions, are often quick to perceive emerging trends to which their organi- CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS 393 zations must respond. This process of adapting unions to a restructured educational system may just be getting under way. THE IMPORTANCE OF COLLABORATIVE WORKING RELATIONSHIPS This dimension of restructuring (contractual relationships), though discussed last, is particularly important because breakdowns in working relationships between teachers and school district management may serve to constrict much of what is possible in the other eleven dimen- sions. Changes in working relationships manifested in a master contract are unlikely in themselves to cause restructuring, but an inability to rethink these relationships will surely slow and perhaps derail the process. New forms of bargaining and other strategies may point the way for school districts that seek to move away from the industrial union model of labor relations. These changes in bargaining and labor rela- tions only serve to signal more fundamental changes in power relations within school systems. Schools are no better than their teachers. True educational improve- ment is much more difficult, some would say impossible, if teachers do not participate in and take ownership of its goals and processes. Teach- ers must be involved, their opinions respected, their power acknowl- edged. Private-sector companies have recognized similar principles as they sought in the 1980s to improve productivity and increase adaptabil- ity and quality. Once again, as at the turn of this century, there are lessons educators can learn from the private sector. Hopefully, they can adapt rather than mimic private-sector practices. What they learn from the private sector can help guide models of greater collaboration in school districts, but the basic principle of collaboration itself is perhaps the most important focal point. Many of the specific changes and programs discussed in the chap- ters on the twelve dimensions of restructuring are based on the premise that teachers, administrators, and others would be willing to work together to a much greater degree than exists today in most schools. These types of changes, if they are to occur, require that teachers forgo their autonomy and isolation and embrace collaborative behaviors and structures. Collaboration, in turn, will demand new leadership styles and new skills from all involved in schooling. Perhaps educational reform- ers underestimate the ramifications of the greater collaboration that must occur for schools to succeed at restructuring. This discussion of collaboration in the context of working relation- ships suggests the opportunities and difficulties schools face as they 394 DIMENSIONS OF RESTRUCTURING begin to rethink fundamental practices and relationships. In a restructur- ing school, the principle of collaboration extends beyond contract nego- tiation to relationships throughout the organization. Education, like many other aspects of postindustrial society, has become too complex to be conducted successfully by isolated specialists. The future lies down the road of mutual interdependence, of teamwork among adults and children, of human-capital development, of enhanced interpersonal skills, of inclusive leadership approaches and styles, and of organizations that resemble living organisms more than inert structures. Attention to the ways that these relationships are formalized is an important dimension of organizational redesign and educational restructuring. P A R T 4 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING INTRODUCTION TO PART 4 Part 3 presented the dimensions of restructuring, the general and specific activities that schools and districts identify as restructuring. These dimensions may be thought of as the content of restructuring: the things a school and teacher would do differently as a result of having changed fundamentally. In addition to this content there is also a process of restructuring: the activities that lead to the desired changes. In practice the two are intertwined, sometimes so much so that the focus moves from the content to the process almost without anyone noticing. For this reason it is important to be aware of both content and process when thinking about educational redesign. To describe twelve dimensions?the content?of restructuring is one thing; to successfully implement them in schools is an entirely different matter. In the following five chapters, I consider a range of complex issues related to bringing about fundamental change in schools. The ideas and suggestions I present are not intended to be a recipe that, if followed in a step-by-step fashion, will guarantee restructuring occurs successfully and without conflict. Instead, they are meant to serve as an outline of key areas that are important to consider when and where restructuring is attempted. A large body of literature details the methods and techniques, challenges and difficulties involved in bringing about improvement in educational practice (see, for example: Huberman and Miles 1984; Joyce, Hersh, and McKibbin 1983; Joyce 1991; Eisner 1988; Berman and McLaughlin 1974; Cuban 1984a and 1990; Fullan 1985; Fullan and Pomfret 1977; Goodlad 1984; Goodlad and Klein 1970; Kirst 1991; Malen, Ogawa, and Kranz 1990a; Malen and Ogawa 1988; McLaughlin and Marsh 1978; Sarason 1971 and 1990; Schmuck and Runkel 1985; Teddlie and Stringfield 1993). It appears likely that schools involved in restructuring will face at least some, if not most, of the issues raised in this literature as they initiate changes that are in many cases much more profound than those examined in the works cited. At the same time, much of the literature on change in schools, with its focus on improving existing practice, may not be as applicable to the more fundamental changes being suggested through restructuring. The latter may result in disruption of existing management and control systems and may bring about changes in power relationships to a much greater degree than appears to occur during implementation of many of the innovations that have served as the focus for previous studies of change in education. 396 I will not revisit this literature in detail. Instead, I will present a sense of the possible, of how schools can pursues large-scale redesign. My attention will focus on some of the fundamental challenges educa- tors face when attempting basic changes in structure or practice. Early lessons from the emerging body of works on the process of restructuring are included. However, much remains to be learned regarding the phenomenon of school restructuring. Part 4, of necessity, raises issues, offers possibilities, and suggests strategies, rather than presenting pre- scriptions. If part 4 is viewed as a cookbook, it may be frustrating for those looking for simple solutions. There is far too much complexity in human organizations for one method or technique to be successful across the range of settings that exist. Although many researchers and writers attempt to make sense of these complex institutions, the meanings they construct serve more as lenses through which to view particular situa- tions rather than a complete panorama of the landscape. Part of the problem, or challenge, of understanding change in organizational set- tings springs from the multiplicity of lenses through which the phenom- enon can be viewed. Each lens provides its own perspective; each is correct within the confines of that perspective. There is no single constant or ?objective? vista. In part 4, I do attempt to present an integrated view of the process of educational restructuring. Clearly, there are lessons to be learned and approaches that work better in some settings than others. The observa- tions, techniques, and strategies discussed in the coming chapters can be combined in a wide variety of configurations, and they may be utilized or initiated in many different sequences. My goal in part 4 is to provide a number of methods and techniques within a logical framework and to invite their use as tools to comprehend change in schools. The responsi- bility to ascertain how this framework blends into the realities of any given school remains with the reader. Figure 2 summarizes the components of the restructuring process. Although there is no true ?beginning point? for restructuring, the dia- gram starts with the readiness process on top and proceeds through a number of interrelated steps. In practice, change is initiated at each of the steps in various situations. The diagram serves to summarize the organization of part 4 and to indicate the most important aspects of the restructuring process. Readiness for change is discussed as a stage in its own right because it is considered an important but often overlooked key to successful INTRODUCTION TO PART 4 397 0000000000 * Conley, David. Are You Ready To Restructure? A Guidebook for Educators, Parents, and Community Members. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, 1996. 181 pages. ED 390 179. This book contains a more practically oriented discussion of how to increase readiness for change in schools, and it contains summarized versions of the twelve content dimensions of restructuring as well. It is designed for school-site coun- cils, task forces considering change, school administrators, and others with responsibili- ties or interests related to restructuring. educational redesign. I consider this element important enough to have written a separate book on readiness for the restructuring process.* That book?s goal is to serve as a tool to help increase readiness for change. It contains more detailed discussions of the process of restruc- turing than will be presented here in part 4. However, the overall structure of the two volumes is similar. I recommend it as a tool for schools attempting to enhance readiness, and for educators and noneducators who are attempting to understand restructuring in non- technical terms. The remainder of part 4 examines some strategies for facilitating change successfully. It follows the general path suggested in figure 2, 398 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING FIGURE 2 Process of Restructuring Readiness Changes in Roles Rationale for Structures, Practices, Change; Current Programs Assumptions Strategic Data Collection; Direction; Option Action Plan Investigation Alignment Vision-Building which is to begin by enhancing readiness for change, then create a clear rationale for change and examine current assumptions present in the school and how they intersect with the rationale established. Once the rationale and assumptions are clearly delineated, data should be col- lected to help determine the current state of functioning. Before rushing to make a decision about a particular program or practice, teams should examine the options available via school visits, visits to nonschool environments that are relevant, and consideration of other data sources such as journals, articles, professional conferences, and existing suc- cessful programs and practices in the school. This extensive process should help increase agreement among edu- cators and stakeholders on both the need for change and the general strategies to be pursued. This stage is referred to as institutional align- ment. An increase in alignment leads to a decrease in conflict and an increase in the rate at which change can occur. A school can then adopt one of many possible planning models that enable a strategic direction and vision to be adopted more formally. This stage then leads to implementation activities, which ultimately lead back to enhanced readiness for more change. Part 4 closes with a chapter that looks at where restructuring is leading. The first section summarizes several important research studies on the effects of restructuring. Then the chapter offers an institutional vision of restructuring from a national educational organization, fol- lowed by my own more personal conjectures about how education might look differently if restructuring succeeds and if many of the trends identified in this book come to be implemented. These visions are meant to stimulate discussion and, hopefully, inspire those engaged in change to continue the difficult task they have chosen. INTRODUCTION TO PART 4 399 400 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING CREATING READINESS CHAPTER 21 400 When schools undertake significant changes, they generally sim- ply begin where they are and proceed from there. The focus is on a specific program or structure, and change is generally defined as an implementation problem: How can the desired (or mandated) program or structure be put into place? Furthermore, the unspoken text accompa- nying implementation often is: How can the change be made with minimal effect on existing assumptions, practices, and beliefs? Change, then, is viewed as a technical problem, as something that is accomplished when the right combination of information and training is provided to those expected to implement the change. The mindsets of those people are generally taken into account after the fact, if at all. Those who do not implement the program are often categorized as resistors. In fact, they might be resistors, or confused, or unaware, or have any of a dozen agendas that shape their initial reaction to a proposed change. The school administrator is then in the position of reacting, trying to manage the resistance that the change engenders. How can schools approach change, particularly large-scale change, from a perspective more likely to result in successful implementation and strengthened organizational culture? How can the change process be organized and anticipated so those leading it can avoid being placed in reactive roles? One key strategy is to encourage readiness for change within a school independent of any specific new program or structure. This state of psychological openness to change is called readiness. School leaders can do much to enhance organizational and individual readiness for change. CREATING READINESS FOR RESTRUCTURING Readiness is an elusive and little-examined dimension of the change process that becomes much more important as the magnitude of the change increases. Fullan and Stiegelbauer (1991) remind us that ?above all planning must consider the pre-implementation issues of whether CREATING READINESS 401 and how to start, and what readiness conditions might be essential prior to commencing.? If people are being asked to make a small change in their routines and practices, little readiness is needed. Written instructions delivered impersonally may be entirely adequate, for example. However, when the nature of the change is substantive, very different procedures are suggested. In such a context, readiness for change becomes its own independent dimension of the change process. Many school leaders appear to misjudge and underestimate the amount of time and energy that must be spent on readiness. The leaders have already adjusted their world view and accommodated themselves to the change they are proposing. More importantly, they can see how they will succeed, or at the least survive, after the change has taken place. They can put what they are suggesting into a broader context and are comfortable that they understand most of the predictable ramifica- tions of the decision to change. They have been able to adjust their mental model of the world to accommodate what they are proposing. For many, perhaps most, of the people in the organization who are being asked to change, this level of awareness simply does not exist, nor can it exist without difficulty. Readiness is not achieved by simply providing information to participants and answering their questions regarding how the changes will affect them. Ultimately all participants need the opportunity to engage actively with the change process at a different, more fundamental level. They need to be given the opportu- nity to understand the rationale for change, the conceptual framework within which it exists. Readiness activities are those that allow partici- pants in fundamental change to have the opportunity to reshape their mental model, their world view, to accommodate the proposed changes, and, most importantly, to understand how they will be able to survive and succeed in the new environment. Schmidt and Finnigan (1992) discuss the difficulties and dangers of systems-level transformative change. They suggest that the leaders in an organization make certain they are prepared to develop a knowledge base in each of six key areas before they begin a transformative-change process: 1. Understanding the dynamics of organizational transformation 2. Assessing your organization?s readiness for change 3. Assessing your management team 4. Reviewing your own leadership style 5. Learning from other organizations? experiences 6. Getting started (p. 89) 402 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING Schmidt and Finnigan emphasize that organizations are social sys- tems. They take input from their environment, process it, and deliver output. Systems are made up of interdependent component parts that shift or adjust to accommodate the demands of the environment but do not necessarily coordinate these adjustments. The adjustments function primarily to maintain equilibrium, or the status quo. Changes in one part affect all others in unintended, uncontrolled ways. Organizations main- tain equilibrium only through the expenditure of great amounts of energy. All change requires energy. In times of rapid change, it makes sense to enable the organization to become inherently more adaptive, manipulating the flow of energy so that it does not go primarily toward a return to equilibrium, but rather toward enabling the organization to become more adaptive as one of its integral features. Significant change is difficult in any organization, say Schmidt and Finnigan, who describe some of the factors that leaders might keep in mind when preparing change strategies: Because changes are disruptive, many people naturally resist them. Some of the factors that must be taken into consideration are these: ? The level of dissatisfaction with the present situation ? The cost of change (short-term and long-term) ? How well people understand the proposed ?future state? ? The consequences of not changing ? The clarity of the path for changing In general, people will support a change if (1) they are convinced that the present situation is not desirable; (2) the proposed ?future? is clear, sensible, and desirable; (3) the path toward the future is clear and realistic; and (4) the cost of the change is not too high....[T]his involves asking four critical questions: ? How will the people in the organization be affected by the change? What will they gain and what will they lose? ? How clearly do they see the advantages of the changed situation? ? How dissatisfied are they with the present situation? ? How prepared are they to take the first steps to bring about the change? (p. 94) The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (Hord and others 1987) sug- gests seven stages of concern that teachers may go through when implementing an innovation. The research done to develop this model focused on how teachers responded to discrete educational innovations, such as a new curriculum. In that sense the model may be of less value CREATING READINESS 403 in understanding large-scale systems change. However, there are many lessons from the CBAM model that appear to be relevant. The first five stages?awareness concerns, informational concerns, personal concerns, management concerns, and consequences concerns? relate most directly to issues of readiness. Although in the CBAM model some of these stages of concern?most notably management and conse- quences?were to be addressed in the context of implementing a spe- cific program, they are also informative of the issues that need to be addressed before any major change is undertaken. The additional two stages of the model?collaboration concerns and refocusing concerns? while important to consider, are not directly related to readiness issues. Hord and others (1987) suggest ways to address concerns at each of the first five levels. The following statements relate specifically to readiness concerns and represent a subset of all statements offered by Hord and others. Stage 0?Awareness Concerns ? If possible, involve teachers in discussions and decisions about the innovation and its implementation. ? Share enough information to arouse interest, but not so much that it overwhelms. ? Acknowledge that a lack of awareness is expected and reasonable, and that no questions about the innovation are foolish. ? Encourage unaware persons to talk with colleagues who know about the innovation.... Stage 1?Informational Concerns ? Provide clear and accurate information about the innovation.... ? Have persons who have used the innovation in other settings visit with your teachers. Visits to user schools could also be arranged. ? Help teachers see how the innovation relates to their current practices, both in regard to similarities and differences. Stage 2?Personal Concerns ? Legitimize the existence and expression of personal concerns.... ? Use personal notes and conversations to provide encouragement and reinforce personal adequacy. ? Connect these teachers with others whose personal concerns have di- minished and who will be supportive. ? Show how the innovation can be implemented sequentially rather than in one big leap [when this is possible]. It is important to establish expecta- tions that are attainable. 404 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING Stage 3?Management Concerns ? Clarify the steps and components of the innovation.... ? Provide answers that address the small specific ?how-to? issues that are so often the cause of management concerns. ? Demonstrate exact and practical solutions to the logistical problems that contribute to these concerns. Stage 4?Consequence Concerns ? Provide individuals [with concerns about consequences] with opportuni- ties to visit other settings where the innovation is in use and to attend conferences on the topic. ? Don?t overlook [individuals with consequence concerns].... Give them positive feedback and needed support. ? Share with these persons information pertaining to the innovation. (pp. 44-45) While this model is useful as a framework within which strategies to support change can be considered more systematically and thoroughly, restructuring may not lend itself to such a linear approach to change. Much of what comprises readiness is spread among the five levels presented in the model. Consequently, several issues often must be addressed simultaneously before any consideration of a specific innova- tion can, or should, begin. For example, it may not be possible to answer all questions regarding the use of a new technique, such as authentic assessment, or of a new structure for time, such as block scheduling, before it is implemented. Furthermore, in some cases there are few models to observe or learn from, and some types of change cannot occur in increments; teachers must make the transition all at once if they incorporate different strategies of scheduling or grouping, for example. The net result is that careful, predictable, staged strategies for change are of less value in such an environment. This is not to say that they are without use. The point is that much of the work necessary to ensure the success of large-scale change occurs before the innovation(s) are ever put into place. Helping participants develop a new world view and showing them how they will function effectively and successfully within this new context are key dimensions of ensuring success. In addition to the suggestions contained in the CBAM model, there are other things school leaders can do to create readiness for change. The following sections outline a series of activities that can be undertaken to help create and nurture a mindset that supports change and that sees what is both possible and necessary. The first strategy is that of visiting other places to help break down the insularity that often exists within a school and to broaden the school?s world view. CREATING READINESS 405 VISITING SCHOOLS, AGENCIES, AND BUSINESSES One effective means of building readiness is to provide staff the opportunity to visit other places that are actively involved in restructur- ing. Sometimes these observations embolden visitors with more resolve to change their own schools; other times they leave educators wondering why they even bothered to visit the site. Such visits can give educators a better sense of how (and why) their school should change its practices, or can lead to a rejection of restructuring by teachers who participate in the visit. Without careful selection of visitation sites and proper prepa- ration for those who visit, the value of such visits is greatly diminished. I begin by describing how to visit pioneering schools, then consider the value of visiting noneducational settings. GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR VISITORS TO SCHOOLS Chenowith and Everhart (1991) suggest that visiting a restructuring school is like visiting a foreign country. ?We liken the school visit to a visit to a foreign land.... [T]he practitioner is much like a tourist who is not familiar with the local customs and thus will find that a well- designed tour book is of considerable assistance.? The ?culture shock? that can confront visitors can be a powerful tool in enabling them to rethink the educational structure and methods within their own building. Chenowith and Everhart offer a ?guide book? for visitors that discusses the meaning, organization, and effects of change. The follow- ing summary of these three areas suggests the type of questions visitors should be asking, and the kinds of things they should be looking for as they undertake their visit to a ?restructured? school: The Meaning of Change ? Readiness for Change: ... Staff should want and choose to change.... [W]hat proportion of staff are dissatisfied with the previous or present situation? What proportion of staff is supportive of the restructuring effort? What proportion of the staff is willing to risk new action on behalf of the school and willing to undergo training for new skills and behaviors? ? School Vision: ... There should be a clear school vision.... [W]hat is the school?s ?formal doctrine?? What are its statements of intentions, public announcements, promises, etc.?... [A]re the principal and teachers able to articulate the school?s mission and goals? Is there a shared sense of purpose? ? Language: ... Is staff language ?received,? full of slogans, generalities, and a ?party-line? or is it ?interpreted? and full of the staff?s own words 406 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING and meanings?... Do staff talk about their future actions generally and abstractly or speak more specifically and behaviorally? Is staff language full of simplistic terms or is it dense, full of terms portraying more complex relationships? Are there physical displays and representations of language such as posters and banners portraying the school?s mission statement and goals? ? Understanding: ... Do the principal and staff understand the complexity and delicate nature of the change process? Do staff have access to specific skills and knowledge necessary for a successful implementa- tion? Are the staff able to articulate or describe a theory of knowledge upon which the innovation is based? ? Early Success: ... Are there notable examples of success? Are the principal and staff confident and do they possess a sense of efficacy and job satisfaction? Is the school staff aware of both short- and long-term objectives? The Organizational Structure of Change ? Organization and Governance: ... How are decisions made and who makes them? Are there procedures and processes for problem solving and school-based inquiry? What incentives or rewards exist to encour- age a change in organizational behavior? ? Culture: ... Is collegiality evident through mutual sharing, assistance, and joint work?... Is there fragmented individualism (traditional isola- tion), Balkanization (subgroups and cliques), contrived collegiality (un- wanted contacts and use of scarce time), or a truly collaborative culture (deep, personal, and enduring)?... Do staff have adequate communica- tion and group process skills? Are staff members able to work with diverse views? Are there norms of perseverance, self-disclosure, and acceptance of outside help? ? Instruction and Curriculum: ... Are instructional practices teacher cen- tered or do they include opportunities for cooperative learning, peer and cross-age tutoring, and increased student responsibility? Does the cur- riculum present concepts in the abstract or are concepts applied to real, personal, and concrete experiences? Does the curriculum require changes in teacher organizational structure or merely permit traditional patterns to persist? ? Feedback and Evaluation: ... Does the school openly solicit diagnostic information from multiple sources? Does the school reflect upon its practices? Does it tend to create more questions than provide answers? ? Support: ... Are adequate financial and time resources available? Is there support from key administrators in the district? Is the required technical knowledge available and accessible? Are parents informed and in- volved? What sort of press coverage or information has the community received about the program? CREATING READINESS 407 The Effects of Change ? Active Learning: ... Do students take an active role in learning or do they largely ?consume? what teachers have planned for them to do? What proportion of time are students involved in such an active framework? What are some examples of the student activities that are part of such an active framework? ? Student-Centered Learning Agendas: ... [D]o students help define ap- propriate elements of the learning agenda... Is participation varied and appropriate? Do students understand how to organize such agendas? What activities illustrate such student-centered agendas? ? Positive Regard for Students as Learners: ... Is a high degree of self- esteem evident both in and out of class? Do students evidence a healthy respect for their role as students? ? Clarity of Role: ... How do students define their role as students vis a vis teachers, administrators and others? How do students visualize the role behavior of others who are supposed to improve their own learning? ? School Context: ... Do learning experiences in which students are en- gaged show evidence of the social context within which learning is involved, or are learning experiences predicated on assumptions of students as individuals? Is there evidence of a mutually supportive learning community? (pp. 8-16) A visitor must look beneath the surface to understand the effects of restructuring. Understanding why people chose to do what they did can be as valuable as understanding what it is they are doing. It is particu- larly difficult to observe ?learning? taking place. The learning process is elusive. Teachers often talk about how they seek ?the teachable mo- ment.? What is the likelihood of observing one on any given visit? However, a careful visitor can learn to see beyond the immediate events and activity of the classroom, be it immaculate or cluttered, beyond the ?official? descriptions of the school offered by the host, beyond any prepared written materials that extol the program by de- scribing the ideal version of it, to learn valuable lessons and glean useful ideas, both in terms of what to do and what not to do. Here are some additional examples of things I look for when visiting a school engaged in restructuring or any major change:* ? a clear emphasis on improved student learning as the ultimate goal of the restructuring program, and a way to document success, not just process 0000000000 * This list is an adaptation of a version that appeared first in Are You Ready To Restructure? A Guidebook for Educators, Parents, and Community Members. Thou- sand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, 1996. 181 pages. ED 390 179. 408 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING ? the ability of teachers and students to describe what they are doing that is different from what they used to do, and why they are doing it ? evidence that all or nearly all the students are productively en- gaged in learning and understand what is expected of them ? evidence that the restructuring program extends beyond a few teachers, classrooms, or one program in the school ? students who are enthusiastic and excited and who can explain the program?s strengths and weaknesses ? an effective system for tracking student progress in a new way consistent with the program?s (or school?s) restructuring goals ? a comfortable atmosphere and a relationship of trust and respect between learners and adults ? a physical environment that suggests the people in it have some sense of community or belonging Other, less tangible things I look for include: ? evidence of buy-in among most staff, not just the innovators ? parental involvement in program design and functioning ? community support for the program ? a rational process by which agreement was reached on the pro- gram, including some reference to research or evidence that the program is likely to be effective ? the ability to conduct the program or approach within the school?s existing resource base, if not now then at some identified time in the future ? evidence that the program is not so dependent on one individual that it is unlikely that anyone else could duplicate the effort ? the amount of time and skill necessary to conduct the program (Is it such that average faculty would be incapable or quickly burned out?) A quick visit to a school with a reputation for restructuring can be useful if the visitor looks beyond the surface, not evaluating the program in absolute terms, but understanding the effects of the philosophy and program in relative terms. Learning is inherently difficult to observe; it occurs at the most unexpected times, and there is often no outward sign that it has occurred. Careful observation can strengthen an observer?s confidence that he or CREATING READINESS 409 she can discern the link between the environment and processes used with the learner and the likelihood that learning is occurring. Observers should clearly understand the outcomes the school is seeking, since these may be different from the outcomes actually observed. Given the relative openness of schools to visits (compared to some segments of private industry where new techniques are hidden from competitors), staff at schools trying new programs and approaches have much to gain through visiting other schools. If visitors do not expect to see schools that have solved all of education?s problems, but have taken a solid first step toward a new vision of teaching and learning, they will gain much. This form of dissemination is described by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) as ?institutional isomorphism,? the tendency for noncompetitive organi- zations to look to one another for solutions and to adopt approaches developed and piloted by innovators. Since schools demonstrate the characteristics of institutional isomorphism, visits to the many ?light- house? schools making early strides in restructuring may be critical to the ultimate success of school restructuring at any given site. VISITING SITES OTHER THAN SCHOOLS As valuable as visits to schools are, they rarely cause teachers to move too far outside their current views of schooling. They remain within their ?comfort zone? while visiting, and can be quite judgmental about their colleagues at other schools. An additional way to expose teachers to new ideas is to have them visit settings totally outside the educational system. The most likely candidates are businesses and governmental agencies. A visit to a business can be an eye-opening experience for a teacher. Most like getting a look at how ?the other half? lives, and most come away feeling more secure about themselves as professionals because ?business doesn?t have all the answers.? At the same time, teachers tend to learn a great deal from a properly structured visit. Setting up a visitation takes careful planning. The right setting must be selected first. Generally this is a company that has redesigned itself into work teams, that demonstrates how business is becoming global, that is innovative in the way it structures time or other aspects of work, that develops its employees, or that has in some way rethought the traditional ways to organize people. Furthermore, it must be a site where at least one key person is very interested in education generally and preferably in education reform or restructuring specifically. Most visits involve tours and discussions between teachers and company personnel, but many go beyond this model. Some companies 410 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING allow teachers to work alongside their employees, if only for the day. Others rotate the teachers through a series of tasks within the company. When a company has its own corporate trainers, it may have them discuss their worker and management training programs with educators to see how each approaches the task of teaching. Personnel directors can have teachers take the tests and fill out the forms that job applicants would complete, or learn about the difficulties employees have and how prospective employees could be better prepared to help them avoid these difficulties. All of these activities would be one or two days in length generally. There are other options that extend to a week or more. One company rotates several teachers through all the basic job levels in the organiza- tion over the course of a summer, and requires the teachers to present to the CEO of the company a report summarizing their observations and making recommendations to improve the company. Other short-term internships pair teachers with employees to work jointly on a specific report or study that they complete in the allotted amount of time. Each contributes her or his expertise; each is valued; the teacher comes to understand the dynamics of the company first-hand. The company comes to appreciate the skills of educators. All visitations, whether short or long, require some sort of summary debriefing at the end of the day or period of time. In most cases the teachers produce a report on the spot or shortly thereafter summarizing their insights and observations in two categories, as they relate to (1) what students should know, and (2) how faculty and staff could be organized best to meet their job requirements and student needs. These reports are shared with the host and with other teachers at the school. Observations common to the reports are captured with the goal of injecting them into discussions about restructuring at the school. OTHER ACTIVITIES TO BUILD READINESS Schools already conduct many activities that can contribute to readiness. However, often these activities are not linked in participants? minds to any overall strategy for change. The following categories of activities provide some examples of the ways in which schools can utilize structures and activities that are familiar in order to build readi- ness for more fundamental change. ? Study groups. Carefully selected groups are given a broad charge to explore. This group does not make a specific recommendation, and often the goal is as much to raise the awareness level of the group CREATING READINESS 411 members as it is to come up with a specific program or recommendation for the school. ? Task forces. Groups can be given a more specific charge to investigate a topic and return with a recommendation for action. It is important that the task force be seen as legitimate by faculty, and not a vehicle for the principal?s will. ? Collecting data about the school and sharing it (profiling). Data can be threatening to people in organizations like schools that are not used to thinking in terms of accountability for their actions. And yet, data can help illuminate areas where energy should be focused, if they can be presented in a fashion that engages discussion and problem- solving rather than recriminations. ? Book discussion groups. Educators need opportunities to engage in reflection and analysis one step removed from application. Too much of education is application of ideas before those who apply them totally understand them. Discussion groups provide a forum for initial under- standings to develop. They also enhance collegiality of a faculty and offer a safe setting for differing philosophies to be aired and debated. ? Thought-provoking materials. Many sources exist to provide ex- amples of successful programs. These materials can be made available informally in staff rooms or other settings where teachers may review them informally. Some resources may be directed to specific teachers by an administrator or teachers charged with building readiness. ? Articles about effective educational methods and models. Numer- ous professional journals produce stimulating articles each month. Rarely do teachers peruse these sources. Readiness can be increased when someone or some group at the school takes the initiative to identify the most relevant or interesting articles and make them available to staff. The first step is to have subscriptions to key sources of new ideas. ? Binders. Organize them into sections where teachers put abstracts of articles on new programs and ideas, the contents of which are shared periodically. As more articles are accumulated and books read, faculty who do the reading agree to provide brief abstracts that are centralized into a binder for review by individual teachers or task forces. This form of ?group learning? helps the school become a ?learning organization.? ? Attendance at conferences and special events. Although the idea of teachers attending conferences is not new, the value gained from such attendance can be maximized in schools where those who attend have some obligation to report back to their colleagues on what they learned, and where those who attend are selected based on some criteria other than who went last time. Such a process helps encourage the dissemina- tion of ideas and stimulation of professional growth. 412 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING ? Yearly events like retreats. Such experiences enable faculty and community to come together and step back from day-to-day issues to consider the ?big picture.? Although retreats are difficult to organize and sometimes inconsistent with the culture of the school, even limited offsite meetings, perhaps at the principal?s or teacher?s house, can be a time for new communication as the normal methods and structures, such as faculty meetings, are temporarily abandoned and new structures are formed. A good facilitator is quite useful in such settings. ? Regular time at faculty meetings to consider new ideas. Even faculty meetings can be used to help increase readiness if one standing item on the agenda is a brief consideration of a new idea. This may take the form of a report, distribution of an article or abstract, example of a new program, or results of a school visit. The simple act of continuing to introduce new ideas regularly helps create readiness for change. THE PHASES OF READINESS AND BEYOND Numerous strategies have been suggested as templates for large- scale change in schools. Indeed, it would be naive to think that a single formula or procedure could work in all situations and settings. Howard (1991) identified a nine-step process from work he performed with Colorado schools that is sufficiently general to encompass many of the key activities and steps present in most descriptions of successful school-restructuring processes. The steps of this process are adapted extensively here. The process is divided into four phases: readiness, data collection, alignment, and action planning and implementation. READINESS PHASE 1. Systematically increase awareness of the need to consider large- scale change. Provide information to staff members, parents, students, key community leaders, and the superintendent?s office regarding the need for schools to restructure. Such information will include sources on changing economic, demographic, social/political, and technological trends, along with consideration of societal values, available resources, community structure, and so forth. 2. Develop group agreements. Through the school?s usual decision- making processes and special events focused on creating the ground rules for change, develop a commitment to pursue restructuring within specified guidelines or group agreements. These agreements are not specific programs or courses of action, but general parameters applied CREATING READINESS 413 no matter what change is being considered, adopted, or implemented. Do not label as ?the enemy? those who do not want to participate or who raise questions. Work to find ways to involve all staff and the commu- nity by creating many possible ways for individuals to participate. 3. Create numerous ways for people to participate. Organize a development team to provide overall coordination and guidance. Edu- cate team members about the restructuring process and about their specific roles in bringing about restructuring. This is a working group, not an advisory group. Develop clear procedures for selecting team members, make responsibilities explicit, establish timelines and report- ing procedures, and establish group norms before the committee?s work begins. Organize other specific activities and structures that allow many more staff to become involved with varying degrees of commitment and energy. DATA-COLLECTION PHASE 4. Develop an information base. First, gather baseline data on quality indicators that may have an impact on student learning and that can be affected by restructuring. Such indicators come from sources such as archival records, surveys, self-reported behavior, classroom observation, focus groups, and interviews. Often this will require the school to learn how to collect and organize data initially. Second, have the development team and other interested faculty identify articles, books, reports, videotapes, and other sources of infor- mation that would help teachers reconceptualize their school. Have team members and other interested faculty (including some who might have been skeptics initially) attend conferences, visit other schools, or spend time at local work sites to obtain new perspectives on student needs and teacher roles. Involve as many staff members as possible in these activities. Data should be summarized in a form readily available to all. Many opportunities should be created for the school community to consider the data and its implications. ALIGNMENT PHASE 5. Develop a statement or a clear, concise overall goal and direc- tion for the restructuring process, a framework for restructuring. Have the development team do the initial work on developing a ?set of educational specifications for the restructured school? (Howard). Com- ponents of the framework statement may be organized using the Dimen- sions of Restructuring model. The statement may include possible courses of action in each of the twelve variables, as well as general 414 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING recommendations for the variable groupings (central, enabling, and supporting). The team also should identify implications for the school as it is currently structured. Implications must include an analysis of what skills and knowledge all students will be expected to possess upon completion of the course of study at the school (educational standards), along with suggested strategies for assessing student success in achiev- ing these outcomes. 6. Assess faculty perceptions of the initial draft of the framework. Ask each faculty member to rate each element of the framework state- ment in terms of ?what is,? ?what should be,? and ?what could be.? This measures the extent of agreement among respondents and their sense of the challenge of the restructuring process. Allow for adequate discus- sion of the implications of the proposed framework. Revisit the group agreements to make sure participants feel these agreements have been honored in the process. Once a framework has been formulated, ask each faculty member to write a personal statement identifying the implications of the framework for his or her instructional practices. 7. Set priorities and identify activities to enact the vision. Convene a broad-based planning team comprised of members of the development team, other interested faculty, key community leaders, student leaders, parents, and others to identify elements that should be included in the school?s action plans for beginning to move toward implementing the framework. Refer the work of this group to the faculty and community for review before implementing its recommendations. Once again, con- sider these activities in relation to the skills and knowledge all students are expected to be able to demonstrate. Will these activities result in students who meet the specified standards? ACTION PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION PHASE 8. Develop detailed action plans, implement, monitor, and modify. Form three to six task forces roughly encompassing the twelve dimen- sions of restructuring. There should be at least one task force each for the central, supporting, and enabling variables. Additional task forces might concentrate on specific issues or programs within these areas or on projects that cut across all three dimensions. 9. Evaluate and report outcomes. Frequently assess and monitor the progress that is being made, both in terms of the specific projects being undertaken and changes in student learning outcomes. Be prepared to use different measures of student learning than are currently employed. Circulate this information widely and be prepared to modify your vision CREATING READINESS 415 based on feedback. Link the information to the baseline quality indica- tors previously established and to the explicit student skill-and-knowl- edge outcomes identified throughout the process. There are many possible variations on the process just described. Its primary elements?common to most good approaches to planning? include a review of the external environment and its probable impact on the school, an analysis of current practices and their effectiveness, a consideration of the thinking and writing on current best practice, and an orientation toward inclusive models of decision-making. An alignment framework, however well drafted, is only a starting point in a very long process. Some schools have conducted highly successful vision-building sessions but never moved beyond that point. While the process of creating alignment and some consensus on the need to change can be, and frequently is, a means by which to increase communication and interaction among staff, it should be viewed as a means to an end, not an end in itself. In this sense, it is probably not desirable to say that the process is more important than the product: both are important. The purpose is to create alignment of effort toward and ownership of the goals of change, not simply to improve staff relations. The next stage beyond agreement on the need to change is creating a sense of the possible and some ground rules for the process of change. The following chapter describes several different ways to capitalize on the readiness created through the techniques just presented. 416 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURINGCHAPTER 22 INCREASING ALIGNMENTAND BUILDING A VISION 416 A fundamental question to be asked before restructuring activities begin is whether the school is ready to attempt such a challenging, arduous process. Many times a highly motivated leader or group of leaders within a school has pushed strongly for the school to restructure, in spite of the wishes of most staff and community members. Although there is sometimes reason to be a ?voice in the wilderness,? particularly in situations where staff are too self-satisfied to ever change, there is also danger. The backlash to the ?heroic leadership? model of change can be so strong that it delays serious self-examination of a school?s assumptions and practices for several years or more. Such a backlash can even eliminate the word and concept ?restructuring? from the school?s collective vocabulary. One way to build a solid foundation for educational redesign and to avoid the possibility of actually retarding the process of change in a school is to begin by discussing prerequisites to restructuring. This method allows the faculty and community to explore the implications of change and to establish the ground rules before beginning the process itself. Behaviors (and memories of what was agreed upon) often change when it is time to begin to implement new programs and structures. Making a commitment as a faculty to a series of principles can help create a forum for individuals to raise concerns and fears, as well as to begin to create a sense of common purpose. Simultaneously, such a process begins to awaken awareness by all participants of the scope of change being contemplated and the eventual repercussions of undertak- ing such an ambitious challenge. This awareness is an important psy- chological dimension to creating readiness for restructuring. There are many names for this process of establishing the prerequi- sites for change. Some call this the creation of group agreements. Others talk of identifying the norms of the process. I label these framing statements ?commitments? to suggest they are more than guidelines; they are the principles all participants agree to honor throughout the change process. In fact, these commitments may be raised and reviewed INCREASING ALIGNMENT AND BUILDING A VISION 417 periodically, particularly when difficulties are encountered. They serve to refocus the group?s efforts and to eliminate needless misunderstand- ings. THE TEN COMMITMENTS: PREREQUISITES TO RESTRUCTURING The following ten statements are derived from research on the restructuring process specifically, and on change in organizations gener- ally. These statements might be used by a school?s faculty to help determine if they are ready and willing to continue a process of funda- mental self-examination. The statements, which I have dubbed the Ten Commitments, cause staff to reflect on their values, the school?s culture, and the process to be followed if the school chooses to begin or continue a restructuring process. These ten statements are designed to be presented to a faculty as a whole for consideration and adoption before any comprehensive pro- gram for school restructuring is initiated. Generally, a committee of the faculty would have met to develop such a list, which the committee would present to the faculty at a time and place where there was adequate time to discuss the statements and their implications. 1. We commit to using data to make decisions. Staff will employ information on current school processes and outcomes, best educational practices, and societal trends as their frame of reference when making decisions. This analysis involves identifying what is not working along with what is working. It also involves acquiring the skills necessary to collect and analyze data. 2. We commit to creating and sustaining a culture of continued self-examination, extensive and continual professional development, and experimentation. In many schools, these are optional activities. In a school undergoing restructuring, faculty must lend their support for professional growth, both in principle and practice. If a school is to reshape itself, its staff members will have to be willing to examine their current practices and to acquire new skills and techniques. An important qualification is that this commitment to self-examination and profes- sional growth will not result in any information being used against an individual. 3. We commit to accepting that there are aspects of the learning environment that prevent or limit student learning. Because education is such a complex process, there can be a tendency to blame the learner for his or her own problems and failures. Sometimes failure is attributed to the child?s home environment or economic class, or even, perhaps 418 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING unconsciously, to the child?s race or sex. All these explanations end up removing the school and the teacher from a position of responsibility for the success of the student. Although many children do bring difficult, almost intractable problems to schools, these cannot be accepted as an explanation before the fact for lack of student success. The third com- mitment implies that everyone in the school must know that they have done everything in their power to help the student succeed before they attribute responsibility elsewhere. They must do everything possible to alter the design and practices of the school to meet the real needs of their clients before they assign blame to those clients. 4. We commit to viewing children as human beings first, students second. In the final analysis, the most vital and important activities in education are those that occur during face-to-face interactions between teachers and students. Technology, innovative schedules, governance structures, and teaching materials are only marginally relevant if the quality of the human interactions that take place in the classroom are inadequate. The ability to transmit knowledge of content alone is not considered to be adequate to fulfill the expectations of the role of teacher. A primary prerequisite of learning is that students know that teachers care about them. Will the school be willing to assess the ways in which students are treated as human beings? Is the school organized in ways that allow adults and students to interact with one another as human beings? 5. We commit to learning and employing a broad range of instruc- tional methods and formats. If schools restructure, teaching methods will become more varied than what has been the case. Goodlad (1984) found that the vast majority of students spend the vast majority of their time in passive roles, either listening to lectures or doing seatwork. If this commitment is made, instructional techniques will be selected and employed based on the needs of learners, not on the limited range of strategies the teacher has mastered. Will teachers be ready to expand their instructional repertoires not only by attending inservice trainings, but by making the much more important commitment to put new practices into place? 6. We commit to eliminating or phasing out those elements of our program that are not the best and most appropriate learning experi- ences for our students or best use of our limited resources. This commitment is very difficult for educators to make, since eliminating or phasing out any program or task generally means hurting a colleague. That is why it is very important to make a distinction between the person and what they do or teach, or between the person and the program being considered for elimination. Very often the individuals who might be INCREASING ALIGNMENT AND BUILDING A VISION 419 affected are highly skilled and dedicated; the problem is that what they do may no longer be the best use of their time or the resources allocated to the task or program in question. Thus it is important to honor the person and make it clear they are still a valued member of the organiza- tion. Given the goal conflict and ambiguity that exist in most schools as they attempt to be all things to all people, it becomes ever more urgent for educators to agree on what no longer belongs in the curriculum or school program. If schools continue to face stable or declining resource bases and increasing expectations for performance, resource realloca- tion is the only viable strategy for improving educational processes and outcomes. Learning how to do this may be traumatic for educators, but if everyone understands that such a process will eventually be neces- sary, staff will be more aware of the importance and gravity of decisions to restructure, and will not be as surprised when such a process is initiated. 7. We commit to viewing parents and community members as equal partners in the education of children. This is a concept to which lip service is often paid. In practice, however, schools have established many structural barriers to parental participation. Are staff members willing to change this relationship and expect parents to be equal members of a team whose goal is to educate children? Particularly in situations where staff believe that more parental and community support for education is vital to their success, the commitment to include these groups, and to be more accountable to them, has to be seen as part of the bargain in getting their involvement, ownership, and participation in education. 8. We commit to involving staff in decisions that set the direction for change in the school. Schools cannot be restructured without the active cooperation of teachers. Although new governance structures in and of themselves cannot transform schools, it remains equally clear that schools will not change if teachers do not take ownership of and responsibility for new educational goals, methods, and structures. With this in mind, it is important for teachers to be actively involved in decisions that will change their work environment and job descriptions. This commitment assumes a genuine desire to use input in decision- making as a tool for change, not for obstruction. 9. We commit to establishing a shared vision and set of goals for the school, a framework for educational redesign. Evidence that many schools lack clear purpose or direction seems to be mounting at the same time that the need for clarity of focus increases. Much of what occurs in schools is fragmented or even contradictory. Are staff willing to spend 420 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING the time and make the commitment to develop some common direction that reflects shared beliefs and values about the purposes of an educa- tion? Are they willing to make decisions and judgments based on this framework first and their personal agendas second? Are they willing to focus their individual and collective vision on improved student learn- ing? 10. We commit to helping adults who are threatened or challenged by changes occurring in the school. In return, all adults in the school agree to be supportive or constructively critical once decisions have been made openly. It is not reasonable to ask people to change if they will be worse off as a result of their willingness to do so. Will the organization commit to providing resources for members who are at a disadvantage as a result of change? Will procedures be developed to ensure that staff will not be asked to do things or make decisions that are against their own best interests? Will those negatively affected be provided assistance? If so, the system may ask in return that after a certain point all members of the organization line up behind the new goals, purposes, programs, and structures of the school, or suggest how better to accomplish these aims. Open, participatory decision-making (as specified in the eighth commitment) provides a forum within which concerns can and must be aired. It is not acceptable to ignore the existing decision-making struc- tures and work against change. Setting this ground rule can help diffuse much of the passive-aggressive resistance that can sabotage educa- tional-change efforts. KEY QUESTIONS TO FRAME RESTRUCTURING EFFORTS After a faculty has succeeded in developing a strong sense of direction and identified where they are and where they want to be, what is the next step? All indications are that this next step varies from school to school. But in practice most programs of educational restructuring move immediately to develop programs or projects of some sort based on the vision. Rather than rushing headlong to implement the most immediate or fashionable educational innovation or available program, educators might benefit from considering the range of changes their school might need to make. Faculty might begin the change process by asking ques- tions rather than embracing solutions. This section provides examples of questions schools might ask, dimensions they should consider, and principles they might discuss as they begin to think about their vision of restructuring. They can generate faculty discussion and analysis of INCREASING ALIGNMENT AND BUILDING A VISION 421 current practices when a school is ready to consider taking ?the next step.? The discussion of these questions, while potentially painful, helps foreshadow the tasks ahead. Appendix A contains a copy of these questions in a format that allows faculty to indicate the degree to which the school meets the criteria suggested in each question. The questions are organized around the twelve dimensions of re- structuring presented in part 3. They suggest the areas where data might be collected regarding current practice, or where research on best avail- able practice might be focused. They provide the framework within which goal-setting can take place after sufficient time for reflection on possibilities has occurred. These questions suggest far more change than most schools can sustain. They do, however, offer a broader view of possibilities than can be generated from a brainstorming session, or from attendance at an educational restructuring conference. They are designed to cause a faculty to collect data and to test the accuracy of their assumptions before they proceed with restructuring. Performance Standards ? Are learning standards specified? Do they form the basis for assessment? ? Are the standards consistent with the vision and goals of the school? ? Were the school?s standards developed with broad community involvement, and with reference to the skills students need to succeed in the future? ? Are the standards a combination of intellectual processes, skills, and content knowledge that provide a clear framework within which assessment can occur? ? Are the standards clear to teachers, students, and parents? ? Are the expected learning performances cumulative throughout a child?s education, kindergarten through graduation? Are there benchmarks that suggest the acceptable range of performance at various ages? Curriculum ? To what degree is the content knowledge contained in all courses accurate and up-to-date? ? Does the curriculum prepare learners for the future? 422 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING ? Does the curriculum consciously balance basic factual knowledge and higher level concepts? ? Is the required course of study consistent with the school?s vision? ? Is the curriculum designed to build outward from students? life experiences and learning opportunities that surround the school? ? Do different social/ethnic/economic groups learn substantially different content? Instruction ? Are students active participants in classroom activities and in choosing how they learn? ? Are individualized learner goals developed? ? Do students develop individualized plans broader than specific goals that suggest where they are headed with their learning? ? Is factual information used as a foundation for developing higher level concepts, rather than as an end in itself? ? Do the learning tasks cause the learner to integrate information and concepts across disciplines? ? Do real-world problems serve to focus and apply lessons and material taught? ? Is instruction designed so that all students can potentially suc- ceed? ? Do members of different social/ethnic/economic groups work together cooperatively to solve problems and apply knowledge? Assessment ? Are curriculum, instruction, and assessment clearly and con- sciously linked in the school?s total instructional program? ? Are a variety of assessment methods used appropriately to de- velop a complex and accurate portrait of student performance and knowledge? ? Do teachers have the skills necessary to conduct complex perfor- mance assessment linked to standards? ? Does assessment include public demonstrations by students? ? Do students assess themselves at any point? ? Is there a data-management system for complex assessment infor- mation so teachers and students can determine what knowledge and skills need to be mastered next? INCREASING ALIGNMENT AND BUILDING A VISION 423 ? Does assessment provide formative as well as summative data to students, parents, and teachers? ? Does assessment involve the application of information to solve real-world problems? ? Do students have any choices about how they are assessed? ? Do members of different social/ethnic/economic groups perform differently on particular assessments? Technology ? Is technology used both to transmit factual information in a structured manner and to empower learners to explore and dis- cover? ? Are teachers mastering and using technology personally? ? Is technology viewed broadly to include applications in addition to computers? ? Is appropriate software purchased along with hardware? ? Is appropriate training made available when hardware is pur- chased? ? Are curriculum content and instructional techniques changing in tandem with new technology acquisitions? ? Is the physical plant capable of handling the demands of technol- ogy (for example, electrical outlets, wiring for networks)? ? Is there easy and sufficient access to the Internet throughout the school? ? Are students taking advantage of learning opportunities offered via the Internet? Time ? Is time being adapted to learning needs rather than vice-versa? ? Is time structured to respond to needs and realities of students? and parents? lives? ? Are staff and curriculum development preceding and accompany- ing changes in time? ? Is extra time being provided to those students who need it to reach desired or required performance levels? ? Are the boundaries of time being reconceptualized beyond tradi- tional limits of 7 a.m. - 3 p.m., five days per week, 180 days per year? 424 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING ? When new schedules are put into place, are the effects monitored to ensure the schedule leads to desired results, such as new teaching techniques? Learning Environment ? Is the learning environment being designed with the needs and realities of the learner in mind? ? Is the learning environment perceived as extending beyond the classroom? the school? the community? ? Are grouping practices being reexamined to determine their effect on children from different social/ethnic/economic groups, and their effect on the school culture and climate? ? Is the learning environment being designed to maximize positive interpersonal relationships among students and between students and adults? ? Are curriculum, instruction, and assessment changing in ways that support and take advantage of any changes in the learning environment? ? Are new educational structures and a wider range of options for learners being designed and put into place? ? Can students move among learning environments within a school and between schools? School-Community Relations ? Are parents being included as partners in the establishment of goals for their own children? ? Are parents provided enough information of the right sort to participate as partners in the education of their children and the running of the school? ? Are the needs of parents considered in the organization of the school and in the expectations held for parents? ? Do parents have choices regarding the schools their children attend and the programs within schools in which their children can participate? ? Is the broader community invited to participate in specific ways? ? Are there specific ways that parents and community members can be involved in key decisions regarding the school? ? Is the community involved in and informed about changes in the school? INCREASING ALIGNMENT AND BUILDING A VISION 425 ? Is the business community consulted on curriculum that relates to career preparation? ? Are the critiques and criticisms of public education raised by various business groups and business people taken seriously? Governance ? Is decision-making participatory? ? Are decisions made in relation to a vision? ? Are existing decision-making structures modified and new struc- tures added as necessary? ? Is decision-making open and inclusive? ? Are data collected and used to inform important decisions? ? Is training provided to members of governance groups? ? Is enough time provided for those groups involved in making decisions? ? Are changes in governance viewed as means to ends, not as ends in themselves? ? Is evidence collected to determine the effectiveness of decisions that are made? Teacher/Principal Leadership ? Are a range of opportunities for teacher leadership being pro- vided? ? Is training in leadership and group process provided when teach- ers need it? ? Do teacher leaders retain connections to the classroom? ? Does the culture of the school support teachers emerging as leaders and taking leadership roles? ? Is there evidence over time of continuous growth in the ability of teachers to lead? ? Do teachers have the opportunity to develop a broader perspective on their classroom and school via readings, visitations, confer- ences, discussions, and so forth? ? Are leadership opportunities offered to a wide range of teachers? ? Are teachers provided access to high-quality professional-devel- opment activities? ? To what degree are the principles of facilitative leadership prac- ticed in the building? 426 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING ? Are new leadership roles and structures being created? Personnel ? Are people other than certified teachers becoming involved in teaching or in supporting the instructional process? ? Are procedures in place to accommodate learning experiences in the community, via technology, and in settings other than the classroom under the direct guidance of a certified teacher? ? Is there an emphasis on excellence in the teaching staff, with no acceptance of mediocrity or tolerance of incompetence? ? Do hiring procedures ensure those selected support the school?s vision and have the requisite skills to help the school move toward the goals of the vision? ? Are there specific procedures to provide close supervision and additional support to beginning teachers? ? Do the teachers want to be where they are? Are they excited about teaching, and do they truly care about young people? ? Are there ways for teachers to move among schools in order to match teachers? teaching styles with program philosophies, and is such movement encouraged? ? Are the current distribution and allocation of staff members within the school consistent with the school vision and mission? Contractual Relationships ? Are efforts being made to include the professional association as a partner in change? ? Are alternative forms of bargaining being explored at the district level? ? Is there agreement to leave much of the restructuring program out of the negotiated agreement, subject to specified guidelines? ? Are there pilot programs in specific schools to allow faculty to waive elements of the contract if teachers agree to do so? ? Are there good-faith efforts to redefine the role of the professional association in a positive way? These questions form the basis for assessing the current state of functioning of the school, its values, goals, and perhaps some shortcom- ings, or at least directions where change is desired. Such information can serve as the basis for a vision-building process. While I do not provide detailed information on how to conduct vision-building activities in a INCREASING ALIGNMENT AND BUILDING A VISION 427 school, I offer the following analysis of the role of vision-building and some elements that enhance the probability of success when developing a vision in a school. VISION-BUILDING: A POTENTIALLY POWERFUL COMPONENT OF RESTRUCTURING* In many respects restructuring is not primarily the process of estab- lishing new programs, as noted earlier, but of developing a new picture in the minds of many of what schooling should look like and what educators should be attempting to achieve. Such a picture generally encompasses a combination of values, beliefs, assumptions, and prac- tices that, taken as a whole, constitute a vision of education. The term vision appeared with increasing frequency in the literature on leadership and restructuring in the 1980s (Bennis and Nanus 1985, Burns 1978, Kanter 1983). There seems to be the assumption?mistaken, I believe?that ev- eryone knows what vision is. Before a sense of vision can guide and motivate educators, school personnel must have a better understanding of what it is, how it can be developed, and what can be accomplished by its use. Vision is not a term that is defined readily or operationalized easily. In some respects, its definition seems analogous to that of art: People may not be able to articulate what makes something art, but they recognize it when they see it. In some cases this ambiguity has led to abuse of the term and the development of a certain amount of cynicism surrounding it in some schools. At the same time, writers on the topic and educators in schools where the concept is having a positive impact on practice respond that they seem to understand more or less intuitively what a vision is. For the purposes of this discussion, vision is defined as an agree- ment, explicitly stated in some form, shared by a significant number of participants in an organizational unit, on a mixture of values, beliefs, purposes, and goals that serves to provide a clear reference point for members of the organizational unit to use when making decisions about their behavior in the organizational context. This vision must be clear enough to enable participants to make choices that help move the 0000000000 * This section is excerpted and adapted from: Conley, David. Lessons from Laboratories in School Restructuring and Site-Based Decision-Making: Oregon?s 2020 Schools Take Control of Their Own Reform. OSSC Bulletin Series. Eugene: Oregon School Study Council, March 1991. 428 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING organization toward achievement of the general values, beliefs, pur- poses, or goals. Stated differently, vision seems to provide an internal compass for people in complex organizations that helps them understand more clearly how their actions relate to, or contribute to, broader organizational goals. At its best, vision and mission provide, or restore, a sense of purpose and meaning to workers for whom such a sense has been lost or never existed. This sense of meaning can be critically important, particularly in large bureaucratic organizations, where workers come to lose sight of the purpose of their labor or contribution to larger goals and purposes. Bolman and Deal (1991) present the following assumptions regarding the search for meaning by members of organizations: 1. What is most important about any event is not what happened, but what it means. 2. Events and meanings are loosely coupled: the same events can have very different meanings for different people because of differences in the schema that they use to interpret their experience. 3. Many of the most significant events and processes in organizations are ambiguous or uncertain?it is often difficult or impossible to know what happened, why it happened, or what will happen next. 4. The greater the ambiguity and uncertainty, the harder it is to use rational approaches to analysis, problem solving, and decision-mak- ing. 5. Faced with uncertainty and ambiguity, human beings create symbols to resolve confusion, increase predictability, and provide direction. (Events themselves may remain illogical, random, fluid, and meaningless, but human symbols make them seem otherwise.) 6. Many organizational events and processes are important more for what they express than for what they produce: they are secular myths, rituals, ceremonies, and sagas that help people find meaning and order in their experience. (p. 244, emphasis in original) An organizational vision, and the process of developing and renew- ing it, helps people to reduce uncertainty, create common understand- ing, and find meaning in their day-to-day actions. Considered in the light of Bolman and Deal?s assumptions, vision can be viewed as a way in which members of an organization attempt to create a broader sense of meaning for their behaviors. Vision-building in public schools is not easy. It requires time, which is often in short supply. It is frequently greeted with cynicism, since it has the appearance of being the latest educational fad. It assumes that the people participating in the vision-building process share enough com- INCREASING ALIGNMENT AND BUILDING A VISION 429 mon beliefs, values, and agreement regarding the goals of schooling to be able to arrive at some sort of understanding or expression of com- monality. To be done correctly, it requires a great deal of preparation and work; considerable information about the school and trends in education and society generally must be collected and analyzed. And vision-building can be very threatening, particularly if the vision that develops ends up favoring certain elements of the educational program over others. SOME PREREQUISITES FOR SUCCESSFUL VISION-BUILDING Following are some general observations regarding prerequisites to successful vision-building (Conley, Dunlap, and Goldman 1992). They are based in part on interview data (D. Conley, March 1991) and in part on literature in the area of vision and related topics. These observations should be considered tentative and exploratory. 1. A previous history of and success with systematic school-im- provement efforts. Such a history seems to provide important conditions that encourage the ?leap of faith? involved with undertaking vision- building. Staff have a stronger sense of personal efficacy, which leads them to believe they can influence the conditions of work and the organizational culture of their school site. Previous experience with school improvement also allows for the creation of leadership, particu- larly teacher leadership, and for more opportunities for teachers to develop the interpersonal skills necessary to conduct or participate in processes that require multiple human interactions, each with the poten- tial for conflict. The model or type of school improvement undertaken previously does not seem to be of critical importance. In fact, some sites have been involved in a variety of strategies over the past ten years. Most previous attempts at systematic improvement were regarded to have been at least partially successful. 2. A willingness to examine data in various forms and employ them in the decision-making process. Data can take many forms, including: (a) information about current practices at the school and the efficacy of those practices, such as attendance data; test results; parent, teacher, or student surveys; or observation of classroom practices; (b) journals and periodicals offering a perspective on current thinking and innovative practices in education, and on societal trends; and (c) visits to other school sites, or work sites, to learn firsthand about new techniques. 430 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING All this information feeds into the vision-building process to help overcome the tendency of educators to make decisions based on anec- dotal or impressionistic information from self-proclaimed faculty ?ex- perts? or from the person who is most emotional about an issue. In addition to gathering this information, faculties have been willing to commit to employing it as a frame of reference when determining vision and mission or when setting goals. 3. Principals who were willing to share power and decision-making to some degree. An important distinction needs to be made here between schools with ?heroic? leaders, who develop the vision personally and ?sell? it through a variety of strategies, and those who simply create the conditions whereby others may develop the vision. It appears that both of these methods can provide the conditions necessary for a collective vision to be developed and embraced; however, in the case of the ?heroic? principal, it still appears to be necessary for the principal to release ownership and allow the vision to become the staff?s for it to take hold successfully. This sharing of ownership may involve changes from what the principal envisioned initially, and it may entail the use of a process different from that which the principal viewed as ideal. The willingness of principals to step aside to some degree seems to be mandatory for successful vision-building. Fullan (1992) notes that ?the current emphasis on vision in leader- ship... can blind leaders in a number of ways.? Leaders can become committed to a particular way of doing things or a specific project or strategy in a narrow, self-defeating way that causes teacher resistance. High-powered, charismatic principals are also at risk of seeing their ideas and strategies depart shortly after they do. In both cases, Fullan cautions, ?too much store is placed in the leader as solution compared to the leader as enabler of solutions.... The crucial question is, ?Whose vision is it??? 4. A commitment to act upon the results of the vision-building process. Many schools are or recently have been involved in vision- building activities, at least in part as a result of the popularity of strategic planning. In many cases these visions have been developed in a vacuum; no one is certain why they are being created or for what purpose. Often these visions or missions can be seen adorning school hallways, statio- nery, and business cards, while having little impact on school decisions or operations. Vision-building processes that are successful already have a clear role in the school?s operation. In this case, the vision is an extension of the school?s traditions of clear purpose and direction. Having a clearly INCREASING ALIGNMENT AND BUILDING A VISION 431 identified role for the mission before the process begins raises the likelihood that the process will be successful. 5. A central office that is, at least, willing to keep out of the process and, at best, willing to support it actively. In the schools examined and in the literature, the central office is often viewed by participants in vision-building as a hindrance. While this perception clearly reflects the ambiguous power (and personal) relationships that often exist between individual educators at school sites and central administrators, it also suggests that the most important role central offices can play is to let schools know they can proceed with the process of vision-building without fear of reprisal. In addition, central-office staff can provide: (a) general districtwide vision, mission, and goals that create an arena in which the school may define its own purposes; (b) data not readily available to the sites that can help build the database upon which decisions about vision can be made; and (c) assistance with the process in those instances where central administration is perceived as a source of help and where there are people within central administration who have the technical skills to facilitate such a process. 6. An awareness of the natural tension between top-down and bottom-up planning strategies. Strategic planning in education has gained popularity during the past six years. It has been adapted from the private sector to the educational context primarily by increasing the amount of participation and the openness of the process. However, even in its modified form, it still emphasizes mission-setting and vision-building by a small team at the district level as the first step in the process. Is there an inherent conflict between centrally created visions and missions and those created at individual school sites? In one study of schools involved in restructuring (Goldman, Dunlap, and Conley 1991), none of the schools was operating in a district with a strategic plan that served as a referent point for decision-making. There- fore, these schools did not have to confront this issue. It is interesting to speculate about what would occur if a strategic-planning process were to be introduced at the district level. How would these schools react to a mission and vision being imposed upon them after they had developed their own? Perhaps it would make sense in some districts for all schools to begin by making a first pass at developing a vision before such work began at the district level. The results of such a process at the site level might help inform the district-level process and create greater owner- ship of the vision and mission that developed. 432 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING The more common practice has been for the district to develop its mission and vision, then mandate that each school examine its practices in relation to the district direction and develop its own version of the district?s document. The relative effectiveness of these two possible strategies for integrating strategic planning and site-level vision-build- ing bears further investigation, since they involve the basic relationship between centralization and decentralization in determining the direction of an organization. Many schools and districts have attempted vision-building via the strategic-planning process with mixed results. While participants ex- press high satisfaction with the process and confidence that student learning will be positively affected, the evidence of effects is thin (Conley 1992, 1993, Fall 1994, December 1994). For a vision-building process to lead to educational change, it must be linked to a broader framework like the one being described here. Vision as an end in itself does not seem to be a powerful tool for restructuring. However, it can contribute to readiness when linked with other activities that move the school toward action, such as group agreements, key questions, and examination of other programs, as have been described earlier. This chapter has explored the importance of increasing alignment among staff members and stakeholders to build acceptance of the need for change. Many of the activities suggested here can easily accommo- date participation by parents, community members, and even students. Over time the net effect of this broad array of activities is to create an environment that is more hospitable to educational change. The next chapter describes the challenge of implementing new ideas and pro- grams once some level of agreement about the necessity for and general parameters of change exist. MOVING THE PROCESS FORWARD: MACROLEVEL CHALLENGES 433 CHAPTER 23 As difficult as it can be to reach any agreement on the need to change and the ground rules for proceeding, the actual process of change is a magnitude of difficulty greater. There are a number of reasons for this, some structural, some cultural, some related to human nature. These factors combine in schools (and most large, complex organizations) to confound the agreements and trust established in the earlier readiness process. No one factor makes change easier, but an awareness of the challenges being faced can help those attempting to restructure to enter the implementation process with their eyes wide open. This chapter weighs the effect of macrolevel factors on the ability of schools to change. These factors include the ambiguous policy and goal environment within which schools function, the problems schools face regarding finance systems, the bureaucratic nature of schools as organi- zations, and the power of organizational culture. Finally, I summarize some general observations by Fullan and Miles (1992) and Fullan (1993) on why reform typically fails and how educators can avoid failure. AMBIGUOUS AND CONFUSING POLICY TOWARD EDUCATION Much of the problem begins with the general policy environment within which public education exists. Different groups at different levels of government have shaped educational policy toward their goals with little regard to the overall effect of such policy fragmentation. Those who develop policy have often not given much thought to how it is to be implemented. Smith and O?Day (1991) argue that this tug-and- pull of policy development and implementation among federal and state governments, local school districts, special-interest groups, and others 434 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING creates a system where it is almost impossible to sustain systemic- improvement efforts: A fundamental barrier to developing and sustaining successful schools in the USA is the fragmented, complex, multi-layered educational policy system in which they are embedded (Cohen 1990, Fuhrman 1990). This system consists of overlapping and often conflicting formal and informal policy components on the one hand and, on the other, of a myriad of contending pressures for immediate results that serve only to further disperse and drain the already fragmented energies of dedicated and well meaning school personnel. On the formal policy side, school personnel are daily confronted with mandates, guidelines, incentives, sanctions, and programs constructed by a half-dozen different federal congressional com- mittees, at least that many federal departments and independent agencies, and the federal courts; state school administrators, legislative committees, boards, commissions and courts; regional or county offices in most states; district level administrators and school boards in 14,000 school districts...; and local school building administrators, teachers and committees of interested parents. Every level and many different agencies within levels attempt to influence the curriculum and curricular materials, teacher in- service and pre-service professional development, assessment, student policies such as attendance and promotion, and the special services that schools provide to handicapped, limited English-proficient and low-achiev- ing students. (p. 237) Within this policy environment, change becomes a very uncertain process. As was noted earlier, two results of this disjointed policy environment are a lack of goal congruence and, at a more fundamental level, a lack of control over the goals of the organization. This inability to focus effort, or to provide members of the organization with a clear picture of its purpose and goals, makes systematic change even more difficult. Joyce, Hersh, and McKibbin (1983) present the spectrum of possible functions or missions for public schools, all of which have legitimacy at some level and most of which have their own constituen- cies. These authors suggest three domains?personal, social, and aca- demic?each of which has various goals or alternative functions: The Personal Domain: ? Develop the self. ? Develop productive thinking capacities, including creativity, flexibility, ability to produce alternatives. ? Develop a personal meaning. ? Develop problem-solving ability and flexibility. ? Develop aesthetic capacity. ? Develop motivation to achieve. MACROLEVEL CHALLENGES 435 The Social Domain: ? Enculturation?socializing students to their culture and transmitting their cultural heritage. ? Develop internationalism and social activism. ? Develop cooperative problem-solving?democratic-scientific approach, political and social activism. ? Promote nationalism. ? Improve human relations?increasing affiliation and decreasing alien- ation. The Academic Domain: ? Emphasize general symbol proficiency?reading, writing, arithmetic, technical methods. ? Emphasize information from selected disciplines?history, geography, literature, etc. ? Emphasize major concepts from the disciplines. a. Treat broad, related fields together (social studies, language arts, science). b. Treat a few disciplines separately (i.e., economics, physics, history, music). ? Emphasize modes of inquiry. a. Treat theory building and scientific method. b. Treat knowledge creation within a few, selected disciplines. ? Emphasize broad, philosophical schools or problems?aesthetics, hu- manitarian issues, ethics. (Excerpted from pp. 252-56) Public schools have faced the problem of comprehensiveness throughout most of this century. In a democratic society that rejects the social class system, public education is seen as a means to offer choice and opportunity to all citizens. Goal confusion is quite understandable, even desirable, if society supports the ability of schools to address multiple goals simultaneously. This ability requires resources, however. As I discuss in the next section, changes in school financing over the past two decades have not necessarily made it any easier for schools to pursue multiple goals simultaneously. EQUITY OF FINANCE SYSTEMS By the 1970s the systems by which schools were financed had grown to be blatantly inequitable. Reliance on local property taxes had resulted in communities with high assessments being able to tax them- selves at a low rate, while their neighbors in poorer districts had to pay 436 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING much more for their children to receive what in many cases was not even a comparable education. Such an arrangement had been acceptable so long as the level of common education that all citizens were expected to master was low and so long as economic opportunities were available even for those with little formal education. Equality of achievement was not a fundamental goal of the system. As it becomes socially important for essentially all students to complete much more schooling and be capable of performing at relatively high levels upon completion, the inequity of financing becomes a vital issue. At the same time, the federal and state governments began to mandate more programs local school districts had to offer, without necessarily providing the funding necessary for their implementation. This gradual impingement on local control led local districts to demand that states fund programs they mandated. Such pressures contributed to a climate in which finance reform was more likely to take place. Nearly every state has undergone change in school-finance systems since the 1970s (Odden and Wohlstetter 1992). Rarely has the avowed goal of this reform been to improve student learning (though lip service has frequently been paid to this goal). Equity in the context of discus- sions of finance in the 1970s and early 1980s meant equity of taxation, not of student achievement. Education had relied heavily on property taxes, until the tax revolt that began in California in the late seventies caused state governments to shoulder more responsibility for funding education. In fact, finance reform often meant ?leveling down,? where higher spending districts were held in place or had their revenue reduced so that lower spending districts might receive an increase in funding. This form of equity often had the effect of decreasing resources for districts that had historically been among the more progressive within a state or region. The development of educational-finance policy is another example of the ?fragmented, complex, multi-layered educational policy system? described by Smith and O?Day (1991). Odden and Wohlstetter (1992) note the increasing complexity of policy development in school finance, as evidenced by the number of different initiators and their varying goals. In the 1980s these forces were external to schools and occurred at the national, rather than state, level. They had implications for state financing of education and for school reform. Odden and Wohlstetter identify two events?the release of the report A Nation at Risk (David P. Gardner and others 1983) and the realization by business leaders that the nature of the work force and the definition of a well-prepared MACROLEVEL CHALLENGES 437 worker were changing?as catalysts for changes in funding during the eighties. Changes in school finance in the 1980s were for the purpose of improving American economic competitiveness by improving schools. A new political quid pro quo emerged for increasing education funding. No longer would state political leaders provide money on the stump through equalization formulas and hope that local educators would use it to im- prove the education system. States created a variety of new fiscal incen- tives (Richards & Shujaa, 1989) to reward schools and districts for meeting education improvement objectives. (Odden and Wohlstetter 1992, p. 372) In other words, increased funding began to be linked to increased performance. States launched testing programs to determine if improve- ment was, in fact, occurring, which led to intensified debate regarding whether the tests really were measuring what society wanted students to know and do. It should be noted that more resources do not automatically equal more change in schools. The evidence from recently enacted school- finance-reform laws suggests that historically low-spending districts that receive increased funding do not necessarily initiate significant change or restructuring as a result of receiving additional funds. Other issues are addressed first. Money alone does not appear to change the basic culture or orientation toward change of a school district. If, as Odden and Wohlstetter suggest, ?the economy will continue as a trig- gering event keeping education as a top policy issue? since ?the link between education and the country?s economic productivity...has be- come conventional wisdom for the 1990s,? educators can expect to be under increasing pressure to deliver major changes and improvements in education as a result of new funding strategies. The current situation in many states indicates that such outcomes will be problematic, because of both the tightening of funding for many innovative districts and the difficulty of transforming the culture of historically low-spending dis- tricts through increased funding alone. Further confounding the problems with funding is the bleak outlook for substantial increases in the funds available to government during the late 1990s. Orland and Cohen (1995) analyzed trends in state spending on education from 1970 to 1994 and concluded: The growth in per-pupil spending is unlikely to continue at its 1970-to- 1992 rates. The principal factors associated with strong spending increases since 1970 (i.e., economic growth and declining school enrollments) are changing. Economic projections anticipate generally lower levels of eco- nomic growth in the years ahead. Demographic forecasts predict increas- ing school enrollment in most states. In addition, greater demands on state and local budgets can be expected from other government service sectors 438 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING as a consequence of reduced federal financing. Such conditions will make it exceedingly difficult for most states to continue making per-pupil educa- tion increases comparable to those of the past two decades. Recent spend- ing data from 1990 to 1994 reveal that a marked slowdown has probably already begun. (p. 3) Real income has not grown significantly for the past fifteen years for the vast majority of wage earners and has decreased for those with less than a college education. Managerial jobs are being trimmed, duplicating the decline in blue-collar jobs that occurred in the early eighties. Demands for increased efficiency in government continue. School-finance litigation has resulted in changes in over thirty-five states. In general, these changes have resulted in more centralization of education funding at the state level and less reliance on local property taxes. The policy implications of this revolution are just now beginning to manifest themselves. This change is already beginning to result in state legislatures that are more willing to undertake large-scale educa- tion-reform efforts and to insist on consistent performance standards for students in return for sustaining current funding levels, let alone increas- ing funding. Although legislatures may continue to make gestures to the ideal of local control of education, the trend is firmly in the direction of state mandates, even in states with strong traditions of local control. This trend will only accelerate as more education dollars come from state general funds and less from locally determined and generated sources. Educational managers in the nineties will likely have to learn to effect change without large amounts of additional resources available to aid the process. They will also have to learn to be much more aware of the expectations the state has for them, expectations they were more able to ignore when the authority and funding for education were locally controlled. Principals in particular could have dual masters: their local board of education and superintendent on the one hand, and the state legislature and department of education on the other. If these two masters are issuing contradictory edicts and pursuing conflicting goals, principals will be caught in a squeeze. There is evidence, particularly from nongovernmental organiza- tions, that the crises triggered by fiscal shortfalls often precipitate large- scale change in bureaucratic organizations. Fiscal changes and crises can come to offer both threat and opportunity. Educational leaders will be challenged to manage looming fiscal changes and crises in ways that lead to an improvement in the functions of their organizations, not merely a reduction in size or a retention of the status quo. This is both a tremendous opportunity and a formidable challenge. MACROLEVEL CHALLENGES 439 BUREAUCRATIC NATURE OF EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Schools in this country began as extensions of local communities, with strong ties to the values and organizations of the communities within which they existed. Since the turn of the century, schools have become increasingly bureaucratic in nature and separated from the communities that surround them. While bureaucratic structures serve to protect schools from arbitrary and capricious interventions in their functioning, they also lessen the ability of schools to adapt and change. Bureaucracies limit communication, participation in decision-making, and comprehension by members of the organization?s goals and their contribution to the achievement of those goals. Clark and Meloy (1990) describe the influence bureaucratic features have had on the organiza- tion of schools and on teachers? professional lives: Two... features of bureaucracy, specialization and specification, have had particularly important effects on the organization of schools. The former characteristic is designed to provide for technical expertise in the system where such expertise is required. The latter clarifies the assignment and scope of responsibility of individual employees. The technical expertise of the teacher has been defined narrowly, i.e., as a subject and/or grade specialization in the classroom. Broader instructional expertise, curricu- lum development and planning, has typically been vested in staff and line administrators from curriculum specialists to the principal. The conse- quences for teachers have been several. Teachers have become isolated from one another and from the principal during the school day. The autonomy of the teacher in the classroom has resulted in the restriction of the teacher?s role and responsibility to the teaching-learning act. (p. 10, emphasis in original) Decisions in bureaucracies are made based on hierarchies of author- ity. Each level defers to the level above it for guidance and approval. Workers continue to do what they have been authorized to do within their area of specialization and authority. Change is not initiated without permission. The hierarchical nature of the organization tends to drive out initiative, creativity, ownership, or a systems perspective. Schools come to be bureaucracies with a hierarchy that culminates with the principal: Bureaucracy, as an organizational form, carries with it a set of minimal unavoidable elements. Bureaucracy makes no sense without a hierarchy. The hierarchy serves two functions of the bureaucracy: official authority and specialization. The principal of a school assumes a set of specialized functions of an administrative nature in the building while simultaneously representing the point in the scalar hierarchy where the ?buck stops? within the building unit. (Clark and Meloy 1990, p. 9) 440 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING Within this context people wait to be told what to do. They come to view their interests as the interests of the organization (or not to think in terms of the organization?s interests at all). They have little experience participating in discussions or interactions across work groups. They are not able to design work tasks so that their efforts contribute harmoni- ously to those of all others involved in the same or similar process. The bureaucratic structure of schools may be one of the most formidable barriers to be encountered when attempting to bring about system-level change in schools. In fact, it may be nearly impossible to get people to think about any other structure for organizing schooling: There is an overarching assumption that bureaucracy is an inevitable structural form for work organizations large or complex enough so that daily contact among all employees is impossible. Almost all school sys- tems and the majority of schools meet this criterion. (Clark and Meloy 1990, p. 9) Further complicating this conception of the nature of schools as organizations is the ambiguous role of teachers as both professionals and bureaucrats. Linda Darling-Hammond (1990) describes the prin- ciples of professionalism and suggests why the bureaucratic nature of schooling makes it difficult for such principles to take hold: Professionalism depends not on compensation or status, but on the affirma- tion of three principles in the conduct and governance of an occupation: 1. Knowledge is the basis for permission to practice and for decisions that are made with respect to the unique needs of clients; 2. The practitioner pledges his first concern to the welfare of the clients; 3. The profession assumes collective responsibility for the definition, transmittal and enforcement of professional standards of practice and ethics. These principles outline a view of practice that is client-oriented and knowledge-based. This view also suggests criteria and methods for ac- countability that are based on the competence of practitioners and their effectiveness. Currently the practice of teaching in public schools is not organized to support these principles or modes of accountability. Instead, the bureaucratic organization of schooling and teaching requires practice that is procedure-oriented and rule-based. It enforces accountability based on the job scripts of practitioners and their compliance with task specifica- tions. The individual needs of students are difficult to accommodate in this system. The growth of knowledge in the occupation is difficult to support and sustain. (p. 25, emphasis in original) In such an environment, it might be added, it is also difficult for the system to change. For education to have much of a chance of evolving rapidly, issues of bureaucratic organization, hierarchical relationships, MACROLEVEL CHALLENGES 441 institutional inflexibility, and teacher isolation will have to be ad- dressed. Given people?s difficulty in conceiving of organizational struc- tures other than bureaucracies, addressing these issues will be a chal- lenge. UNDERSTANDING CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMES OF REFERENCE One of the factors that must be considered when attempting to bring about fundamental change in an institution is its culture. The process of school restructuring cannot be thought of simply in terms of changes in organizational structure, or of a proliferation of isolated projects and programs. Ultimately, it must address issues of the culture of the school. Deal (1987) explains why culture is so important as a means to under- stand schools as stable environments: Culture as a construct helps explain why classrooms and schools exhibit common and stable patterns across variable conditions. Internally, culture gives meaning to instructional activity and provides a symbolic bridge between action and results. It fuses individual identity with collective destiny. Externally, culture provides the symbolic facade that evokes faith and confidence among outsiders with a stake in education (Meyer and Rowan 1983). (Deal 1987, p. 6) Understanding the importance and power of culture can help educa- tional leaders attend to the needs that participants in the organization are sure to have in times of rapid change, which evokes powerful psycho- logical responses on the part of many people: Looking at the problem of change through a cultural lens, we see an entirely different picture. Culture is a social invention created to give meaning to human endeavor. It provides stability, certainty, and predict- ability. People fear ambiguity and want assurance that they are in control of their surroundings. Culture imbues life with meaning and through symbols creates a sense of efficacy and control. Change creates existential havoc because it introduces disequilibrium, uncertainty, and makes day-to-day life chaotic and unpredictable. People understandably feel threatened and out of control when their existential pillars become shaky or are taken away. On an even more basic level, change involves existential loss (Marris 1974). People become emotionally attached to symbols and rituals, much as they do to lovers, spouses, children, and pets (Deal, 1985b). When attachments to people or objects are broken through death or departure, people experience a deep sense of loss and grief. Change creates a similar reaction.... People develop attachments to values, heroes, rituals, ceremonies, stories, gossips, storytellers, priests, and other cultural players. When 442 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING change alters or breaks the attachment, meaning is questioned. Often, the change deeply affects those inside the culture as well as those outside.... The existential explanation identifies the basic problems of change in educational organizations as cultural transitions. (Deal 1987, pp. 7-8) Deal suggests that leaders must be adept at confronting the dilem- mas that face organizations, not merely at solving problems. Dilemmas by their nature are insoluble. Leaders, rather than moving from problem to problem, attempt to create meaning by addressing recurring frustra- tions and seemingly unresolvable contradictions in ways that allow the organization to move itself forward and not remain trapped applying the same solutions over and over to problems that do not lend themselves to solution within the current cultural context of the organization: Leaders reframe impossible dilemmas into novel opportunities. Leaders in organizations across all sectors are confronted with many of the same issues that educators now face: (1) How do we encourage meaning and commitment; (2) how do we deal with loss and change; and (3) how can we shape symbols that convey the essence of the enterprise to insiders and outsiders? Educational leaders must create artful ways to reweave organi- zational tapestries from old traditions, current realities, and future visions. This work cannot be done by clinging to old ways, emulating principles from effective schools and excellent companies, or divining futuristic images from what we imagine the next decades will be like. Rather, it takes a collective look backward, inward, and ahead?in education on the part of administrators, teachers, parents, students, and other members of a school community. It is a process of transformation akin to the one that produces a butterfly from a caterpillar?a cocoon of human experience in which past, present, and future are fused together in an organic process.... ... Old practices and other losses need to be buried and commemorated. Meaningless practices and symbols need to be analyzed and revitalized. Emerging visions, dreams, and hopes need to be articulated and celebrated. These are the core tasks that will occupy educational leaders for several years to come. (Deal 1987, pp. 12, 14) School leaders need to be capable of reading school culture if they hope to manage fundamental change successfully. Good ideas are rarely implemented simply because they make sense. Rather, schools tend to accept ideas or programs that are consistent with the existing structure, assumptions, and culture of the school, so that a school that ?believes in? tracking is much more open to a program that makes tracking more effective than one that calls for the abandonment of tracking. The restructuring process calls for the critical examination of fundamental assumptions, practices, and relationships. It implies a movement from bureaucracy to community, from isolation to collaboration. Such changes are cultural changes, not just programmatic changes. MACROLEVEL CHALLENGES 443 Managing culture is an imprecise process that is not easily pre- scribed. This process is part of the art of leadership, knowing when to do what in ways that have an impact on members of the organization, as Deal and Peterson (1990) explain: Reading culture takes several forms: watching, sensing, listening, inter- preting, using all of one?s senses, and even employing intuition when necessary. First, the leader must listen to the echoes of school history.... ... A principal must also listen to the key voices of the present. These people [in the informal leadership network of the school] may be thought of as cultural ?players? in various dramas at the school.... [The cast of characters include:] ? Priests and priestesses?long-time residents who ?minister? to the needs of the school. They take confession, preside over rituals and ceremonies, and link the school to the ways of the past; ? Storytellers?recreate the past and personify contemporary exploits through lore and informal history; ? Gossips?keep everyone current on contemporary matters of impor- tance, as well as trivia of no special merit. They form the informal grapevine that carries information far ahead of formal channels of communication; and ? Spies, counterspies, and moles?carry on subterranean negotiations which keep informal checks and balances among various power centers in the school. Through such covert operations, much of the work of the school is transacted.... ... Most important, the leader must listen for the deeper dreams and hopes the school community holds for the future.... This represents emerging energy the principal can tap and a deep belief system to which he or she can appeal when articulating what the school might become. A principal can get an initial reading of a school by asking these key questions about the founding, traditions, building, current realities, and future dreams of the school: ? How long has the school existed? ? Why was it built, and who were the first inhabitants? ? Who had a major influence on the school?s direction? ? What critical incidents occurred in the past, and how were they resolved, if at all? ? What were the preceding principals, teachers, and students like? ? What does the school?s architecture convey? How is space arranged and used? ? What subcultures exist inside and outside the school? 444 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING ? Who are the recognized (and unrecognized) heroes and villains of the school? ? What do people say (and think) when asked what the school stands for? What would they miss if they left? ? What events are assigned special importance? ? How is conflict typically defined? How is it handled? ? What are the key ceremonies and stories of the school? ? What do people wish for? Are there patterns to their individual dreams? (Deal and Peterson 1990, pp. 16-19) Culture cannot be ignored. No program of change starts with a clean slate. The history of the institution must be recognized and dealt with. The current communication patterns and the implicit, unquestioned assumptions and value systems must be understood and acknowledged. The hopes and aspirations, dreams and fears for the future must be articulated and addressed. Understanding and responding to the school culture seems to be a critical dimension that has to be addressed in the development of a strategy for school restructuring and in the implemen- tation of such a program. Managing the change process within a cultural context is influenced by the frame of reference the leader employs when analyzing the organization. Leaders often have unconscious tendencies to apply one frame of reference through which they tend to explain all of what occurs in the organization, and within which all of their solutions operate. Bolman and Deal (1991) have suggested four frames of reference commonly employed by managers and leaders as they attempt to man- age organizations and bring about changes in them: The structural frame... emphasizes the importance of formal roles and rela- tionships. Structures?commonly depicted by means of organization charts? are created to fit an organization?s environment and technology.... Problems arise when the structure does not fit the situation. At that point, some form of reorganization is needed to remedy the mismatch. The human resources frame... starts with the fundamental premise that organizations are inhabited by individuals who have needs, feelings, and prejudices.... From a human resources perspective, the key to effectiveness is to tailor organizations to people?to find an organizational form that enables people to get the job done while feeling good about what they are doing. The political frame... views organizations as arenas in which different interest groups compete for power and scarce resources.... Problems arise because power is concentrated in the wrong places or because it is so broadly dispersed that nothing gets done. Solutions are developed through political skill and acumen.... The symbolic frame... abandons the assumptions of rationality that appear in the other frames. It treats organizations as tribes, theater, or carnivals. In MACROLEVEL CHALLENGES 445 this view, organizations are cultures that are propelled more by rituals, ceremonies, stories, heroes, and myths than by rules, policies, and managerial authority.... Improvements in rebuilding the expressive or spiritual side of organizations come through the use of symbol, myth, and magic. Each of these frames has its own vision or image of reality. Only when managers, consultants, and policymakers can look through all four are they likely to appreciate the depth and complexity of organizational life. (pp. 15- 16) Restructuring schools, then, is not simply the process of bringing about change in one of these frames while ignoring the others. Structural changes alone, such as forming a new committee or rewriting the role descriptions of department chairs, are not likely to be successful. Nei- ther will activities that simply improve the quality of teacher worklife with no linkage to job performance; in other words, happier teachers are not automatically better teachers. Nor will more adept manipulation of the political system present in the school lead directly to restructuring. Political maneuvering can help or hinder progress but needs linkages to other frames, as well. Careful management of symbol systems, rituals, and myths can also contribute to successful change but does not guaran- tee it in isolation. However, if educators understand that change must occur to some degree in each of these frames, restructuring is more likely to occur and to transform schooling. A leader?s job is to make conscious decisions that have an impact on the culture of the school in a way that makes that culture more amenable to change and more func- tional in its delivery of services to students. FAILURE VS. SUCCESS OF REFORMS Fullan and Miles (1992) and Fullan (1993) describe some of the reasons educational reforms typically fail. School personnel have a better chance of engaging in continuous improvement if they understand seven basic reasons why reform fails and consider seven propositions that could lead to success. The following paragraphs summarize Fullan and Miles?s and Fullan?s ideas in two parts, ?Why Reform Fails? and ?Propositions for Success.? Headings and text in quotes are taken verbatim; all other text has been paraphrased. WHY REFORM FAILS 1. Faulty maps of change. All participants in reform have personal maps that guide their understanding of how change should (or will) unfold. These maps can be accurate or inaccurate. 446 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING 2. Complex problems. Solutions are much more complex than par- ticipants often imagine. This requires a different map than for solving simple problems. 3. Symbols over substance. Reform can be as much a political as an educational process. People get involved in reform for a wide range of motives. The symbols we pick define how reform is interpreted. At the same time, change can easily become only symbolic. It is easier to have symbolic change than substantive change. 4. Impatient and superficial solutions. Many solutions are pseudosolutions. Particularly susceptible are those that focus on struc- tural changes as the answer. They can be launched administratively with little involvement or support by teachers. 5. Misunderstanding resistance. Labeling an action or attitude as ?resistance? can be unproductive since it diverts attention from real problems such as lack of technical skills, insufficient resources, or personal needs or developmental stages of individuals. Resistance can, in fact, be an authentic response that indicates concern about the well- being of children. 6. Attrition of pockets of success. Successful reforms have tended to require enormous effort and energy on the part of an individual or small group of individuals. It is very difficult to sustain this effort over time. Schools cannot stay innovative without continuing outside support that validates their efforts and allows them to be legitimized and institution- alized. 7. Misuse of knowledge about the change process. The change process cannot be reduced to a series of slogans or aphorisms. Reform is systemic and must be based on sound knowledge of change from a systems perspective. PROPOSITIONS FOR SUCCESS 1. Change is learning?loaded with uncertainty. Those who have the power to manipulate change must not disregard the personal change that is required of all who participate in a major change. This lack of sensitivity to the personal growth that others must undergo overlooks or denies the process that the change agent has already gone through to accommodate his or her behavior and world view to the innovation or change. ?In short, anxiety, difficulties, and uncertainty are intrinsic to all successful change.? 2. Change is a journey, not a blueprint. Rational-planning models simply do not work in complex organizations such as schools. While such models can provide useful frameworks for organizing change MACROLEVEL CHALLENGES 447 efforts, implementation involves frequent departure from the constraints of a model, adaptation to local conditions and unexpected events, and a willingness to allow participants to create personal meaning out of the change. Strategy must be a flexible tool and not become an end in itself. 3. Problems are our friends. Effective responses to complex changes in organizations cannot be developed unless there is an acceptance of problems as natural, expected phenomena. There must be a willingness to confront and resolve problems, rather than to deny, ignore, or repress them. Schools that cope with problems successfully make use of coping styles that range from doing little to redesigning the system, retraining staff, or making individuals more capable of dealing with the problems they face. In fact, it appears that schools should assertively pursue problems if they wish to improve continuously. This is another way of saying that conflict is essential to any successful change effort. 4. Change is resource-hungry. ?Every analysis of the problems of change efforts we have seen in the last decade of research and practice has concluded that time is the salient issue.? Time requires additional resources in most cases. In addition to time, assistance in the form of training, coaching, consulting, coordination, and capacity-building is necessary. Such support should be present over a number of years. Schools need to become effective at ?resourcing??scanning the envi- ronment and identifying and acquiring resources by networking, negoti- ating, reworking, or simply grabbing them, when appropriate. It means abandoning notions of self-sufficiency or closed-systems thinking. 5. Change requires the power to manage it. Change must be man- aged. There appear to be several essential ingredients. Cross-role groups (teachers, department heads, administrators, parents, students) may be the most effective means of managing change. These groups need legitimacy, an explicit contract that is widely understood regarding the decisions it can make and the money it can spend. Even if such groups work well, they will still require cooperation, trust, and the ability to live with ambiguity and conflict. Power-sharing is complex and sensitive. It has an impact on the egos of all involved and tends to bring out insecurities in those ?giving up? authority. When power-sharing begins at the school, it can rarely succeed if the district is not closely engaged in the process and does not accept the basic premises of power-sharing. 6. Change is systemic. Change has often meant a ?project mental- ity,? a steady stream of episodic innovations. These programs have tended to come and go without leaving much of a mark on schools. Fundamental change must involve all the main components of the system simultaneously and must focus on culture along with structure, policy, and regulations. Along with restructuring, schools may need to 448 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING engage in ?reculturing.? They need to avoid ad hoc innovations and focus on a thoughtful combination of coordinated, integrated short-, mid-, and long-term strategies. 7. All large-scale change is implemented locally. The six previous points all suggest the obvious: change occurs only when teachers, principals, students, and others at the school site change their behavior. At the same time, the role of agencies that coordinate, assist, or direct groups of schools should not be overlooked. There is, ultimately, a symbiotic relationship between and among these different agencies when it comes to implementing educational change. 8. You can?t mandate what matters: The more complex the change, the less you can force it. While mandates are important in helping educators to move from the status quo, they are no guarantee change will occur. Only things that can be monitored through close surveillance and things that do not require thinking or skill to implement can be mandated effectively. The acid test for innovations is that individuals and groups develop skills and deep understandings in relation to new solutions. Mandates have little chance of accomplishing substantive changes. They may alter some things without creating true change. Effective change agents do not ignore mandates, but use them as catalysts to reexamine what they are doing. 9. Vision and strategic planning come later: Premature visions and planning can blind. A vision is necessary for ultimate success, but the concept is widely misunderstood and misapplied. Visions generally come later since in dynamic, complex settings, reflection on experience is required to focus a vision. Furthermore, vision must be shared, which also requires some experiences. In essence, the process allows for the merger of individual and organizational goals and perceptions into a commonly expressed view of a desired state of being?the vision. 10. Individualism and collectivism must have equal power: There are no one-sided solutions to isolation and groupthink. Isolation must be overcome without succumbing to groupthink. Teaching is inherently isolating as practiced in the United States. The problems educators face are so complex and multifaceted that few of these problems can be solved by individuals. However, groups are vulnerable to faddism and tend to suppress intuition and experiential knowledge. The change process must maintain a healthy respect for individual and personal visions in order to foster organizational learning and interchange of ideas. Groups must perceive conflict as healthy, as a tool to increase creativity and ensure all points of view are considered and examined. 11. Neither centralization nor decentralization works: Both top- down and bottom-up strategies are necessary. With centralization comes MACROLEVEL CHALLENGES 449 the threat of overcontrol; with decentralization, the threat of chaos. Both the organizational center and the local units, the schools, need each other. Learning to balance influence, power, and authority between the two extremes of top-down and bottom-up forces is the challenge of the change agent. 12. Connections with the wider environment are critical: The best organizations learn externally as well as internally. Organizations must have a sense of social good that is broader than any individual?s moral purpose. Teachers must see their work as extending beyond the indi- vidual student to the school as a whole. The school as an organization must be actively plugged into its environment. The school must be capable of scanning the environment for opportunities and threats, and of responding rapidly when either is perceived. The environment must be seen as a source of new ideas and of potential obligations and purposes. The school should be connected to the world. 13. Every person is a change agent: Change is too important to leave to the experts. Since no individual can possibly understand the complexity of change in a dynamic system, the responsibility of under- standing change cannot be delegated; everyone must be party to com- prehending it. Formal leaders cannot work for others, cannot understand and structure change for those less interested in participating in the process. Each individual will have to make significant changes in her or his assumptions, practices, and relationships for change to occur. Adap- tations of procedures and routines are not enough. In the end, change has a moral dimension to it; the goal is to do a better job for children, not to improve the profitability of the company, as it is in the private sector. Moral purpose needs an engine, and that engine is the individual. Although skilled change agents can help facilitate greater involvement, in the end each individual must take ownership of the change process. Other challenges as well face those who would transform schooling. In addition to the systems-level issues and general observations pre- sented up to this point, several issues are more pertinent to change at the school-site level. The following chapter discusses these factors. 450 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING MOVING THE PROCESS FORWARD: SCHOOL- SITE OBSTACLES AND LESSONS 450 CHAPTER 24 There is a tendency when focusing on the need for educational restruc- turing, and the programs that have been developed to respond to this need, to overlook, if even inadvertently, the tremendous obstacles that an average school must overcome to bring about significant change. In this chapter, I acknowledge the difficulty schools face and catalogue some of the barriers that exist. My purpose is not to discourage those considering or involved in educational restructuring, but to provide a more realistic context within which discussions of change can occur, and to acknowledge the difficulty that those who attempt change will face. In this chapter, I first consider nine pitfalls encountered at the building level by schools engaged in restructuring. One of the biggest practical obstacles to restructuring at the school site is lack of time for training, reflection, collaborative planning, and implementation and assessment of changes. I cite strategies that have helped some schools find time for restructuring. The primary need for time is to increase professional development, both to give teachers new skills and to help them construct new understanding of their practice of instruction. The chapter continues with an examination of the critical role of the principal as a leader. The ways in which the principal conceptualizes power and authority have a profound effect on the way change is approached, and on the potential for collective action and ownership of the change process. The chapter concludes with a brief description of how many of the principles and strategies of restructuring mentioned in part 4 have been put into practice in a number of schools. Several lessons can be learned from their experiences. SCHOOL-SITE OBSTACLES AND LESSONS 451 0000000000 * This section is excerpted and adapted from: Conley, David. Lessons from Laboratories in School Restructuring and Site-Based Decision-Making: Oregon?s 2020 Schools Take Control of Their Own Reform. OSSC Bulletin Series. Eugene: Oregon School Study Council, March 1991. NINE PITFALLS OF SCHOOL RESTRUCTURING The nine pitfalls of restructuring presented here* have been gleaned from a study of schools involved in Oregon?s ?2020? program (D. Conley, March 1991) combined with observations collected while work- ing with individual 2020 schools on specific projects. Additional infor- mation has been provided by reports from school sites nationally that have been involved in restructuring long enough to have identified problem areas. Ethnographic research conducted at eight schools that were charter members of the Coalition of Essential Schools also cor- roborates many of these pitfalls (Muncey and McQuillan 1993). All these sources suggest the problems schools are encountering as they attempt the complex process of schoolwide restructuring. Pitfall 1: Lack of a Vision. Many schools approach restructuring in a piecemeal fashion, developing a series of fragmented activities that respond to specific concerns, often those held by a vocal minority of the faculty or based on the latest trends or techniques. Kirst (1991) describes this as ?project-itis.? The importance of general consensus about where the school is going and why cannot be stressed enough. The lack of ?tight coupling? in schools means it is especially important for teachers to have a shared sense of purpose and direction, since so many of their decisions are made in isolation. A common mission helps align the efforts of everyone in the school toward agreed-upon ends and, as a byproduct, reduces resistance among nonbelievers who find themselves at odds with norms and goals established by their colleagues. Pitfall 2: The Time Trap. There is never enough time in education. It is easy for a faculty to become sidetracked on one issue and spend most of their time spinning their wheels trying to resolve it. Successful schools use the vision to direct their energies toward activities that will yield changes and improvements. At the same time they acknowledge that it takes time to implement most new practices, usually several years, and that during the implementation phase there may be a time when efficiency and performance actually decrease. This period, dubbed the ?implementation dip? by Fullan (1991, Fullan and Miles 1992), can be critical because it is during this time that teachers are most apt to return to former ways when new techniques do not go smoothly. Collegial support combined with awareness by change agents of how difficult it 452 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING will be for some people to change seem to be key elements in helping people over the ?implementation dip.? The time trap also has the tendency to burn out highly motivated people, those who emerge to fill newly created leadership roles. They become emotionally invested in the vision and work exceedingly hard to turn it into a reality. However, they are at risk of being overwhelmed by the combination of regular work responsibilities, new duties, and ongo- ing family obligations. Care must be exercised to ensure that these people have the time necessary to be successful, and that they are encouraged to take an occasional break. One way to accomplish this is to spread leadership roles around, using newly developing feelings of collegiality to encourage the sharing of responsibilities and tasks. Pitfall 3: Proceeding Without the Community. It is very easy for educators to overlook the larger community when they undertake change. After all, the professionalization of education over the past fifty years has effectively created barriers against parent and community involve- ment and has reinforced the idea that educators ?know what?s best? for kids. We are finding that this must change, that schools cannot proceed without the involvement or at least tacit support of the community. In some communities it is the parents of those students who are the current ?winners? in the educational system who are the most upset about change (West, July 31, 1991). This stands to reason, though it is often overlooked when school-restructuring projects are being devel- oped. Olson (June 13, 1990) quotes one such parent: ?We?re just not about to let our children be experimented upon,? said Richard Fruland, parent of a student at Parkway South High School, Manchester, Missouri. ?We?ve got parents who feel the school is exem- plary now, that it does an absolutely wonderful job of preparing children and educating them for the future. Whatever changes are needed amount to ?fine tuning?.? (p. 8) Schools undertaking restructuring must be willing to create a sense of urgency for change, both among faculty and community. Once again, the development of a vision helps people to understand why change is occurring and toward what ends. Community members should be in- volved in the process of vision building, and the vision should be communicated regularly to parents at meetings, through publications, and in face-to-face interchanges. Pitfall 4: Questions of Meaning. The lack of a common definition of the term restructuring has been both a blessing and a curse?a blessing in that it has allowed groups as disparate as teachers? unions and school-boards associations to align themselves in a common cause, at least in principle; a curse in that anyone can do almost anything and SCHOOL-SITE OBSTACLES AND LESSONS 453 claim they are restructuring. And they have. This ?anything goes? mentality has tended to devalue the term and has led many teachers to view it with a mixture of caution and cynicism. Observations in selected 2020 schools in Oregon (Goldman, Dunlap, and Conley 1991) suggest that teachers and administrators in these schools do not spend a great deal of time debating the meaning of the term restructuring; these educators do believe, however, that changes must go beyond the superficial. This shared belief expands and is honed as concrete issues of practice are confronted, analyzed, and resolved. A definition of restructuring is built ?on the fly? and modified the same way. One measure of the collegiality present in these schools relates to whether they have developed working definitions of important concepts through a series of formal and informal interactions over time. Pitfall 5: Rose-Colored Glasses Syndrome. Too many schools underestimate the difficulty of bringing about substantial change of the type implied by the term restructuring. Particularly when restructuring is viewed as a series of projects, it is common for principals in particular to miscalculate the amount of time and energy necessary to achieve meaningful, sustained change, and the amount of resistance such a process engenders. Perhaps this is why in many schools that describe themselves as ?restructured? an outsider sees no substantial change. Pitfall 6: Governance as an End in Itself. The plethora of literature on site-based management and decentralized decision-making that ap- peared in the late eighties led many to believe that structural changes in decision-making alone would magically transform education, unleash- ing its pent-up potential for improvement. This remains an unsupported assumption. Instead, many faculties are bogged down in the minutiae of partici- patory decision-making, without knowing why it was instituted or what purpose it is supposed to serve (Strauber, Stanley, and Wagenknecht 1990). In many cases, site-based management was a solution in search of a problem; in the absence of real reasons for teachers to make decisions, or substantial resources for them to control, these new struc- tures focused on maintenance issues and concerns over quality of teacher work life. Changes in governance structure should be under- taken to achieve program goals that cannot be achieved with the current structure. Pitfall 7: Measuring New Learning with Old Tools. Assessment is a difficult problem at this point in the restructuring movement. There is general agreement that the current measures of student learning are both inadequate and inappropriate for restructured educational environments with new goals and standards, and that development of new methods of 454 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING assessment must be a high priority. However, it is extremely hard psychologically and practically for educators to abandon traditional testing systems. The result is that as schools attempt to recreate them- selves, they continue to measure their effectiveness and success against old benchmarks and with old tools. Development of alternative assessment technologies is proceeding under the sponsorship of a number of organizations (?Who?s Who...? October 23, 1991; Rothman, March 13, 1991). Within the next several years many of these methods will be available. As they arrive online, educators will be challenged to discard the old techniques. Accomplish- ing this change will require extensive education of teachers and commu- nity members. Those schools actively engaged in restructuring must reconcile themselves to surviving during this phase when their programs are under the greatest scrutiny and when they lack the means to demon- strate their successes and learn from their failures. Pitfall 8: Analysis Paralysis. One of the striking features of the current interest in school restructuring is the number of schools that have established ?restructuring committees? or some other group charged with investigating this phenomenon. Many, perhaps most, of these committees are composed of teachers who are excited by the prospects for change. They read articles, discuss and debate, meet with experts and consultants, and visit other schools. They analyze their own school by conducting interviews, taking surveys, and analyzing trends. They de- velop a very good understanding of the issues and options associated with school restructuring. The moment of truth arrives when it is time for the faculty to respond to the recommendations or observations of this committee. Will they act, or will they continue to study the process? Very often faculties demand more information or study before agreeing to any changes. The net result is to study the situation to death. The energy and enthusiasm for change dissipate before meaningful change is undertaken. The storm subsides and the school continues along the path of the status quo, with its rationale for not changing firmly intact. Pitfall 9: Isolating the Innovators. The previous pitfall illustrates the difficulty innovators have in traditional school settings. While some are frustrated by being trapped in the ?analysis loop,? others are con- trolled by directing their energies to one program or area of the building where they are literally segregated from the rest of the faculty. This solution is seen most often in the form of schools-within-schools or special programs for at-risk students. These arrangements allow the appearance of a changed structure while leaving the core of the aca- demic program untouched. SCHOOL-SITE OBSTACLES AND LESSONS 455 A strong argument can be made for using these separate programs as a sort of ?research and development? environment within schools, where new ideas can be tried, refined, and modeled for the rest of the faculty. This strategy will work only in places where all faculty agree that the lessons learned in these ?lab? settings will be applied to the total school program eventually. Getting such an agreement is not always easy. Most teachers are content to allow their colleagues to engage in experiments as long as they themselves are not compelled to change as a result of such experiments. If restructuring is to occur, the work of innovative, ?pioneering? teachers must have an effect on the total school program eventually. If this doesn?t occur, these pioneers will burn out and the traditional structure will reassert itself. These observations on the pitfalls of restructuring represent initial, tentative conclusions. They suggest that most of what is being labeled as ?restructuring? might better be categorized as ?tinkering.? Ultimately, restructuring is a high-risk, high-stakes activity that may be alien to public schools, most of which are not prepared to deal with rapid upheaval, reallocation of resources, redistribution of power, and refor- mulation of values. The early pioneers are learning these lessons. The difficulties presented in this chapter are daunting. Is it possible to change public schools? In the next chapter, I offer some suggestions for making such a process comprehensible and developing a plan for proceeding in the face of the types of obstacles discussed previously. I examine ways to understand and perhaps influence the critically impor- tant culture of the school. Principals can have a significant effect upon the culture and practices of a school, and readiness and vision-building can be important tools for systems awareness and fundamental change in schools. FINDING THE TIME TO RESTRUCTURE No discussion of how to move toward restructuring would be complete without reference to the need for additional time for planning, interaction, and discussion to create vision, generation of new learning structures, and development of new instructional skills through staff training. Adequate time must be found to allow teachers to develop vision, modify and implement programs that spring from vision, and create the collegiality that is so vital for restructuring to succeed. Since restructuring as defined in this book means fundamental changes in assumptions, practices, and relationships, it is clear that for most people this means they will need considerable time and support to examine their assumptions, change their practices, and rethink their 456 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING relationships. Rarely does a program of restructuring allot adequate time to the examination of deeply held, unquestioned beliefs, to the painstak- ing development of new teaching skills and materials, and to the cre- ation of new networks and interaction patterns necessary to support the kinds of changes in veteran professionals that are desired. SOME COMMONLY EMPLOYED STRATEGIES TO GET MORE TIME Some districts and schools have attempted to create additional time through a variety of strategies. Most common is the lengthening of the school day by five to ten minutes on four days to allow for early release of students on one day. This additional twenty to forty minutes can then be used by teachers to plan. As meager an amount of time as this may seem, even an arrangement such as this can help overburdened teachers find time on a regular basis to do the foundation and detail work needed to make restructuring occur. Other schools start later in the day. One middle school begins its classes at 9:00 to allow teachers time to meet and plan each morning before school. Block scheduling, discussed earlier, provides teachers with ninety minutes of planning time daily. The four-period day employed with block schedules means that each teacher has preparation time either first thing in the morning, the last period of the day, or on either side of a fifty-minute lunch period. The proximity to these additional periods of unscheduled time has the effect in practice of expanding the functional length of these ninety-minute preparation periods. In addition, during each period of the four-period day, one-fourth of the faculty are avail- able to meet together. Careful and thoughtful assignment of prep periods can allow groups of teachers to meet together regularly throughout the year. Innovative scheduling has helped some schools to create common prep periods or even to double prep periods for teachers involved in restructuring projects. In schools where schedules are freed from tradi- tional five-day per-week class meetings, it would be possible to com- bine all of a teacher?s prep time into one morning (or afternoon), allowing three to four hours of uninterrupted work time. Granted, it would require the teacher to rethink how this time would be used (if it became a time for marathon grading of papers, little would have been accomplished). Nevertheless, such innovative approaches offer possi- bilities to reclaim time that already exists in the day. SCHOOL-SITE OBSTACLES AND LESSONS 457 Schools where team teaching is possible and where project-centered or community-based learning is practiced offer other possibilities. When teachers are truly collaborative, they can reallocate students to free a few members of the faculty to plan. Similarly, when students are on a trip or working on a project in a structured way, parent volunteers can often help while one or more teachers are given time to work on restructuring- related activities. Summer represents a tremendous, though problematic, opportunity. When people apply the metaphor of ?rebuilding the airplane in flight? to describe school-restructuring activities, they overlook the fact that the airplane is actually grounded three consecutive months out of each year. This is time when it is possible to accomplish a great deal. There are deep-seated objections to mandating all teachers to remain on campus in the summer. However, other creative strategies can be employed. Many states require recertification credit for teachers, and most districts provide salary increases to teachers as they acquire more college credits. During any given summer many faculty members are taking classes, but their individual efforts may or may not be helping the school achieve its restructuring goals. The simple act of organizing a class that specifically addresses a school?s restructuring needs can be an inexpensive technique for creating more common planning time during the summer. Attendance at summer conferences by teams of faculty members offers another low-cost, highly effective vehicle for moving restructuring forward. Summer-school programs might offer another possibility. Such programs can be self-sufficient (or close to it) and can serve as ?research and development labs? where new teaching techniques, organizational structures, assessment techniques, or uses of technology can be prac- ticed and studied. Rather than repeating Intro to Math, these programs can be designed to attract a wide range of students, including the talented and gifted. They can be based on the fact that they are interest- ing and motivating to students, not that they simply offer remedial courses. Many communities have parents, children, and other govern- mental agencies that would be interested in such an option being avail- able. Many schools run into a different sort of problem when they attempt to achieve change by releasing teachers from their classes during the school year. So many teachers are out of their classrooms working on projects or visiting other sites that it seems the school is being run by substitutes. This creates anxiety for teachers and occasionally resent- ment by students and parents. When such a contingency can be antici- pated, schools can recruit and train a group of substitutes, bringing them 458 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING in (with pay) to attend beginning-of-the-year meetings where the school program is explained, having them meet students and become ac- quainted with the curriculum and school program, and even attending back-to-school nights so that parents become familiar with them. While there is some cost to training and preparing a team of substitutes in this fashion, the results generally outweigh the expense. EARLY-RELEASE DAYS Early-release days are common (and sometimes controversial) strat- egies for gaining more time for restructuring. Boards of education and parents may tend to look on such days with suspicion, assuming they are ?working vacations? for staff. Several strategies help reduce this reac- tion. First, identify these days as far ahead as is practical and publish them frequently. Ideally, dates should be identified before school starts and reminders sent home regularly. Second, publicize and explain to parents and board members the topics and activities that form the focus for each release day. At the same time, demonstrate the linkage of these activities to school and district goals, along with their linkage to im- proved practice as demonstrated by research. Third, invite parents and encourage them to attend these sessions. It takes only a few parents saying that such sessions are worthwhile to quiet the criticism of many. Fourth, keep staff on school grounds during school hours. Some teachers may find this suggestion offensive. How- ever, nothing will cause more problems in many communities than to have several teachers seen going out to lunch on an early-release day, regardless of how justifiable it is from the educators? perspective. Fifth, make provisions for child care and activities for those families who legitimately cannot find someone to watch their children. Normally community volunteers and perhaps one or more substitute teachers who are properly certified can provide coverage in the library, gym, or other areas of the school where structured activities can be organized. With a bit of planning, teachers can build these activities into their curriculums in such a way that kids have meaningful things to do on these days. Sixth, make arrangements with community agencies to have things to do for those kids who will leave school. Swimming pools, libraries, recreation centers, private child-care providers, and anyone else offer- ing services to children should know when you are having early-release days. Many may plan special activities for students from your school, and some may even provide transportation. SCHOOL-SITE OBSTACLES AND LESSONS 459 Seventh, build tasks into the curriculum that students can do on release days. Various types of project-centered learning meet this crite- rion. Community-based internships and various service-learning pro- grams offer chances for students to be occupied productively during early-release days. Will these arrangements completely eliminate community resis- tance to early-release days? Probably not, particularly if the school?s restructuring program is not well known in the community. However, if these suggestions are followed and if energy is put into informing the community of both the need to change schools and the careful, thought- ful plan the school is following to accomplish this change and improve their children?s education, such reactions can be kept to an absolute minimum. At the same time, teachers often feel less guilty about their decreased contact with students if it can be shown that the time faculty spends working on restructuring is not ?wasted? by students. TIME IN ASIAN SCHOOLS When we compare our practices with those of other nations, our fundamental assumptions often become clearer. One common assump- tion of American educators is that class size should be kept as small as possible by having as many adults as possible engaged with children at any given moment. Another is that behavior management becomes more difficult as the number of students increases. Still another is that teacher planning is essentially a solitary activity. Planning, or ?prep? time, for all teachers has only been added during the past twenty to thirty years in most schools, and it is generally allocated daily in small blocks, perhaps thirty to forty-five minutes. This fragmented approach to planning all but guarantees that teachers are unable to use this time to do much other than grade papers and prepare the next lesson. When practices in Asian schools are examined, it becomes clear that there are ways to gain large amounts of time, particularly if some of the assumptions cited above are challenged. Stevenson and Stigler (1992) describe a discussion they had with teachers in Beijing regarding teach- ers? workday issues: When we informed the Chinese teachers that American elementary school teachers are responsible for their classes all day long, with only an hour or less outside the classroom each day, they looked incredulous. How could any teacher be expected to do a good job when there is no time outside of class to prepare and correct lessons, work with individual children, consult with other teachers, and attend to all the matters that arise in a typical day at school! Beijing teachers teach no more than three hours a day, unless the 460 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING teacher is a homeroom teacher, in which case the total is four hours. During the first three grades the teaching assignment includes both reading and mathematics; for the upper three grades of elementary school, teachers specialize in one of these subjects. They spend the rest of their day at school carrying out all their other responsibilities to their students and to the school. The situation is similar in Japan. According to our estimate, Japanese elementary school teachers are in charge of classes only 60 percent of the time they are at school. In fact, Japanese law limits the amount of time a teacher may spend in front of a classroom to twenty-three hours for a six-day week?no more than four hours a day. Large amounts of nonteaching time at school are available to Asian teachers for two reasons. The first is the larger class size. By having more students in each class but the same number of teachers in the school, all teachers can have a lower teaching load.... Although class sizes are large, the overall ratio of students to teachers within a school does not differ greatly from that in the United States. The second factor increasing the time available to Japanese and Chi- nese teachers is the greater number of hours they spend at school each day. Teachers in Sendai, Beijing, and Taipei spent an average of 9.5, 9.7, and 9.1 hours per day, respectively, compared to only 7.3 hours for the Ameri- can teachers. Asian teachers arrive at school early and stay late, which gives them time to meet together and to work with children who need extra help. Most American teachers, in contrast, arrive at school shortly before classes begin and leave not long after they end. This does not necessarily result in a shorter work week for American teachers. What it does mean is that they must devote their evenings and weekends to schoolwork. (pp. 163-64) I expect that most American teachers would object to adopting the Asian model, but not necessarily because they would not want to spend more hours at school. American teachers, by and large, are competent and hard-working. But many would find it hard to let go of the notion that the best, perhaps only, solution to all educational problems is smaller class size. Teachers and parents tend to accept as dogma that smaller is better. Getting them to question this assumption and to explore alternative organizational and grouping arrangements will be quite difficult in many cases. Part of the challenge is to get away from thinking in terms simply of smaller versus larger classes. Alternative instructional arrangements are possible, as was suggested in previous chapters. For example, children can take more responsibility for themselves and for other children. Other strategies allow different types of adults to work with groups of children in varying capacities, instead of all interaction being controlled by certified teachers. SCHOOL-SITE OBSTACLES AND LESSONS 461 In summary, time must be provided to support the types of changes being suggested as necessary for education to adapt to the needs of the twenty-first century. Major companies recognize the need to provide time and resources for change, and often take charges against their profits to acknowledge the time and money that must be allocated for a major change to take place. Schools do not seem to have factored time into the change equation, at least not before the fact. More often, a change is identified and provisions for finding the time to master the necessary skills are addressed later. Adelman and Pringle (1995) studied fourteen schools that applied a wide range of approaches to ?breaking the mold in structuring and using time in education.? Their study concluded that most mainstream administrators, school boards, and taxpayers underesti- mate how much time is needed for school faculty members to individually and collectively imagine and examine radically different conditions of schooling; to coordinate efforts to experiment and then institutionalize the most worthwhile, discard the unacceptable, and refine the rest; and to maintain simultaneously the daily functioning of the school.... The single obstacle that... has not [been] surmounted is a lack of time. Some schools in this study completely overlooked the need for time to rethink and restructure the educational environment, while others recog- nized time as a central issue and made efforts to address it. But across all sites, the process of school reform has taken more time than was initially allocated to it. (p. 29) If schools are to change successfully (and continuously), the time needed for change will have to be built into the structure of schooling in any of several ways, including changes to the daily, weekly, yearly, and vacation schedules and greater use of sabbaticals, collaborative and team-teaching models, parent volunteers, project learning, student offsite learning, and other strategies that free up teachers during the school day. In the end the challenge will be for educators to stop doing some of the things they do now so they can find time to adopt new methods. The trick will be to eliminate certain practices as new ones are adopted. Time can be found as well as saved. If all change is thought of as additive, the needs of time can never be met. If new activities and programs replace old ones, time can often be found by eliminating an activity that is time- consuming but not necessarily very efficient or effective. A careful review of current practice can often identify activities that take up much teacher and administrator time but yield little in terms of improved student performance. Schools will need to be ready to make the difficult decisions to give up some things that are familiar and routine if they are to gain more flexibility with the finite resource of time. 462 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT When time can be found, the primary use of it will be for profes- sional development. Any change in schooling will require teachers to be trained or retrained (using the traditional language of inservices) and will be more effective if teachers construct their own understandings and make individual applications to practice (using the new language of constructivist professional development). Teachers will need both: spe- cific skill training along with opportunities to process and apply new understandings and techniques individually and collectively. The notion of teacher training has undergone a metamorphosis over the past thirty years. One-shot inservices or unrelated summer courses at the local college (to progress on the pay scale) once were the dominant and accepted mode of skill improvement. Then came the ?staff develop- ment? phase of the 1980s when districts or schools adopted structured programs such as Madeline Hunter?s Mastery Teaching. Application- oriented approaches like peer coaching grew in favor as teachers began to have more control over interpreting knowledge in practice. This trend culminated with programs in the 1990s that focused squarely on teacher knowledge-generation and interpretation. Darling-Hammond (1996) recaps some recent attitudes toward teacher professional development: As recently as 10 years ago, the idea that teacher knowledge was critical for educational improvement had little currency. Continuing a tradition begun at the turn of the 20th century, policymakers searched for the right set of test prescriptions, textbook adoptions, and curriculum directives to be packaged and mandated to guide practice. Educational reform was ?teacher proofed? with hundreds of pieces of legislation and thousands of discrete regulations prescribing what educators should do. More recent efforts differ from past strategies that did not consider how ideas would make it from the statehouse to the schoolhouse. New initia- tives are investing in the front lines of education. Policymakers increas- ingly realize that regulations cannot transform schools; only teachers, in collaboration with parents and administrators, can do that. (p. 5) Activities such as action research, reflective practice, inquiry, jour- nal writing, and others that revolve around the teacher as knowledge generator are much more common components of school-based profes- sional-development programs. The aims of this type of development are to enable the teacher to be a self-sufficient learner who is less dependent on external ?experts,? and to enable the school to become a ?learning organization? so that it nurtures and sustains teacher growth and devel- opment on a continuing basis. SCHOOL-SITE OBSTACLES AND LESSONS 463 The other important change in professional development in the 1990s is a focus back on subject knowledge and academic disciplines as the basic organizers for professional development. While generic peda- gogical techniques remain important, recent understanding of how stu- dents process new knowledge has led to more subject-focused develop- ment models (Brophy 1992). Acquarelli and Mumme (1996) describe the importance of profes- sional development to the Middle Grades Mathematics Renaissance project, a component of the California Alliance for Mathematics and Science, a State Systemic Initiative funded by the National Science Foundation. The project uses professional development as its central strategy to help middle schools transform mathematics programs so that all students become capable with mathematics. The project encom- passes 1,650 teachers from 420 schools participating year-round in work focused on professional development, including discussing mathematics reform, experiencing hands-on mathematics, learn- ing how to teach new state-of-the-art curriculum ?replacement? units, and exploring the conditions that create the opportunities for learning [math- ematics]. (Acquarelli and Mumme, p. 479) The project employs a multidimensional, multilevel model of pro- fessional development that acknowledges the varied needs for support teachers have when adopting dramatically different or unfamiliar teach- ing techniques. One critical lesson for us has been that change requires teachers to become part of a professional learning community. The Professional Teaching Standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics call for ?classrooms as mathematical communities.? Likewise, we believe that teachers need to belong to learning communities that place inquiry at the center and that focus on building capacity for further learning. Experience has shown that faculty members rarely have opportunities to engage in professional dialogue with other faculty members, let alone with col- leagues beyond the school walls. The Renaissance fosters conversations in individual schools about the teaching and learning processes. Each school is also part of a cluster, which promotes interaction with teachers from other schools, often within the same district. Teachers participate as well in a network of teachers from schools throughout a broad geographic region, which increases their opportunities for exposure to diverse ideas. And they are part of a statewide network of educators that provides momentum and widespread support for change.... (p. 481) [We have also learned] that professional development must be grounded in classroom practice. The real hope for making broad-scale changes lies in the ability to tie the professional discussions and examinations to what?s going on in classrooms. Teachers must experience reforms in their own 464 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING classrooms and have opportunities to grapple with the difficulties that arise. Focusing the talk on curricular units has been particularly helpful to the process. Teachers have attended unit workshops and then taught the units while cluster leaders observed them. They?ve brought questions, concerns, and successes to their cluster meetings and shared their students? work with their colleagues. Their experience with alternative curricula has prompted examination, inquiry, and collaboration. This approach has allowed teachers to be exposed to big mathematical ideas in coherent, practical-sized chunks?pieces small enough to seem manageable to even the most reticent. (Acquarelli and Mumme, p. 482) Licklider (1997) offers a general and more ?comprehensive model of faculty development? and describes how it operates hypothetically: The model of faculty development is driven by what participants already know. It begins where faculty members are and recognizes their prior knowledge and experience. The goal is to help faculty members move from where they are to where research says they would be more effective by providing opportunities to try more effective behaviors and reconstruct knowledge about the target area of development. Large-group sessions introduce new strategies and provide opportuni- ties to practice and process in safe settings. Expanded learning opportuni- ties increase chances to shape new skills and reflect on effects and mean- ing. Both learning opportunities help participants modify assumptions, beliefs, and behaviors. The ?meanings? participants bring to each target area are challenged by research identifying behaviors that have a positive effect on the ultimate outcome and by participants? experiences in the classroom. As they be- come more effective in one aspect of the target area, participants challenge other beliefs and assumptions. The content of the program thus addresses aspects of the target area for school renewal when raised by participants. Program goals and objectives focus on behaviors that have a positive effect. The safe environment encourages participant interaction and ex- perimentation with alternative behaviors. Educational developers also help transfer control to participants and ultimately become participants in the program. Effective support from the principal encourages participation and risk taking. Incorporated within the model are practical applications of three in- sights from research about learning identified by Leinhardt (1992): ? There are different kinds and amounts of knowledge. ? Prior knowledge influences how one constructs meaning and processes new information. ? Learning is a social act. All have important implications for helping educators learn, and the model honors the potential impact of the lessons about learning. (Licklider, p. 18) SCHOOL-SITE OBSTACLES AND LESSONS 465 Joyce and Calhoun (1996) present the lessons learned from studying successful school-improvement processes in five schools where profes- sional development was addressed extensively and effectively. In this research-grounded model of school improvement, professional devel- opment is primarily a process of inquiry. The model is ?a reprise of the trends of the times.? The focus is on the school?s capacity to improve the learning capability of the students and the faculty. The process is one of school-based inquiry, involves the total faculty, builds community, serves to increase student learning through the study of instruction and curriculum, and seeks to provide a nurturant organization through collective study of the health of the school. (p. 180) Professional development is another critical linchpin in the restruc- turing process. There is no simple model or program that will work in all schools. Instead, schools will need to focus development on those areas most closely linked to successful classroom practice, and generally grounded in an academic discipline. Teachers will need more than instruction in a new technique. They will require opportunities to under- stand, practice, and refine the technique. They will need to visit and compare experiences with other teachers engaged in similar tasks. They will need training that they can apply directly in the classroom but that is not simply prescriptive. They will benefit from membership and participation in networks that allow them to connect with like-minded colleagues within a district, region, or state. These new models of professional development are demanding, but have shown they can result in successful adoption and implementation of new teaching techniques, something that cannot be said for much of the training offered over the past thirty years. Restructuring schools will want to become adept at nurturing professional development on a variety of levels. THE CRITICAL ROLE OF THE PRINCIPAL Principals remain a key variable in modifying school culture and guiding the change process (Dwyer 1984 and 1986, Fullan 1985, Smith and Andrews 1989). However, many principals are unable to see how they will be successful in a new organizational structure where they may not be at the center of power. Hallinger, Murphy, and Hausman (1991) report that ?principals viewed the effects of restructuring on themselves almost exclusively in terms of power. They forecast new roles with fewer decisions to make by themselves leading to a loss of control and power.? 466 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING Bredeson (1991) considers principals? reactions to restructuring from the perspective of role anxiety. He discusses the degree to which ?role strain? caused stress among the principals he studied. Even under the most optimal of conditions, shifts in role and in role expectations produce varying degrees of role strain, defined... as acute affective/cognitive disturbance for an individual role holder manifested as anxiety, discomfort, uneasiness, perplexity and/or general distress.... The responses to interview questions revealed that each of these princi- pals was experiencing varying states and levels of anxiety manifested in feelings of having lost control, fear of failure, self-doubts about personal competence and ability to be successful, impatience and frustration, loss of identity, and increased feelings of uncertainty brought about by significant changes in their professional worklife. The whole notion of letting go of one set of professional functions and identities while learning others was described as risky, wearisome, and frustrating. (pp. 10-11) One key link in restructuring may be to enable principals to see what their new roles will look like, and to help them to develop the skills necessary to be successful in these new roles. While this same recom- mendation also applies to teachers, it may be overlooked in the case of principals, who are expected, in many cases, to be largely responsible for their own professional growth and development. Given the ability of the principal to make or break innovations in schools, it is critical for them to see how they can be ?winners? in any restructured system. The notion of principals and teachers as fellow voyagers in this journey toward restructured schools suggests new relationships between them, as outlined in part 2. The National LEADership Network Study Group on Restructuring Schools (Mojkowski and Bamberger 1991), in its study of how to develop leaders for restructuring schools, lists twelve activities in which such leaders should engage. These activities appear to be consistent with those being practiced by principals in schools where the process of restructuring has been observed (Louis and Miles 1990; Goldman, Dunlap, and Conley 1993). Leaders, says the study group, do the following: ? Create dissonance. Using a variety of methods, new leaders constantly remind staff and others of the gap between the vision that they have for their children and their current actions and accomplishments. They use this dissonance to create a press for improvement. ? Prepare for and create opportunities. They exhibit a constructive and creative opportunism. They pursue opportunities that will move the school closer to the accomplishment of its mission and ignore those that do not. ? Forge connections and create interdependencies. They create new roles and relationships. They dismantle the egg-crate structure of schools and SCHOOL-SITE OBSTACLES AND LESSONS 467 create opportunities and processes to connect teachers within and across disciplines and to connect people inside and outside of the school community to one another. By skillfully creating interdependencies, leaders create the consensus for understanding and action that is required in restructuring environments. The analogy to an orchestra leader is often employed to describe the subtle ways in which these leaders bind independent entrepreneurs to a shared vision and mission. ? Encourage risk taking. School people typically are uncomfortable with taking risks. Premature and arbitrary judgments too often inhibit creativ- ity and risk taking. Leaders of restructuring schools create environments and conditions that provide increased comfort with making mistakes and learning from them. These leaders protect risk takers from premature judgments of failure. ? Follow as well as lead. Leaders recreate themselves throughout the organization, nurturing leadership behaviors in all staff. They lead through service rather than position, providing support and good ?follow-ship? to ad hoc leaders. ? Use information. Administrators in restructuring environments use a wide variety of information about student and organizational perfor- mance. They are clear communicators who use multiple channels for accessing and distributing information. They create new ways to think about and measure the growth and productivity of learners and the learning process. Leaders use research and practice information to guide innovation and change. They monitor and document the implementation process. ? Foster the long view. Impatience is a prominent American virtue with serious side-effects. Leaders know when and how to delay judgment, tolerate and learn from interim set-backs, and invest for long-term yields. They know ?when to hold them, and when to fold them,? guided by their sense of mission and strategic direction. They work incremen- tally within a comprehensive design of restructuring, guided by their vision of learners and learning. The special requirements of restructur- ing?moving incrementally within a comprehensive design?require a highly skilled leader and facilitator. ? Acquire resources. They are particularly adept at resource acquisition and distribution and finding flexible resources through competitive grants and assistance from businesses and community organizations. They practice resource reallocation and cost containment. They have a simultaneous macro- and micro-orientation, identifying pockets of readi- ness and resistance and allocating resources accordingly. They find time for staff to plan and develop. ? Negotiate for win-win outcomes. They work constructively and cre- atively with teacher representatives within the collective bargaining agreement. They use the collective bargaining process to forge new professional agreements dealing with the teaching and learning process. 468 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING ? Employ change strategies. The research on change management con- tains ample tools for analysis and intervention. Leaders are skilled in analyzing concerns and levels of commitment. They configure the right mix of strategies and tactics to keep new undertakings on track through all stages of an improvement effort. These leaders are change strategists, recognizing the dynamics of their organization and determining the potential for change. ? Provide stability in change. The elimination function (the deliberate abandonment of elements of the organization that have not worked previously) needs to be accompanied by a framework that provides stability while the changes are taking place. Restructuring leaders con- struct a scaffolding for the organization and its people so that they can experiment with new ideas, take risks, and dismantle some aspects of the organization without losing a sense of the overall framework in which they are working. These leaders provide order and direction in an ambiguous and uncertain environment. ? Grow people while getting the work accomplished. Formal staff devel- opment is only one means of developing staff and others in the school community. Often the most powerful learning is accomplished while meaningful work is being done. Leaders help staff to move, in their thinking and behavior, beyond the limits of their own experience. They create self-managing and self-learning groups and invest heavily in staff development. They identify and nurture potential leaders to ensure that the foundation for restructuring will endure beyond their tenure. (Mojkowski and Bamberger 1991, pp. 28-31) Sagor?s (1992) study of three principals who ?make a difference? suggests that simply assigning more authority to principals in the ab- sence of role redefinition is unlikely to lead to major educational improvements. Principals need to be in the business of developing a clear, unified focus, creating a common cultural perspective, and sup- porting a constant push for improvement. This new style of leadership may have as its hallmark the ability of the leader to sublimate her or his ego to the collective needs and potentialities of the organization. This does not mean surrendering decision-making responsibility or adopting a laissez-faire style of lead- ership. It does suggest a very difficult balancing act requiring the principal to have a vision of education, but allowing that vision to be shaped and modified by others. The ultimate goal is to have one collec- tive vision with broad ownership that incorporates elements of the principal?s vision and of other members of the school community. Sergiovanni (1990) describes this new style as leadership by bond- ing, where the leader, having aroused human potential, satisfied higher needs, and raised expectations of leader and followers, then arouses awareness and consciousness that ?elevates organizational goals and SCHOOL-SITE OBSTACLES AND LESSONS 469 purposes to the level of a shared covenant and bonds together leader and followers in a moral commitment? (p. 25). The model is one of shared commitment and vision. This can be very difficult to accomplish in environments where the principal is ?in charge? and is the primary, or sole, source of direction for school improvement or change. LESSONS FROM OREGON?S ?2020? SCHOOLS Goldman, Dunlap, and Conley (1991, 1993) studied selected schools that appeared to be restructuring with some success. These schools were all participants in a state-sponsored competitive grant process?known as the ?2020 program??that awarded funds for school improvement. The study identified four key conditions within the program that sup- ported successful school-site restructuring. In these schools staff were found to be ready, the principal was supportive, some sort of common ?vision? was shared, and the ?system? did not get in the way. These schools were adaptive. They were experimental. Their direc- tions may have originally been rooted in someone else?s ?master plan? for reform, but they were modified again and again to meet the needs of the specific site. These school people were free to determine their own directions as events unfolded. They were able to develop and implement nonstandardized solutions to school reform. The Oregon Legislature empowered teachers by requiring that they both write the 2020 grant proposals and administer the subsequently approved projects. These constraints encouraged the creation of an environment in which teachers and administrators could develop the skills and behaviors necessary to share decision-making responsibili- ties. The projects provided school staffs with real reasons to solve problems, seek consensus, and communicate. There is clear evidence that these schools were actively involved in decision-making around the central variables of restructuring (learner outcomes, curriculum, instruction, and assessment) and that this in- volvement was integrally related to the success of the projects they undertook (D. Conley, March 1991). Principals and teachers in the 2020 schools appear to have developed the capacity for?and expectation of?central involvement in determining the goals and conditions of their work. The collaborative site vision-building process forced teachers and principals to spend time sharing ideas and talking to one another about school goals. The discussion of common goals provided guidelines for decision-making that were legitimate in educators? minds and that 470 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING apparently allowed principals to feel more comfortable about ceding some of their traditional areas of authority to teachers. Facilitative leadership, especially by the principal (see chapter 18), made significant contributions to the changes that emerged in the 2020 schools. Facilitative leadership was important because people?not reforms, not regulations, not rules?were key to achieving significant change in these schools. In these successful projects, educators shared power in ways that made greater sense to them. They operated outside the structure of traditional hierarchical power relationships. This study also hinted that state legislatures, or even individual school districts, may be successful using small amounts of money on a competitive basis continually to encourage innovation and experimenta- tion, a sort of ongoing ?Hawthorne effect? to help support risk-taking and experimentation in schools. At the same time, unless careful atten- tion is paid to creating the proper conditions, legislative support for site- based reform can as easily lead to doing nothing, or worse, as it can to opening the way to successful local adaptation. This description of the 2020 schools helps integrate some of the themes presented through part 4. Issues of leadership, vision, culture, and system alignment were addressed in these schools in ways that allowed them to change rather rapidly and successfully. Their experi- ence provides a glimpse at some of the conditions that need to be in place to enhance the success of schools that choose to take the ?next step? on the road to restructuring. WHERE ARE WE HEADED? CHAPTER 25 471 Where is all this pressure for change in education leading? What do we know about current efforts to redesign schools radically? What would schooling and schools look like if the type of restructuring described in this book were to take place? This chapter briefly entertains each of those questions as a jumping-off point for schools that wish to engage in serious conversations about changing the way they do busi- ness. WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT RESTRUCTURING? Although few, if any, schools have completely restructured, we do know something about the effects some educational changes have had in schools. As early as 1993, results were being reported from an evaluation of a group of schools in the Jefferson County Public Schools in Louisville, Kentucky. These schools had received intensive professional develop- ment of teachers and administrators directly linked to the innovations being put into place in the school. An evaluation by Regina M. J. Kyle, president of the Kyle Group, divided the district?s 131 schools into three groups: those that had made a sustained commitment to school restruc- turing over a three- to five-year period; those that had adopted a series of often-unrelated projects; and those that had made few changes. Fifty- two schools were then studied. Schools in the first group were paired with schools in the other two and standardized-test scores were com- pared. The study found that, across all levels of education, schools engaged in systemic reform outperformed both sets of comparison schools. ? [Restructuring] schools increased the percentage of students above the 50th percentile on the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills [C.T.B.S.] 88 percent of the time, compared with 50 percent of the time for students in [unrelated projects] schools and 58 percent for those in [status quo] schools. ? Students in [restructuring] schools improved at an average rate of 8.3 percent a year on the C.T.B.S., compared with 2.6 percent for those 472 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING in [the unrelated projects schools] and 5.5 percent for those in [status quo schools]. ? Rates of student attendance, parent and student satisfaction, and parental involvement increased?and student-suspension and -re- tention rates decreased?83 percent of the time in [restructuring] schools. In [unrelated project] schools and [status quo] schools, the rates in the two categories improved 44 percent and 50 percent of the time, respectively. (Olson, February 10, 1993, p. 5) Another study in Kentucky, this time of the ambitious state-level reform and restructuring activities initiated as a result of the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 (Steffy 1993), concluded that the re- forms were having a positive effect on student learning statewide (Olson 1994). The Kentucky study found that fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth- graders demonstrated ?dramatic improvement? on the 1993-94 version of the state?s annual assessments. In all grades, the percentage of students performing at or above the proficiency level in mathematics, reading, science, and social studies increased from the previous year. In reading, the percentage of fourth-graders scoring at the proficiency level increased from 7 to 12 percent. At grade 12, the figure rose from 5 to 14 percent. Lee and Smith (April 1994, Fall 1994) conducted a statistical analysis of schools drawn from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS), a ?general-purpose study of the educational status and progress of a large sample of students and schools sponsored by the National Center for Educational Statistics.? Students were fol- lowed from middle school to the sophomore year in high school. Using data from NELS, the researchers identified ?a large set of individual practices which describe a school?s structure. This list captures impor- tant elements of how American secondary schools define their efforts toward reform.? Their results can be summarized as follows: Considering school restructuring in terms of either school structural prac- tices or school size, the pattern of effects on the cognitive learning of students in the early years of high school found in this study is clear, consistent, and strong. Students attending schools that are restructured learn more in mathematics, reading, history, and science achievement. Those who attend schools which are not restructured learn less.... Schools [that are restructured] are more equitable environments in terms of the distribution of cognitive learning. Conversely, in schools that have not restructured, and in larger schools, students learn less and learn- ing is more stratified. While general levels of learning are lower in those schools, socially disadvantaged students learn even less. (Lee and Smith, pp. 22-23) WHERE ARE WE HEADED? 473 Newmann and Wehlage (1995) draw from three studies in addition to the NELS data to reach the conclusion that a positive effect on learning occured when schools taught a challenging curriculum in a fashion that engaged students intellectually, when they assessed learn- ing in a variety of more ?authentic? ways, and when they made support- ing changes in school structure. Newmann and Wehlage analyzed three studies: ? The School Restructuring Study (SRS) included twenty-four sig- nificantly restructured elementary, middle, and high schools. Each was studied intensively for three years, including two weeks of onsite research each year that included classroom visitations and observations. The study was conducted under the direction of the Center on Organiza- tion and Restructuring of Schools (CORS). ? The Longitudinal Study of School Restructuring comprised four- year case studies of eight schools that had engaged in different forms of restructuring in four communities. Researchers spent about fifteen per- son-days per year observing and interviewing at each school, along with other forms of data collection. ? The Study of Chicago School Reform encompassed survey data from 8,000 teachers and principals in 400 elementary and 40 high schools. Surveys provided information on instruction, climate, organi- zational features, professional activities, parent relations, and reform activities. Newmann and Wehlage?s findings tend to confirm the tenets of the restructuring model presented in this book. In particular, restructuring that is centered on those variables most closely related to student learning tends to yield improvement in student learning, while programs and projects focused primarily or entirely on the enabling or supporting variables show much less consistent effects on learning: New administrative arrangements and teaching techniques contribute to improved learning only if they are carried out within a framework that focuses on learning of high intellectual quality. Such learning engages students in constructing knowledge, through disciplined inquiry, to pro- duce discourse, products, and performances that have value beyond certi- fying success in school. Student learning can meet these high standards if educators and the public give students three kinds of support: ? Teachers who practice authentic pedagogy. ? Schools that build organizational capacity by strengthening profes- sional community. ? External agencies and parents that support schools to achieve... high quality student learning. 474 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING The CORS studies have shown that authentic pedagogy contributes equitably to student learning, whether measured according to standards for authentic pedagogy or in more conventional ways.... (Newmann and Wehlage, p. 51) Newmann and associates (1996) identify three criteria that define authentic pedagogy: (1) construction of knowledge, (2) through disci- plined inquiry, (3) to produce discourse, products, and performances that have meaning beyond success in school (p. 27). In the School Restructuring Study, they studied about 130 classrooms in 24 restructur- ing public schools equally divided among elementary, middle, and high schools. They found that even in these carefully selected schools, the level of authentic pedagogy fell well below what might be expected in a fully restructured school. However, some schools and some teachers were successful in ?focusing their teaching squarely on high standards of high intellectual quality.? The study further found that ?authentic pedagogy does pay off in improved authentic academic performance for students at all grade levels and in both mathematics and social studies? (p. 69). Although the researchers freely admit the limitations of their study and findings, they conclude by stating that as a whole, the findings support the pursuit of authentic pedagogy to help cultivate authentic academic performance for students. Findings on the generally low levels (and considerable within-school variability) of au- thentic pedagogy indicate that the task is enormously difficult, even in restructuring schools. Nonetheless, some schools did deliver high-quality pedagogy to their students. (Newman and others 1996, p. 70) Another ambitious effort to create new visions of education is the New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDC), which held a competition in fall 1991 and spring 1992 to solicit designs for ?break the mold? schools. The results from this competition were announced in July 1992 . Of 686 proposals submitted, 11 design teams were selected and provided funding ?to pursue their visions of radically different and more productive schools? (Olson, August 5, 1992). The teams were given one year to prepare to compete in a second phase with additional funding available. Phase 2 provided the teams two additional years, through June 1995, to demonstrate the effectiveness of their designs in real-world settings. At the end of phase 2, the number of teams was reduced to seven. These teams were then expected to work with an increasing number of schools in districts throughout the country. This initiative is based on the notion that if clear alternative models are created, schools will then be able to see how education can and should be different and WHERE ARE WE HEADED? 475 will then move toward these more effective models voluntarily. The NASDC sites were to be the bridges between vision and practice. The RAND Corporation was invited to evaluate the relative effec- tiveness of these designs and their implementation. Its initial formative evaluation contained the following general conclusions about the role that a visionary modeling process can play in reconceptualizing school- ing: New schools created in response to NASDC... had a difficult time making progress toward the NASDC reforms simply because they had formidable obstacles in terms of growth and administrative issues within the first few years of existence that drained energies away from reform. The culture of a new school, while in some ways pliable, is at the same time often chaotic and inhospitable to reasoned change and reform. The experiences of new schools associated with [various NASDC projects] proved this out. (Bodilly 1996, p. 99) The RAND evaluation seemed to confirm the basic premises of the Dimensions of Restructuring model and of the Process of Restructuring cycle presented in the introduction to part 4: Within a short period of time, concentration on change in the core elements of schooling appeared to have highest payoff. Sites floundered when they took on too much too soon.... Some elements simply are not predisposed to quick implementation and develop at a different pace than others, most especially those that require coordination with external actors who are not at the beck and call of schools ([e.g.] social service integration) or those that require a process of learning by multiple actors (changed governance structures and public engagement). Importantly, some changes in these areas are necessary for the institutionalization of each of the designs and cannot be avoided in the long term.... Many barriers to the process of school transformation exist, especially in the areas of professional development, school autonomy, and conflicting cultural values and assessments that work against change. These barriers require stronger public engagement by design teams and schools, but even this would not overcome the lack of influence over important actors that is missing from the ?design team? model of school transformation. So far, whole-school designs and design-based assistance are limited vehicles to reform and must be coupled creatively with other efforts.... Our findings also indicate that teachers and administrators cannot operate effectively to change their behaviors without concrete supports offered to all parties, such as materials, models, facilitators, teaming, and non-instructional time. These supports require funding at the school level. In addition, the experiences of schools we sampled indicated that initial commitment to a design was not always achieved and could be fleeting without long-term support. Long-term commitment by teachers is devel- 476 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING oped over time in a working relationship where a team and a school staff interact with each other toward common goals. Commitment comes when teachers are supported and begin to see the results of their efforts. Beauti- ful-sounding ideas or visions do not engender the day-to-day work needed to transform a school. Strong assistance in understanding what needs to be changed, concrete models, coaching, and time produced change and there- fore more commitment. It is the spiraling process of discovery and recom- mitment that transform (sic) a school (McLaughlin 1990). (Bodilly 1996, p. 83) Reports of research on the Coalition of Essential Schools (Muncey and McQuillan 1993; Prestine and Bowen 1993; Viadero, November 1, 1995) indicate similar conclusions regarding the difficulty of restructur- ing over a range of sites utilizing a variety of strategies when the sites are not necessarily receiving long-term support and are not required to demonstrate commitment and focus. The Coalition is composed of over 1,000 high schools that voluntarily agree to pursue the Coalition?s nine Common Principles. There are no formal measures of the degree to which members of the Coalition actually pursue the principles. The principles include: 1. The school should focus on helping adolescents learn to use their minds well. Schools should not attempt to be ?comprehensive? if such a claim is made at the expense of the school?s central intellectual purpose. 2. The school?s goals should be simple: that each student master a limited number of essential skills and areas of knowledge. While these skills and areas will, to varying degrees, reflect the traditional academic disciplines, the program?s design should be shaped by the intellectual and imaginative powers and competencies that students need rather than necessarily by ?subjects? as conventionally defined. The apho- rism ?less is more? should dominate. Curricular decisions should be guided by the goal of thorough student mastery and achievement rather than by the goal of merely covering content. 3. The school?s goals should apply to all students, but the means to these goals will vary from student to student. School practice should be tailor-made to meet the needs of every group or class of adolescents. 4. Teaching and learning should be personalized to the maximum pos- sible extent. Efforts should be directed toward a goal that no teacher have direct responsibility for more than eighty students. 5. The metaphor of the school should be student-as-worker rather than teacher-as-deliverer-of-instructional-services. Accordingly, a promi- nent pedagogy will be coaching, to provoke students to learn how to learn and thus to teach themselves. 6. Students entering secondary school studies are those who can show competence in language and elementary mathematics. Students of WHERE ARE WE HEADED? 477 traditional high school age but not yet at appropriate levels of compe- tence will be provided intensive remedial work to assist them quickly to meet these standards. The diploma should be awarded upon a successful final demonstration of mastery for graduation?an ?exhibi- tion.? This exhibition by the student of his or her grasp of the central skills and knowledge of the school?s program may be jointly adminis- tered by the faculty or by higher authorities. As the diploma is awarded when earned, the school?s program has no strict age grading and no system of credits earned by time spent in class. The emphasis is on the students? demonstrating that they can do important things. 7. The tone of the school should explicitly stress values of high expecta- tion, trust, and decency. Incentives appropriate to the school?s particu- lar students and teachers should be emphasized, and parents should be treated as essential collaborators. 8. The principal and teachers should consider themselves generalists first and specialists second. Staff should expect multiple obligations and a sense of commitment to the entire school. 9. Ultimate administrative and budget targets should include, in addition to total student loads per teacher of eighty or fewer pupils, substantial time for collective planning by teachers and competitive salaries for teachers. Per-site costs should be within 10 percent of traditional schools. Some services offered in traditional comprehensive high schools may have to be eliminated to accomplish this. (Sizer 1992, pp. 28-29) Muncey and McQuillan (1993) found that schoolwide change was difficult to achieve in member schools. Although many innovative projects and activities were undertaken in the schools, restructuring was often equated with these programs, and the school?s involvement in the Coalition was also defined in terms of these specific projects. In other words, the schools did not necessarily embrace the Common Principles; instead, a group of teachers pursued the principles within a structure that was neutral to actively hostile to those principles. The findings can be summarized from Muncey and McQuillan (1993) as follows: 1. In most of the schools there was not a consensus that fundamental changes in school structure or teaching practices needed to occur. 2 The changes that occurred or were considered when a school joined the Coalition forced the issue of what constituted the school?s philosophy and revealed differences in faculty members? perceptions of their jobs, of the school?s mission, and of the best ways to educate students. 3. The usual starting points for reform were principles that individual teachers (or small teams of teachers) could attempt to apply with little disruption to the school as a whole. 4. At most schools, a core of faculty members became active in their school?s reform, but their efforts often ended up dividing the faculty. 478 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING 5. Most Coalition supporters were naive about the degree to which school reform could be effected by focusing on academic concerns and about issues of power and politics within their schools. 6. The divisions created within schools as a result of Coalition member- ship restricted communication among the faculty, and responses to changes were often based on hearsay. 7. Schools assumed that once the faculty ?accepted? a reform program, there was little need for further reflection on this decision. The research on restructuring opens the possibility that schools can improve student learning by changing practices and programs dramati- cally. Reports from pioneering efforts also indicate how extremely difficult it is to remake schooling in America. In the next two sections, I offer two comprehensive visions of restructured schooling. The first one was developed by a national panel charged with presenting a new view of the American high school; the other is a product of my own reading, writing, and experiences working with schools that are trying to restructure. Although neither of these visions is likely to occur anytime soon, they offer a framework for educators and educational stakeholders to use as they ponder the directions they would like their schools to take. These sketches are meant to be provocative more than to be guides. They can serve to stimulate discussion and to incite questioning of assumptions long untested. They can challenge, and perhaps even in- spire. They open a view of the future of education that is not easy to see when one is ?in the trenches? 180 days out of the year. These visions of education attempt to knit together much of what has been presented in the preceding chapters as well as a few additional areas of change that must be considered, particularly when one thinks about change not as school-based, but as systemic in nature. A VISION OF A RESTRUCTURED HIGH SCHOOL This vision of schooling was developed by the Commission on the Restructuring of the American High School (1996), a broadly represen- tative group assembled by the National Association of Secondary School Principals in partnership with the Carnegie Foundation for the Advance- ment of Teaching. Although the vision was created with the high school in mind, much of it can readily be applied to education at all levels. The commission?s report identifies thirteen areas grouped into three headings: Priorities for Renewal, A Web of Support, and Letting Lead- ership Blossom. These thirteen areas incorporate the twelve dimensions of restructuring presented in this book along with other issues and WHERE ARE WE HEADED? 479 0000000000 * Commission on the Restructuring of the American High School. Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution. Reston, Virginia: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1996. Excerpted with permission. For more information concerning this NASSP publication, call (703) 860-0200. dimensions as well. Listed here are the commission?s recommenda- tions.* (I urge readers to obtain the report for its discussion of the rationale for each recommendation and suggestions for implementa- tion.) Priorities for Renewal Curriculum 1. Each high school community will identify a set of essential learnings above all, in literature and language, mathematics, social studies, science, and the arts in which students must demonstrate achievement in order to graduate. 2. The high school will integrate its curriculum to the extent possible and emphasize depth over breadth of coverage. 3. Teachers will design work for students that is of high enough quality to engage them, cause them to persist, and, when successfully completed, result in their satisfaction and their acquisition of learnings, skills, and abilities valued by society. 4. The content of the curriculum, where practical, will connect itself to real-life applications of knowledge and skills to help students link their education to the future. 5. Assessment of student learning will align itself with the curriculum so that students? progress is measured by what is taught. 6. Each student will have a Personal Plan for Progress to ensure that the high school takes individual needs into consideration and to allow students, within reasonable parameters, to design their own methods for learning in an effort to meet high standards. 7. The high school will promote co-curricular activities as integral to an education, providing opportunities for all students that support and extend academic learning. 8. A high school will reach out to the elementary and middle level schools from which it draws students to help those schools understand what kind of foundation students need for success in high school and to respond to the needs of the lower schools for policies at the high school that reinforce earlier education. Instructional Strategies 1. Each high school teacher will have a broad base of academic knowl- edge with depth in at least one subject area. 2. Teachers will know and be able to use a variety of strategies and settings that identify and accommodate individual learning styles and engage students. 480 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING 3. Teachers will be adept at acting as coaches and as facilitators of learning to promote more active involvement of students in their own learning. 4. Teachers will teach in ways that help students to develop into compe- tent problem-solvers and critical thinkers. 5. Teachers will convey a sense of caring to their students so that their students feel that their teachers share a stake in their learning. 6. Teachers will utilize technology in their instruction in ways that im- prove student learning. 7. Teachers will integrate assessment into instruction so that assessment does not merely measure students, but becomes part of the learning process itself. School Environment 1. The high school community, which cannot be value-neutral, will advo- cate and model a set of core values essential in a democratic and civil society. 2. Experiences in high school will acknowledge multiple talents and ways of learning to help students achieve the meaningful success that leads to further achievement. 3. Every high school student will have a Personal Adult Advocate to help him or her personalize the educational experience. 4. The school will accord meaningful roles in the decision-making pro- cess to students, parents, and members of the staff to promote an atmosphere of participation, responsibility, and ownership. 5. In order to maintain a positive environment, each high school will ensure that any student who brings a weapon into a high school, sells illegal drugs in the school, or behaves violently in the school will immediately forfeit the right to attend that particular school. 6. Agreements that school systems negotiate with teachers, principals, and other personnel will be accompanied by a Student Impact State- ment to help warrant that contracts and other agreements consider the best interests of students. 7. Every school system will ensure that facilities used by its high schools are clean, attractive, safe, and well equipped. Technology 1. School leaders will work with others to develop and implement a long- term strategic plan for use of technology in the school. The plan, including a code of ethics, will allow for ongoing changes in technol- ogy and adapt itself to continual changes in the school program. 2. Schools will make technology integral to curriculum, instruction, and assessment, accommodating different learning styles and helping teach- ers to individualize the learning process. WHERE ARE WE HEADED? 481 3. High schools will equip individual classrooms with the technology necessary to prepare students for life in the 21st century. 4. Budget allocations will be adequate to maintain current technology and to provide for ever-changing technology needs, including sufficient funds to permit access to all students and to use technology to deliver student services. 5. Technology will be a key part of both initial and continuing teacher education to provide teachers with the knowledge and skills they need to integrate technology into the curriculum and to adapt it to instruc- tional strategies. To achieve these ends, school districts will hire teachers who can use technology to obtain information and who can incorporate technology into teaching and learning. 6. Every high school will designate a technology resource person to provide technical assistance and to consult with the staff to assist them in finding the people, information, and materials that they need to make best use of technology. Organization and Time 1. High schools will create small units in which anonymity is banished. 2. Each high school teacher involved in the instructional program on a full-time basis will be responsible for contact time with no more than 90 students during a given term so that the teacher can give greater attention to the needs of every student. 3. High schools will develop flexible scheduling that allows for more varied uses of time in order to meet the requirements of the core curriculum. 4. The Carnegie unit will be redefined or replaced so that high schools no longer equate seat time with learning. 5. The high school will reorganize the traditional departmental structure to meet the needs of a more integrated curriculum. 6. Each high school will present alternatives to tracking and to ability grouping without restricting the range of courses and learning experi- ences it offers. 7. The academic program will extend beyond the high school campus to take advantage of learning opportunities outside the four walls of the building. 8. Schools will operate on a 12-month basis to provide more time for professional staff development, collegial planning, and the added in- struction needed to promote better student learning. Assessment and Accountability 1. The high school will assess the academic progress of students in a variety of ways so that a clear and valid picture emerges of what they know and are able to do. 482 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING 2. The school will review each student?s Personal Progress Plan continu- ally and indicate the extent of progress toward graduation and postsecondary transition options. 3. High schools will guarantee that students can meet performance stan- dards in entry-level jobs. Recent graduates who fail to meet these basic standards will have the opportunity to return to school for additional studies. 4. Each high school will report annually to the community, disclosing schoolwide assessment results and other pertinent information. 5. At least once every five years, each high school will convene a broadly- based external panel to offer a Public Description of the school, a requirement that could be met in conjunction with the evaluations of state, regional, and other accrediting groups. 6. Students will evaluate teachers and instruction on an ongoing basis in a variety of ways, providing regular feedback with regard to how effectively student learning goals are met. 7. Supervision of teachers will be thorough and ongoing, making use of the expertise of master teachers as well as administrators. 8. Principals and other administrators will use the highest standards of teaching as the criteria against which to evaluate teachers for determin- ing their continued employment. 9. The high school staff will assess the principal and the administrative team?s performance periodically in a variety of ways, providing regu- lar feedback with regard to how effectively school goals are met. A Web of Support Professional Development 1. Every high school will be a learning community for teachers and for the other professionals it employs. 2. Each educator will create a Personal Learning Plan that addresses his or her need to grow, stressing knowledge and skills related to improved student learning. 3. The high school?with the help of the school district?will provide adequate funding, time, and other resources to ensure that professional development is a continuous, ongoing process. 4. The principal of a high school, as a model for the staff, will pursue his or her own ongoing professional growth while helping to lead the professional development for the entire school. 5. The support staff of a high school?s secretaries, custodians, cafeteria workers, and others will also be encouraged and assisted in their own career growth and drawn into the larger school community as adults who can promote the well-being of students. WHERE ARE WE HEADED? 483 Diversity 1. The principal, the school community, and the school board will pro- mote policies, practices, and decisions that recognize diversity in accord with the core values of a democratic and civil society and within the mission of teaching and learning. 2. The curriculum will expose students to a rich array of viewpoints, perspectives, and experiences. 3. The teachers, adjunct teachers, paraprofessionals, support staff, volun- teers, and members of the community who staff the high school will represent a wide array of talents, perspectives, and backgrounds. 4. The school will offer its staff substantive, ongoing professional devel- opment to help them deal with issues of diversity. Governance 1. Boards of education will essentially follow the model of corporate boards in business and industry. They will take responsibility for adopting goals, policies, and standards of accountability; for approving the district?s budget; and for hiring and monitoring the superintendent, who will be free to run day-to-day operations. 2. The superintendent will work collaboratively to build a vision for improving teaching and learning and attaining educational goals. He or she will educate the community about the needs of schools and nurture the development of shared leadership throughout the district. 3. Each high school will establish a site council to work with the principal in reaching decisions to make the school an effective organization for student learning. Resources 1. Sufficiency of funding for education will be the top priority of state fiscal policy. 2. New programs mandated for high schools will be restricted to those that support learning objectives identified in national goals or endorsed by district and state policies. Furthermore, programs mandated by government should be fully funded from the level at which the mandate originates. 3. The agencies responsible for education at the local, intermediate, state, and federal levels will emphasize service to the individual schools. 4. Schools will go beyond regular, official funding sources to seek out supplemental resources wherever possible. 5. Decisions regarding budget and staff allocations will be made at the site level, in accord with policy parameters set at the central level so as to ensure the input of those who know the situation best. 484 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING Ties to Higher Education 1. High schools will engage in structured and formal communication with higher education to better serve the articulation of student learning. 2. Secondary and higher education will collaboratively develop new and consistent standards concerning college admissions requirements. 3. High schools will build partnerships with institutions of higher educa- tion to provide teachers and administrators at both levels with ideas and opportunities to enhance the education, performance, and evaluation of educators. 4. High schools will hire educators who have prepared for teaching by studying in high schools that model best practice. 5. Research by those connected with colleges of education should, when- ever possible, concern itself with issues of teaching and learning affecting children in elementary and secondary schools in order to help improve practice. 6. High schools will hire only those teachers whose classroom prepara- tion is provided in colleges and universities in which the teacher education program bears the stamp of external accreditation. Relationships 1. A high school will regard itself as a community in which members of the staff collaborate to develop and implement the school?s learning goals. 2. The high school will engage students? families as partners in the students? education. 3. High schools, in conjunction with agencies in the community, will help coordinate the delivery of health and social services for youth. 4. The high school will develop political and financial relationships with individuals and organizations in the community to foster ongoing support for educational programs and policies. 5. The high school will foster productive business partnerships that sup- port and supplement educational programs. 6. High schools will form partnerships with agencies for youths that support and supplement the regular programs of the schools. 7. The high school will require each student to participate in a service program in the community or in the school itself that has educational value. Letting Leadership Blossom Leadership 1. The principal will provide leadership in the high school community by building and maintaining a vision, direction, and focus for student learning. WHERE ARE WE HEADED? 485 0000000000 * This section is an adaptation of the version that appeared in the first edition of Roadmap to Restructuring, which subsequently was adapted for Are You Ready to Restructure? It has been additionally modified and updated. 2. Selection of high school principals will be based on qualities of leader- ship rooted in established knowledge and skills that result in dedication to good instructional practice and learning. 3. Current principals will build and refine the skills and knowledge required to lead and manage change. 4. The principal will foster an atmosphere that encourages teachers to take risks to meet the needs of students. 5. The superintendent and other central office administrators, as well as school board members, will exercise leadership in support of the planning, implementation, and long-range momentum of improvement at the school level. 6. Teachers will provide the leadership essential to the success of reform, collaborating with others in the educational community to redefine the role of the teacher and to identify sources of support for that redefined role. 7. The leadership of students, parents, and others in the school commu- nity will enhance the work of the principal, who should recognize this potential for leadership by nurturing and supporting it. A MORE PERSONAL VISION One of the real challenges of restructuring is to fit all the different things about schools that need to change into a coherent picture of how schooling might look at some point in the future. This section offers one view of how restructured schools may look and function differently. This description is designed, as is much of this book, primarily to provoke thought and discussion, and to raise issues and possibilities for schools considering restructuring. I do not think of this description as a set of goals schools should necessarily pursue. Nor do I think that many schools will do most of the things contained in this description in the near future. At the same time, it reflects what I strongly believe: the world has changed and eventually schools will change as a result. I see most of these changes as inevitable, the question being more when than whether. My concern is that if schools respond too slowly, they will become marginal institutions; they will no longer be at the center of communities 486 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING nor be the fabric that joins together and sustains the culture and society. The narrative that follows is an attempt to see how the pieces might fit together. These are some of the ways in which I see schooling changing, along with some of the implications of those changes.* The purposes and goals of education will be questioned. Schools will ask the questions: What is an educated person? What will our graduates look like and be able to do upon completion of their school- ing? Clear statements of expected learning and skills will be written as standards that provide an overall framework within which students will focus their efforts. The distinction between education as preparation of the mind and as preparation for work will lessen as the definitions of an educated person and an effective worker begin to converge. Schools will strive to achieve two goals that have been separate in the past; they will have high standards and will ensure that essentially all students achieve the standards. By establishing standards for student knowledge and performance and judging students and schools against these standards, much of what happens in schools will be revolutionized. The basic relationship be- tween the student and the teacher will be transformed. Students will know what is expected of them and what they must do to demonstrate they have reached required performance levels. Students will not seek to lower teacher expectations and requirements, since students will be judged against standards that go beyond any one class or teacher; they will not benefit by spending time in a class that does not prepare them to meet standards. Teachers will truly need to be facilitators and coaches. Parents will compare their child?s performance to published standards first and other children?s standardized-test scores second. The line between curricular and extracurricular activities will disap- pear. It will not matter where students learned something, only that they can demonstrate that they meet required performance standards. Parents will be able to take more ownership for their child?s learning. A wider variety of learning environments will be employed commonly in most schools, severely challenging traditional instructional methods. Data about how well students meet standards will be easily comparable across schools and much more useful than standardized-achievement tests. Performance levels above the required standard will allow students to continue to strive and achieve at higher levels than currently repre- sented by an ?A.? The very existence of standards will allow more conversation about what students ought to know and what schools ought to teach. Curriculum will tend to be updated more regularly. Education WHERE ARE WE HEADED? 487 will become a more flexible, adaptive process geared more closely to societal priorities and student needs and capabilities. Colleges and universities will adopt performance standards keyed to those required by high schools to create a seamless educational system where students progress based on demonstrated knowledge and skills. By identifying the things students need to know and be able to do, higher education will support an accelerated rate of curriculum redesign in schools. Students will be able to begin college-level studies when they show they are ready. The distinctions among ?college prep? courses, ?general ed,? and ?vocational ed? will disappear. Instead, each learning experience will be judged on its ability to prepare students to meet the stated standards necessary for college entrance. Learners will make more sophisticated choices about what they need to learn. ?Credit? will be a measure of what has been learned, not of the amount of time spent in a particular course. Students will be encouraged to take the most challenging learning experiences available to develop skills needed to meet standards, rather than having to guard their grade-point averages by taking easier classes. Higher performances will result in advanced standing in college and college credit. The curriculum will be updated and adapted to reflect changes in society and in learners. Courses of study will be more integrated so that learners make connections among the different subjects they are taught, and see the purposes and applications for what they are learning. The content that is taught will be scrutinized: Is it relevant, accurate, mean- ingful? Is there a compelling reason for children to know the material? What role should a textbook occupy in the curriculum? Are facts tools for understanding key concepts, or are they selected and taught arbi- trarily? Must the material be organized in a fashion that guarantees fewer students master each succeeding level, or are there ways to move large numbers of students to higher levels of understanding? Can stu- dents move at their own pace where appropriate? Is the curriculum composed of things that everyone needs to know to function success- fully in society and proceed successfully to higher levels of learning? The world around the school will become a source for curriculum. Local issues, problems, and resources will be integrated into the curricu- lum. Students in a mountain community in Colorado will learn about different things than those in a rural school in Indiana, or an urban school in New York. Similar performance standards will be the thread that unites all their learnings. Real-world problems will be studied more frequently. Students in Oregon may study reforestation plans by analyzing them from geologi- 488 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING cal, biological, ecological, economic, and political points of view. They may then present a report to the U.S. Forest Service and the county board of supervisors. Elementary schools may use the Internet to find help identifying, researching, and posing solutions to a much wider variety of problems than exist in their local community. Kids will be able to make connections among the subjects they are learning, and between what they learn in school and how it applies to the world outside of schools, and to their lives. The learner will move to the center of the instructional process. Educators will bring this about not by indulging the student, but by thinking of the student as a worker, a client, a partner, and an active participant. This will occur at least in part because it will be increasingly difficult to compel students to learn. Students will be called upon to analyze the things they are learning and to reach their own conclusions more often. Schools will not assume students forget most of what they learn, and will not reteach previously learned material as much. Learning will require more interaction between and among stu- dents, and between the student and a wider range of adults; there will be many opportunities for students to learn from one another. Students will demonstrate what they know publicly, and they will create strong norms of achievement within the school. They will come to support one another?s learning and will understand that the only way to succeed is to achieve, not just put in the time. Teachers will be able to use a much wider variety of teaching techniques, particularly those that involve students actively. Students will construct their own plans for learning. As they mature, they will accept greater amounts of responsibility for selecting learning experiences, organizing their time, and participating as members of a team rather than being directed by a teacher. Their plans will personalize their education, but not individualize it. They will work within a broad framework of possible learning options and will learn, with the help of a wide range of adults, mentors, and peers, to take control of their learning, a skill that will ultimately result in their becoming lifelong learners. Learning will have value and meaning to the learner. Not all learn- ing will be undertaken to prepare for work, but the connection between education and career will be much clearer. Many more experiences will be available to help students become aware of and explore career options. More students will give serious thought to what they want to become, and they will have opportunities to test out their dreams against the realities of the work world. WHERE ARE WE HEADED? 489 Students will learn to think in terms of quality as well as quantity. Worksheets, daily homework, fill-in-the-blank assignments, and other methods that occupy student time but produce low-quality work will be supplemented and replaced by an emphasis on quality. Students will have more opportunities to rework assignments, produce original pieces of work, and create products in which they have pride and ownership. They will come to understand what quality is. This understanding will be reflected in all their work. As a result they will not only make things, but will take more pride in their writing and other more traditional academic work. Teachers will learn how to shape and develop an understanding of quality by assessing work against quality standards and adopting the language and techniques of quality management. The emphasis will be on success rather than sorting. It will not be acceptable for teachers to say, ?I taught it; I?ve fulfilled my end of the bargain. It?s up to them to learn it.? Instructional methods will be examined and modified based on their actual success with children. Those techniques that consistently don?t work with particular groups of students will not continue to be used with those students. Instructors will acknowledge the needs, capabilities, experiences, and unique chal- lenges and motivations of the learner. This flexibility may lead to a substantial increase, not a decrease, in the amount of content that is taught at any given time to any given group of students. The school will have many more ways of ensuring student success, and the culture of the school will have a deep and abiding belief that all students can and will learn at high levels. Failure will be considered a joint responsibility and a joint problem to be addressed in a partnership among student, parent, and school. In fact, many mechanisms will be available to help anticipate and head off student failure. Assessment will be much more common, more public, and more complex. Schools will move beyond testing and evaluation to a wider variety of strategies geared to assess first and judge second. The pur- poses of assessment will be to provide students and parents the informa- tion they need to improve student performance continuously, rather than simply to judge students after they complete a course of study. Educators will use assessment to analyze larger and larger combina- tions of skills and abilities together. This will occur because teachers will have curriculum that combines knowledge and skills across disci- plines, and that requires higher level thinking from all students. Assess- ment will compare individual learner performance to clear, challenging standards. Sometimes performance will be accomplished as a team member. Standardized measures that compare students only to one 490 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING another regardless of overall quality will not be employed nearly as often. Schools will strive to have all students meet high standards. When they do, it will not be a reason to suspect that the curriculum is not challenging. In fact, consistently high performance will be cause for celebration. Assessment strategies that do not automatically divide students into winners and losers will displace methods such as standard- ized tests, where by definition no more than half the students are above average, no matter how much they might actually know. Teachers will not have to devise artificial ways of spreading student grades to create a ?normal curve.? The ways and places learning occurs will be expanded dramati- cally. Many familiar ways of organizing students to learn will be modified, replaced, adapted, or enhanced. In both elementary and sec- ondary schools, students may stay with the same teacher or group of teachers for more than one year. Students of varying ages will be taught in the same room. They will learn at their own pace and also serve as tutors for one another. They will move to the next level when their performance meets standards. Traditional forms of ability grouping, in particular, will be replaced by the use of more mixed-ability coopera- tive-learning groups, cross-age grouping, peer tutors, and other strate- gies that emphasize success and continuous progress. The idea that learning only occurs within a classroom under the control of a certified teacher will be replaced by models in which adults and children interact both within and outside the school building. Teach- ers with certificates will fill crucial roles as organizers, facilitators, diagnosticians, curriculum developers, assessors, and public-relations experts. They will be assisted by highly skilled paraprofessionals, the educational equivalent of Emergency Medical Technicians, who will be skilled at engaging students in learning tasks designed by supervising teachers. Other adults, young and old, will serve as mentors and role models through a much wider range of extracurricular activities. Business people will visit schools more frequently and open up the work world (private sector, governmental, and nonprofit) to student exploration and participation. Community-based learning, service learn- ing, apprenticeships, and internships will all enrich the educational options available to students. The community will truly be an extension of the school, as students move in and out of the school, community, and workplace depending on the nature of their interests, studies, and the availability of learning experiences. The boundary between high school and postsecondary learning in community colleges, four-year colleges, and universities will blur. As WHERE ARE WE HEADED? 491 students show they are ready, learning experiences will be available, sometimes onsite, sometimes via technology, sometimes at a local college or university. More students will enter higher education with a clearer idea of what they wish to study, a better idea of the skills they need to succeed, and a higher probability that they will remain to receive a baccalaureate degree. Community colleges will link much more closely with high schools through ?2+2? programs, where a student begins a course of study in high school that leads directly to two years of advanced training at the community college. Many more ?professional-technical? options will be available to students, programs that do not require or lead to a four- year degree, but prepare students for career-type jobs. High schools will do almost no specific job training, ceding this to community colleges or regional cooperative programs between high schools and community colleges. Community colleges will be a key link into local business communities and will offer many opportunities for students to explore the world of work. There will be many more ways to structure time for learning than in short daily lessons or periods. Many different blocks of time will be created to allow teachers to organize learning in a variety of ways. This will enable more adults to spend time with fewer students. Students will have more opportunities to identify with adults and to make personal connections with the school. By increasing their affiliation with school, they will improve their performance. The driving force for reorganizing time will be the need for students to meet standards and the need to assess their learning in relation to standards. Schools will have more seminars, workshops, intensive study sessions, labs, discussion groups, tutoring times, and other learning experiences of varying length. There will be periodic ?assessment days? when more complicated assessments are conducted. Similarly, there may be ?project days,? or ?field-experience days,? or ?community- service days,? where the entire student body devotes its efforts to a particular task or type of activity. The length of the school day and school year will be reexamined. Schools will extend their programs?beginning earlier in the day, con- tinuing into the evening, meeting on Saturdays, offering more summer opportunities. However, not all programs available during these times will necessarily be organized and staffed by teachers. Many of these activities will be offered by community agencies and others, including businesses, with interests in education. The times will correspond more to the needs of students and the community. The agricultural-based 492 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING calendar will gradually be replaced with one geared to an information society. The time available for learning will vary so that all students who want to can reach desired performance levels. The length of time students spend in school will vary considerably based on their motiva- tion, interests, and learning styles. Since there will be numerous out-of- school learning opportunities, many students will meet required stan- dards by spending most of their time in placements outside the school. Extended-school-year programs will provide more time for teachers to plan and develop new methods and materials, and to organize and supervise a much wider range of learning experiences for students. While technology will radically redefine the ways information is accessed and transmitted, it will not become a substitute for human interaction. In any emerging vision of education, technology has a transforming role. While its uses are still being explored, its potential is clear. Schools will no longer be the gateways to knowledge. Their libraries will not be the only or even the primary place students go to obtain information. Teachers will need more than the content knowl- edge they carry in their heads to justify their positions. Technology will be used to provide basic skills, interface with vast information sources outside the school, enable students to develop their creativity, manage information about student performance and achieve- ment, organize and assist teachers in their quest to serve as instructor and clerk simultaneously, and serve as a tool through which students gain greater control over their own learning. Video will create more ways for students to learn and to demonstrate what they have learned. More important, technology will create many opportunities for students to work together. Children who use technology in isolation at home will come to school to learn how to function socially and produc- tively while continuing to develop and apply their technological skills. Schools will become places where interesting questions or problems will be posed. Children will be guided in their exploration of timeless and current questions and issues. Technology will be a primary tool at every step. Computer labs will quickly become outmoded ways of providing students access to technology. There will be less teaching about technology, and more of its use in a transparent fashion, where student and teacher are barely conscious of the fact that they are using technology. Schools will be the place where technology is integrated into the human processes of learning, where it becomes an extension of the learner and the learning community. Schools will emphasize moral and ethical dilemmas, will help students learn how to work together to solve problems, and will make WHERE ARE WE HEADED? 493 students aware of how information is accessed, ordered, and used. In short, they will be places where students learn how to transform infor- mation into knowledge. New quality-control measures will be developed to replace the Carnegie unit. The Carnegie unit has played an important role in education for over seventy years. It helped to provide consistent quality standards for the high school curriculum at a time when each school was defining its own standards in radically differing ways. It helped smooth the transition from high school to college and to allow high school students to apply to any college they wished to attend. It also served to standardize the curriculum around common course titles and classes of consistent, predictable length. While standards and standardization were important in the 1920s, quality measures will become focused on what students know, not how long they study. Technologically based learning, in particular, will create demands for new ways to determine student learning other than how long the student sits in the classroom. ?Credits? will be based on identified levels of performance tied to examples of student work. Course titles will not be anywhere near as important as will be the goals of the learning experience and the resultant performance of the students. Students will accumulate ?proficiencies? in the way they now count Carnegie units. School-community partnerships will be increasingly important to the success of every school. Parents will be true partners. They will help develop learning programs for students, participate in the classroom on a more regular basis at all grade levels, make suggestions that assist professional educators, and take responsibility for creating an environ- ment in the home that supports education. The community at large will also play a new role in schools. Businesses and civic groups, local government, and social-service agen- cies will all have a vital role to play by offering services; allowing workers to spend more time at school; serving as volunteers and tutors; providing advice, expertise, and resources; helping out at schools with extracurricular events or site beautification; taking on interns, appren- tices, and observers; helping teachers develop new skills and knowl- edge; and generally accepting some responsibility for the education of the community?s youth. All the services needed to help young people develop as healthy human beings will be more coordinated and integrated at the school. Community-service agencies will provide services at the school in close coordination with teachers and administrators. Local government agen- 494 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING cies will work more closely together to share resources, coordinate schedules, reduce overlap among agencies that serve youth, and perhaps even build new facilities jointly. More independent contractors and providers will contract with the school to offer services geared to the unique needs of particular students or groups of students. The goal will be to ensure that as many students as possible lead productive, socially responsible lives. Decision-making will involve greater participation by those with an interest in education. Schools will function more as ?town halls? in many important ways. They will be places where communities come together to consider important social, moral, and educational issues. The goals of the school will be discussed more openly, along with its effectiveness. As a result, schools will have stronger relations with the community and will be less subject to external pressure or interest groups. The role of administrators will be to help schools develop a vision and direction, to orchestrate the change process, to allocate resources in ways that help realize the vision, and to create new opportunities for teacher and community leadership to emerge. These administrators will see themselves not at the pinnacle of a pyramid, but as one point in a network that extends beyond the school itself and includes many people and organizations. Administrators will help direct the flow of energy throughout the network, rather than being the sole source of energy. Teachers will continue to assume primary responsibility for deter- mining the precise structure and content of the educational program. They will meet more regularly on substantive issues and have fewer meetings where they simply receive information or endorse decisions that have already been made. There will be a wider range of teacher- leadership roles, including lead teachers, curriculum designers, assess- ment designers, assessment scorers, diagnosticians, staff developers, and community-relations specialists. These teacher leaders will com- bine their classroom-teaching duties with these specialist functions. Their skills as a teacher will not be lost to the school, but their role will be redefined to allow them to move in and out of their classrooms to provide specialized expertise to their colleagues. These new teacher roles will stress collegiality and collaboration and will decrease teacher isolation. Teacher leaders will disseminate new ideas more rapidly and help create environments in which all teachers feel supported as they change their practices. Site councils and other forms of participatory decision-making will ensure regular, meaningful representation and participation by commu- nity members, parents, teachers, and students. These councils will not WHERE ARE WE HEADED? 495 concern themselves with day-to-day issues, but will remain focused on more essential goals. They will gather and analyze information about student performance, ascertain the relevance and utility of the school?s curriculum, set goals, suggest areas for teacher training and growth, promote new ideas and programs, and be positive forces for change and adaptation. These councils will be lively and unpredictable, comprising a range of perspectives, beliefs, and personalities. Teachers will listen to and respect recommendations that originate in these councils. Principals will participate as equal voices with a unique responsibility to facilitate the council?s success. Schools will develop a stronger client orientation to cope with more competition. Schools will face challenges from private, charter, alterna- tive, and home schooling. Each of these will be attractive to a particular clientele. Rather than simply continuing to lose 5 percent of students here and 5 percent there to these service providers, schools will make a concerted effort to understand client needs better. They will redesign their programs based on these needs. This challenge will serve to reinvigorate and infuse new ideas into the system. Schools will become more adaptive. This adaptiveness will not be the solution to all educa- tional problems, but will help speed the rate at which schools evolve. One of the key motivators for these changes will be the realization by schools that each student lost costs the school thousands of dollars in state and local revenue. As budgets continue to tighten, schools will be more motivated to retain as many students as possible, including those whose needs have often been met outside the traditional school struc- ture. Schools will be subject to and comfortable with a much higher level of public accountability. As many other public and quasi-public agen- cies are expected to report on their effectiveness, so will schools. Educators will become much more effective in collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data that report on the conditions of education and student progress. These data will serve to inform the public and also to guide ongoing program management and school-improvement efforts. Teachers will consider such data when planning the range of educational experiences they offer to students. Parents will be much more comfort- able questioning educators regarding the effectiveness of their school. Schools will use adults in new and different ways to help students develop and learn successfully. There will be a wider range of paid professionals in schools. In addition to changing the role of teachers, the role of the instructional assistant or aide will be expanded and reconceptualized with an eye toward creating a new category of educa- 496 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING tor who is truly a paraprofessional, not an aide. These individuals will work with small groups, provide supplementary instruction, and super- vise students, thereby allowing the teacher to devote more time and energy to executive-level tasks, such as planning and diagnosing, ad- dressing the needs of particularly difficult or demanding students, com- municating with parents, developing curriculum, and conducting and analyzing assessments. The roles of other specialized personnel, such as counselors and special-education and Title I teachers, will be reexamined to determine how their efforts can best be integrated and coordinated with the work of the classroom teacher. New teachers will be supervised more closely and given more assistance to ensure that every new teacher is excellent. Many more adult volunteers will help supplement the school?s staff. Some will be paid hourly to teach a particular class; others will offer supplementary learning experiences that students pay for on a sliding scale. Traditional relationships between teachers? unions, administrators, and boards of education will become more collaborative to solve prob- lems and improve schools. Labor relations in school districts will still be governed by contracts, but these contracts will be broad frameworks within which individual schools can pursue improvement. Wages and benefits will be the key elements of these contracts, but educational practices will be left to schools to a much greater degree. Waivers will be granted to individual schools when needed, and more problems will be addressed outside the contract and away from the bargaining table. While teachers? unions will continue to be important, they will begin to function more as partners and operate more as professional associations than trade unions. Mechanisms such as joint committees of teachers, administrators, and board members will explore solutions to problems as they arise rather than allowing everything to build up to negotiations. Collaborative-bargaining strategies will seek to build trust among all participants. Rarely, if ever, will all the elements in this vision be present in any one school or district. Most ongoing attempts to redesign schooling will only be able to include a subset of these elements. Taken as a whole, the general description I offer here provides a picture in broad brush strokes of the ways in which many educators, policy-makers, and others who write about schooling are thinking about how education might transform itself. This vision suggests ways that education can help the entire com- munity and the economic system. It reflects the increased emphasis on each student as an individual. It assumes teachers will have more WHERE ARE WE HEADED? 497 content knowledge, more teaching techniques, heightened professional- ism, greater sophistication, and enhanced leadership skills. The vision acknowledges the need for new partnerships to emerge for education to succeed in a complex, global information society. And it suggests fundamental overhaul of curriculum, instruction, and assessment as the starting point and continuing focal point of all educational change. ARE THE VISIONS BEING IMPLEMENTED? To what degree are these visions being actualized or implemented by educators? Preliminary evidence suggests that few schools have moved very far down the restructuring path on a broad scale, though many have developed programs or initiated projects. Lee and Smith (1992) found in a study of restructuring in 377 selected middle schools that fewer than 1 percent of the schools exhibited 13 or more of the 16 characteristics of restructuring identified by the researchers. The largest proportion of schools, 44.6 percent, had one to five restructuring charac- teristics. Having considered the Lee and Smith study and a study by Berends (1992), Prager (1992) concluded: This information indicates that, in spite of plentiful rhetoric and extensive initiatives by districts, states, and national organizations, the restructuring movement has yet to touch the mass of American schools in any significant way. Even in the most selective sample, less than half of those restructured schools are pursuing major elements of restructuring. In the larger sample, elements of restructuring are pursued much less frequently. In considering initiatives in the future, policymakers may want to consider why so few schools seem to have changed significantly in response to all the initiatives thus far. (p. 5) It would be naive to suggest that educational restructuring will be easy to achieve, or even that it is a foregone conclusion, given the difficulty of fundamental change in education. Schools face great chal- lenges simply confronting the existing images of education that are embedded within them. Barbara Benham Tye (1987) describes the paradoxical nature of American schooling: A decentralized national system of education with extensive local control results in schools that look remarkably similar, yet function in vastly different ways. Tye (1987) summarizes John Goodlad?s Study of Schooling*, in which she participated: Walk into a public high school in any of the 50 states, and you are likely to find yourself in familiar territory. You will not be surprised by the physical0000000000 * See Goodlad (1984), B. Tye (1985), K. Tye (1985). Goodlad?s findings have also been reported in numerous articles and technical reports. 498 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING uniformity of classrooms; the overall control orientation of policy, pro- gram, and pedagogy; the general similarity of curriculum and of schedule; the reliance on test scores as measures of ?success?; and the practice of tracking. I have come to think of these common characteristics of school- ing as its ?deep structure.? Yet each school I studied as a part of the Goodlad team was also different from the others in dozens of big and little ways. The cumulative effect of these differences gave each school its particular ?personality.? Each of the 13 high schools was shaped by its own history, by the nature of the community of which it was a part, and by such internal factors as the quality of teacher/administrator relationships, the number and intensity of school problems, and the climate of most of its classrooms. This juxtaposition of concepts?the deep structure of schooling and the distinct personality of schools?can be used heuristically to think about the problems of change and resistance to change in our educational system. (p. 281) By virtue of local control and decentralized decision-making, schools have the potential to adapt themselves to the needs of their local communities and student populations. Educators seem to operate, how- ever, under self-imposed limitations regarding how they might best organize themselves to meet their clients? needs. Most tend to look backward and sideways, not forward, when seeking ideas and solutions. The challenge is for schools to be able to evolve by employing solutions from outside the routine and the familiar. Elmore (1991) examines the tendency of schools to adhere to a set of solutions to organizational problems that have become set in stone. He uses the analogy of the DNA molecule to suggest how ingrained and unquestioned certain thought- and-behavior patterns are: Certain solutions?the age-grade structure, the allocation of single teach- ers to classroom units, the allocation of specific content to specific periods of time, etc.?have become ?fixed? in the institutional structure of schools. They have become fixed, not necessarily because we know they ?work,? in some educational sense, although that may be true, but because they help us manage the organizational demands of mass education. For the most part, we adhere to these regularities of schooling because we have seem- ingly always adhered to them and they have come to be identified in the minds of students, teachers, and parents with what it means to ?do school.? One way to think about these regularities of schooling is as a sort of genetic code for the organization of schools. The basic problems form a sort of template, just as the basic structure of the DNA molecule forms a template for the transmission of human characteristics. The particular set of solutions to these problems that we develop in a given school is like a genetic code for schooling, or the specific make-up of an individual DNA molecule.... WHERE ARE WE HEADED? 499 ... [T]he central problem of so-called ?school restructuring? is how to make the genetic code of schools?the specific solutions to the problems posed by the regularities of schooling?more compatible with emerging conceptions of teaching and learning. (pp. 12-14) The transformation, or restructuring, of public education in America is a task of Herculean proportions. Most schools have not acknowledged that there is a gap between their current organizational structure and instructional practices and the needs of society and of students. Given this apparent lack of any sense of urgency to change, it is difficult to discern how schools will transform themselves on the scale implied by restructuring. Education continues to receive mixed messages from policy-makers and community members regarding its legitimate role and goals. It is perhaps unfair, unreasonable, and unrealistic to ask educators to transform themselves in the absence of clear mandates and adequate support to do so. Very few examples can be found of organiza- tions that change radically without some sort of external force or threat, generally combined with a clearly articulated internal mission and vision. Systems-level change is difficult and painful for most adults; educators are no exception. In addition, the restructuring process itself is fraught with contradic- tions. The following section outlines some of the most important contra- dictions inherent in the educational-restructuring process. Understand- ing these contradictions helps explain why precious few schools have been able to make significant headway in systemic-change efforts. CONTRADICTIONS OF RESTRUCTURING One of the reasons schools may have a difficult time responding to calls for fundamental change is that there are many contradictions present within the current pressures to restructure education. The fol- lowing paragraphs identify and briefly discuss these contradictions. While not all these apparent contradictions may turn out to constrain restructuring, they represent a series of issues that must be confronted and resolved for the change process to move forward in many schools. They also challenge policy-makers, who need to take into account these contradictions when they develop and enact new rules and procedures that they expect schools to follow. CONSTRUCTIVISM VS. STANDARDS Constructivist notions put control of learning in the hands of learn- ers, who are invited to participate in the creation of their own personal 500 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING interpretations and meaning of material. A standards-based system expects all learners to demonstrate proficiency in certain agreed-upon areas. This contradiction becomes more apparent as children move from primary schools, where developmentally appropriate practice focuses on the learner quite naturally, to secondary educational environments, where expectations for mastery of subject matter are clearly defined. These two forces can be reconciled, but doing so will require thoughtful systems design and a commitment to allowing students to demonstrate proficiency in a wide variety of ways. It will also require integration and definition of the purposes at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels of schooling. NEW VISIONS OF EDUCATION VS. PROJECT PROLIFERATION Through their attempts to develop new, comprehensive visions of education, educators are struggling to escape from the current para- digms and assumptions surrounding schooling. At the same time, how- ever, they often initiate numerous projects that may be inconsistent or only loosely linked to their emerging vision. The result is that restructur- ing becomes defined as a particular project (a new schedule or curricu- lum or grouping strategy), rather than as a broader vision for learning within which many different projects or approaches may proliferate. Allowing a number of projects to be developed simultaneously may be necessary in some cases to move the vision of the whole school along. Even the most frenetic attempts to jump start a vision via project development may fail, however. Many members of the school commu- nity (especially parents, students, and most teachers) may not perceive how the various pieces of the vision embodied in the projects fit together to form a new vision of education, nor how they may contribute to such a vision. FOCUS ON ADULTS VS. FOCUS ON THE CHILD Restructuring activities seem to divide into those that focus on the needs of adults versus those that focus on the needs of the child. This may seem an unfair distinction, and yet many of the new governance models being attempted that consume so much time and energy seem to relate only tangentially to the needs of children. This is not to say that such changes cannot or will not eventually benefit children. In the beginning at least, they are not focused primarily on the needs of children in most cases. Alternatively, many other activities or suggested changes connect directly with the evolving needs of children. It will be WHERE ARE WE HEADED? 501 important to try to identify the places where the needs of adults and those of children overlap, or to create means to enhance such overlap, so that the results of restructuring are seen to benefit both. INCREASED PROFESSIONALISM VS. INCREASED COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT The skill level and responsibilities of teachers will be expected to increase radically if many of the changes in curriculum, instruction, assessment, learning environment, and teacher leadership come to pass. Teachers will have much more responsibility to design curriculum, utilize a range of instructional techniques, assess student performance to provide feedback and reach important judgments, and employ a variety of grouping strategies. These responsibilities imply a higher level of professionalism among teachers. One of the key behaviors that defines a professional is the ability (and right) to apply a body of professional knowledge to solve problems and make decisions. The growth in teachers? professionalism may conflict with a countertrend of involving parents and the community to a greater degree in the governance of schools. Community members may feel they need to prescribe educational practice or set goals in ways that conflict with or overlap this increased professional latitude of teachers. As with other contradictions discussed previously, this is not automatically a problem if the roles of each are specified carefully and accepted by all, but the potential for misunderstanding seems great. STABLE/DECLINING RESOURCE BASE VS. RADICALLY INCREASED EXPECTATIONS FOR STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT The decade of the nineties is one where society has come to look upon schools as key in the struggle for economic competitiveness. Expectations that all students must reach a high level of intellectual functioning for their own economic well-being and the good of society have become more widespread and pervasive. Schools are seen as the only opportunity for many to develop the new, higher skill levels necessary to participate in the work force. These ever-increasing expec- tations and demands for a highly educated citizenry are being promoted in the same forums where the need for fiscal frugality is also being urged. Often it is the same people who are demanding both simulta- neously. Satisfying higher expectations under these conditions is a new challenge for public schools, which are accustomed to addressing prob- 502 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING lems only when additional resources are provided to do so. This contra- diction may prove to be profoundly troubling to educators, particularly principals and teachers, the ?front-line? workers, who will find it diffi- cult or impossible to conceive of how to address problems in the absence of significant infusions of new resources. This trend will only be exac- erbated as control over school funding continues its migration from the local to the state level. Schools will not be able to appeal to their local communities to finance programs of improvement. The ability to think ?outside of the box,? to conceptualize new ways to organize or reallo- cate resources, is likely to be an important skill for the decade. EMPOWERMENT VS. ACCOUNTABILITY Two of the significant trends of school reform, decentralized deci- sion-making and increased demands for accountability, appear to be on a collision course. In many states and districts, schools have become empowered to make more decisions locally through school-site councils or other vehicles. At the same time, national and state trends reflect a continuing desire to hold schools more accountable for performance. It will not be impossible to devise accountability systems that provide wide latitude for local decisions, but it will be difficult; it will require thoughtfulness, attention to details, and abandonment of the notion that there is one right way by which to measure or judge school success. Policy-makers do not have a very good track record of attending to such subtleties. Local councils are unlikely to prosper or survive if they cannot make decisions that have substantial impact. However, will they be willing to take responsibility in proportion to the authority they receive? What will happen when a school fails to improve? Will the council or the principal be held accountable? This relationship between site-level decision-making and system-level accountability promises to provide a source of tension for some time to come. BUREAUCRACY VS. COMMUNITY Most schools currently resemble bureaucratic organizations rather than communities. In fact, much of the legislation and many of the policies that have been put in place during the past seventy-five years have been for the purpose of building bureaucratic safeguards into schools, to remove them from the political arena. These safeguards have worked well, for the most part, to provide schools some insulation from their immediate communities. WHERE ARE WE HEADED? 503 Schools are now being challenged to function as true communities for students (and parents) who may have no real sense of community in their lives. They are asked to function as islands, or havens, within neighborhoods, rich and poor, that have few of the characteristics of true communities. Schools are expected to create environments where every- one shares some level of belief in and commitment to a vision of education that is focused on validating and developing each child as a valued individual, on creating opportunities for individuals to affiliate with the school as a community, and on enhancing the self-image and self-esteem of all members of that community. A natural tension exists between the aspiration toward community and the rules and regulations designed to ensure protection for those who occupy roles within the system. Bureaucracies demand that all members follow the rules and procedures of the organization; they have difficulty creating a sense of community and belonging for all. This inherent tension between rule-based organizations that provide guaran- tees and protections for the adults and communities that meet the unique needs of their members may prove difficult to resolve. NATIONAL/STATE/BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY FOR RESTRUCTURING VS. NO LOCAL CONSTITUENCY The call for radical restructuring of schools can be found in maga- zines, on television, in national reports, at state and national legislative hearings, in corporate board rooms, and at meetings of business leaders and policy-makers. It is almost a given among these groups that the only way to revive public education is through massive, perhaps traumatic, change. Somehow the message does not seem to have been received, or perhaps believed, at the local level. While there is increasing evidence that more community members and parents are vaguely uneasy about the quality of education in their schools and that some sort of change is needed, this feeling has not crystallized into large-scale demand for educational restructuring. In the average classroom, there is even less of a sense of urgency for change. This contradiction between highly visible activity at state and na- tional levels and little active connection to the local level is analogous to a storm on a lake, where the winds whip the surface waters into waves and whitecaps, but all remains calm several feet beneath the surface. If you are a passenger in a boat, your perspective on events is fundamen- tally different than if you are a fish in the water. Grassroots consensus for change in social institutions takes a long time to develop. Conse- quently, the coexistence of intense action at policy levels and little 504 PROCESS OF RESTRUCTURING action at local levels may be a necessary phase from which emerges agreement on new goals and methods for education. OLD MODELS FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR VS. NEW MODELS FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR Many private-sector organizations that operate under the principles and techniques of scientific management, or Taylorism, are seeking to abandon them rapidly and replace them with management philosophies and practices based on worker involvement, commitment to quality, and maximum organizational flexibility and adaptability. Schools were strongly encouraged (or compelled) to adopt scientific management shortly after the turn of the century, when such practices were in vogue in the private sector. Educators find themselves in a similar situation again. They are being asked to abandon the old practices of the private sector and to adopt the new practices of the private sector. Strategic planning and Total Quality Management are only two recent examples of this trend. The challenge for educators is to determine which practices from the private sector are in actuality techniques that have application to all organizations, and then to adapt and modify these techniques to the specific needs and unique structures of educational institutions. WHAT LIES AHEAD? Whether educators have the energy or interest needed to initiate and sustain restructuring remains to be seen. At present, policy-makers and the business community are continuing to press for substantive change and improvement in public education. If those outside education lose interest in educational change, this may be an ominous sign, for it may indicate that they have given up on public education as a key to economic and social survival. If policy-makers and key community leaders come to believe that the public education system is beyond repair, it will become increasingly difficult to obtain the resources, support, and involvement needed to reshape the school system. The question may not be whether public education will change. It may be whether educators will remain in control of the process, and whether public education will continue to retain its legitimacy as the institution best equipped and positioned to socialize and educate the vast majority of young people. With this legitimacy comes the right to an exclusive claim on tax dollars. If educators are to change in the ways necessary for earnest, radical, and successful restructuring, it may be WHERE ARE WE HEADED? 505 necessary for them, and especially teachers, to adopt a systems perspec- tive so that they can perceive their behaviors in a broader social-policy context. Ultimately restructuring comes down to the behaviors of individual teachers and principals in particular educational settings. The success of restructuring depends on their willingness, along with the willingness of administrators, boards of education, state educational agencies, legisla- tures, the federal government, and especially community members, parents, and students, to accept changes in the ?deep structure? of schooling and in the goals of public education. The act of listing all these constituencies starkly outlines the magnitude of the challenge. The reactions and behaviors of these constituencies over the next several years will determine the probable future of the emerging visions of educational restructuring presented here. This book has attempted to outline a roadmap of restructuring. A roadmap presents possibilities, not inevitabilities. There are many ways to get ?there? from ?here.? Public education may be at a crossroads, and the choices made or not made, the routes traveled or not traveled, in the next several years are likely to generate repercussions that will be felt for some time to come. It is my hope that educators and others interested in the future of public education study this roadmap carefully so that they can be assured that they have made a conscious decision of the road they wish to follow and the destination toward which they are headed. BIBLIOGRAPHY 507 507 BIBLIOGRAPHY Many of the items in this bibliography are indexed in ERIC?s monthly catalog Resources in Education (RIE). Reports in RIE are indicated by an ?ED? number. Journal articles, indexed in ERIC?s companion catalog, Current Index to Journals in Education, are indicated by an ?EJ? number. Most items with an ED number are available from ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS), 7420 Fullerton Rd., Suite 110, Springfield, VA 22153-2852. To order from EDRS, specify the ED number, type of reproduction de- sired?microfiche (MF) or paper copy (PC), and number of copies. Add postage to the cost of all orders and include check or money order payable to EDRS. For credit card orders, call 1-800-443-3742. Acheson, Keith A., and Stuart C. Smith. It Is Time for Principals to Share the Respon- sibility for Instructional Leadership with Others. OSSC Bulletin. Eugene, Oregon: Oregon School Study Council, 1986. 30 pages. ED 267 510. Acquarelli, Kris, and Judith Mumme. ?A Renaissance in Mathematics Education Re- form.? Phi Delta Kappan 77, 7 (March 1996): 478-82, 84. EJ 519 756. Adams County School District 14. Graduation Requirements: Exit Outcomes. Septem- ber 16, 1991. Adelman, Nancy, and Beverly Pringle. ?Education Reform and the Uses of Time.? Phi Delta Kappan 77, 1 (September 1995): 27-29. EJ 511 692. Akers, John. ?Business Must Fill Educational Gap.? Computerworld 24, 46 (November 12, 1990): 25. Alameda Unified School District. ?Graduate Profile.? Unpublished document, 1992. Alderman, M. Kay. ?Motivation for At-Risk Students.? Educational Leadership 48, 1 (September 1990): 27-30. EJ 413 159. Aldridge, Bill G. (Ed.). Scope, Sequence, and Coordination of Secondary School Science, Volume III: A High School Framework for National Science Education Standards. Washington D.C.: National Science Teachers Association, 1995. Aldridge, Bill G., and A. A. Strassenburg (Eds.). Scope, Sequence, and Coordination of National Science Education Content Standards: An Addendum to the Content Core Based on the 1994 Draft National Science Education Standards. Arlington, Vir- ginia: National Science Teachers Association, 1995. Alexander, Karl L., and Edward L. McDill. ?Selection and Allocation Within Schools: Some Causes and Consequences of Curriculum Placement.? American Sociologi- cal Review 41, 6 (December 1976): 963-80. EJ 150 911. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Science for All Americans. A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology. Washington D.C.: Author, 1989. 217 pages. 508 BIBLIOGRAPHY American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. National Standards for Foreign Language Education. Yonkers, New York: Author, 1995. Amster, Jeanne, and others. Investing in Our Future. The Imperatives of Education Reform and the Role of Business. Queenstown, Maryland: Aspen Institute, 1990. 43 pages. ED 323 327. Anastos, Joy, and Robert Ancowitz. ?A Teacher-Directed Peer Coaching Project.? Educational Leadership 45, 3 (November 1987): 40-42. EJ 367 356. Anderson, James G. Bureaucracy in Education. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968. 217 pages. Anderson, Robert, and Barbara Pavan. Nongradedness: Helping It to Happen. Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Technomics Publishing Company, 1993. 266 pages. ED 355 005. Anrig, Gregory, and Archie E. Lapointe. ?What We Know About What Students Don?t Know.? Educational Leadership 47, 3 (November 1989): 4-5, 7-9. EJ 398 941. Applebee, Arthur; Judith Langer; and Ina Mullis. Crossroads in American Education. Princeton, New Jersey: National Assessment of Educational Progress and Educa- tional Testing Service, 1989. 60 pages. ED 309 178. Archbald, Doug A., and Fred M. Newmann. Beyond Standardized Testing! Assessing Authentic Academic Achievement in the Secondary School. Reston, Virginia: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1988. 74 pages. ED 301 587. Associated Oregon Industries, and the National Association for Schools of Excellence. Saving America?s Children: Achieving International Standards in American Schools: A Blueprint for Change. Portland, Oregon: MEDIAmerica, 1992. Aurora Public Schools. Pursing Our Commitment to Life-Long Learning. Aurora, Colorado: Author, 1992. Ayers, William. ?Perestroika in Chicago?s Schools.? Educational Leadership 48, 8 (May 1991): 69-71. EJ 425 612. Bacharach, Samuel, and Sharon Conley. ?Uncertainty and Decisionmaking in Teaching: Implications for Managing Line Professionals.? In Schooling for Tomorrow: Di- recting Reform to Issues That Count, edited by Thomas J. Sergiovanni and John H. Moore. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1989. 403 pages. Bacharach, Samuel B., and Edward J. Lawler. Power and Politics in Organizations: The Social Psychology of Conflict, Coalitions, and Bargaining. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1980. 249 pages. Bacharach, Samuel B., and S. Mitchell. ?The Generation of Practical Theory: Schools as Political Organizations.? In Handbook of Organizational Behavior, edited by Jay W. Lorsch. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1987. 430 pages. Baird, L. ?Big School, Small School: A Critical Examination of the Hypothesis.? Journal of Educational Psychology 60 (1969): 253-60. Baker, Stephen. ?Mexico: A New Economic Era.? Business Week 3187 (November 12, 1990): 102-06. Ballinger, C. ?Prisoners No More.? Educational Leadership 53, 3 (November 1995): 28-31. EJ 514 696. ________. ?Rethinking the School Calendar.? Educational Leadership 45, 5 (February 1988): 57-61. EJ 368 830. Barker, Roger Garlock, and Paul V. Gump. Big School, Small School: High School Size and Student Behavior. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1964. 250 pages. Barone, Thomas. ?Assessment as Theater: Staging an Exposition.? Educational Leader- ship 48, 5 (February 1991): 57-59. EJ 421 351. BIBLIOGRAPHY 509 Barr, Rebecca, and Robert Dreeben. ?A Sociological Perspective on School Time.? In Perspectives on Instructional Time, edited by Charles W. Fisher and David C. Berliner. New York: Longman, 1985. 357 pages. Barr, Rebecca; Robert Dreeben; and Nonglak Wiratchai. How Schools Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. 191 pages. Barrett, Michael J. ?The Case for More School Days.? The Atlantic Monthly 266, 5 (November 1990): 78-106. Bates, Percy. ?Desegregation: Can We Get There from Here?? Phi Delta Kappan 72, 1 (September 1990): 8-17. EJ 413 171. Bauch, Jerold. ?The TransParent School Model: New Technology for Parent Involve- ment.? Educational Leadership 47, 2 (October 1989): 32-34. EJ 397 736. Beane, James. ?The Middle School: The Natural Home of Integrated Curriculum.? Educational Leadership 49, 2 (October 1991): 9-13. EJ 432 772. Beck, Melinda. ?The Geezer Boom, The 21st Century Family.? Newsweek Special Edition (1990): 62. Becker, Henry J. ?Computer-Based Integrated Learning Systems in the Elementary and Middle Grades: A Critical Review and Synthesis of Evaluation Reports.? Journal of Educational Computing Research 8, 1 (January 1992): 1-41. EJ 446 212. Becker, Henry J., and Nira Hativa. ?History, Theory, and Research Concerning Inte- grated Learning Systems.? International Journal of Educational Research 21, 1 (1994):5-12. Bednarz, Sarah Witham, and others. Geography for Life: National Geography Stan- dards. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Research and Exploration, 1994. 278 pages. ED 375 073. Begle, E. G. Ability Grouping for Mathematics Instruction: A Review of the Empirical Literature. Stanford, California: Stanford University, Mathematics Education Study Group, 1975. Bellah, Robert N.; Richard Madsen; William Sullivan; Ann Swidler; and Steve Tipton. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. 355 pages. Benjamin, Steve. ?An Ideascape for Education: What Futurists Recommend.? Educa- tional Leadership 47, 1 (September 1989): 8-14. EJ 395 095. Bennis, Warren, and Burt Nanus. Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge. New York: Harper & Row, 1985. 244 pages. Berends, Mark. A Description of Restructuring in Nationally Nominated Schools. Madison: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, University of Wisconsin, 1992. Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1966. 203 pages. Berliner, David. ?Education Reform in an Era of Disinformation.? Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, San Antonio, Texas, February 1992. 97 pages. ED 348 710. Berman, P., and M. McLaughlin. Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change. Volume 8: ?Implementing and Sustaining Innovations.? Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation, 1974. Berman, Paul, and others. Restructuring California Education: A Design for Public Education in the Twenty-First Century. Recommendations to the California Business Roundtable. Berkeley: California Business Roundtable, 1988. ED 302 618. 510 BIBLIOGRAPHY Berry, Barnett, and Rick Ginsberg. ?Creating Lead Teachers: From Policy to Implemen- tation.? Phi Delta Kappan 71, 8 (April 1990): 616-21. EJ 405 157. Bertani, Albert; Linda Tafel; Jack Proctor; and Joan Vydra. ?Teachers as Leaders: A District Plans for New Roles, New Directions.? Journal of Staff Development 8, 1 (Spring 1987): 36-38. EJ 356 229. Bierlein, L., A. ?Catching On but the Jury?s Still Out.? Educational Leadership 53, 4 (December/January 1995/96): 90-91. Bimber, B. The Decentralization Mirage: Comparing Decision Making Arrangements in Four High Schools. Santa Monica, California: Institute on Education and Training, Rand Corporation, 1994. 65 pages. ED 377 553. Blau, Peter, and W. Richard Scott. Formal Organizations. San Francisco: Chandler Publications, 1962. Bloom, Allan David. The Closing of the American Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987. 392 pages. Blum, Robert E., and Jocelyn A. Butler. ?Managing Improvement by Profiling.? Educa- tional Leadership 42, 6 (March 1985): 54-58. EJ 315 262. Bodilly, Susan. Lessons from New American Schools Development Corporation?s Demonstration Phase. Santa Monica, California: RAND Corporation, 1996. 161 pages. ED 396 377. Bolin, Frances S. ?Empowering Leadership.? Teachers College Record 91, 1 (Fall 1989): 81-96. EJ 398 427. Bolman, Lee G., and Terrence E. Deal. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991. 492 pages. ED 371 457. Bonstingl, John Jay. ?The Quality Revolution in Education.? Educational Leadership 50, 3 (November 1992): 4-9. EJ 454 318. Borrell, Jerry. ?America?s Shame: How We?ve Abandoned Our Children?s Future.? Macworld 9, 9 (September 1992): 25-26, 28, 30. Boyer, Ernest. ?Civic Education for Responsible Citizens.? Educational Leadership 48, 3 (November 1990): 4. Bracey, Gerald W. ?Teachers as Researchers.? Phi Delta Kappan 72, 5 (January 1991): 404-7. ________. ?The Second Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education.? Phi Delta Kappan 74, 2 (October 1992): 104-08, 110-17. EJ 451 423. ________. ?Why Can?t They Be Like We Were?? Phi Delta Kappan 73, 2 (October 1991): 104-17. EJ 432 755. Bradley, Ann. ?In Dade County, Company Gears Up To Help District Run a Public School.? Education Week IX, 37 (June 6, 1990): 1, 16-17. ________. School Choice. Ewing, New Jersey: Carnegie Foundation for the Advance- ment of Teaching, 1992. _______. ?In Shift, N.E.A. Puts New Focus on Reform Issues.? Education Week 14, 40 (July 12, 1995): 1, 11. ________. ?NEA Seeks To Help Start Five Charter Schools.? Education Week 15, 31 (April 24, 1996): 3. ________. ?Network Seeks Union Role in Reform Efforts.? Education Week 15, 33 (May 8, 1996): 1, 9. ________. ?Signs Abound Teaching Reforms Are Taking Hold.? Education Week 14, 28 (April 5, 1995): 1, 16. Brandt, Ron. ?On Deming and School Quality: A Conversation with Enid Brown.? Educational Leadership 50, 3 (November 1992): 28-31. EJ 454 324. BIBLIOGRAPHY 511 ________. ?On Outcome-Based Education: A Conversation with Bill Spady.? Educa- tional Leadership 50, 4 (December-January 1992/1993): 66-70. EJ 454 407. ________. ?On Parents and Schools: A Conversation with Joyce Epstein.? Educational Leadership 47, 2 (October 1989): 24-27. ED 397 732. ________. ?On Teacher Empowerment: A Conversation with Ann Lieberman.? Educa- tional Leadership 46 8 (May 1989): 23-26. EJ 388 737. ________. ?On the Expert Teacher: A Conversation with David Berliner.? Educational Leadership 44, 2 (October 1986): 4-9. EJ 342 524. Bredeson, Paul. ?Letting Go of Outlived Professional Identities: A Study of Role Transition for Principals in Restructured Schools.? Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1991. Brewer, D. J.; D. I. Rees; and L. M. Argys. ?Detracking America?s Schools: The Reform Without Cost?? Phi Delta Kappan 77, 3 (November 1995): 210-15. EJ 514 719. Brickley, Dan, and Tim Westerberg. ?Restructuring a Comprehensive High School.? Educational Leadership 47, 7 (April 1990): 28-31. EJ 405 188. Bridge, R. Gary; Charles M. Judd; and Peter R. Moock. The Determinants of Educa- tional Outcomes: The Impact of Families, Peers, Teachers, and Schools. Cam- bridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger, 1979. 357 pages. Bridges, Edwin. ?A Model for Shared Decision Making in the School Principalship.? Educational Administration Quarterly 20, 3 (1967): 11-40. Broder, David. ?New Jobs Require Better-Educated Workers.? Eugene Register-Guard, May 22, 1991: 11A. Brooks, Jacqueline Grennon. ?Teachers and Students: Constructivists Forging New Connections.? Educational Leadership 47, 5 (February 1990): 68-71. EJ 402 402. Brooks, Jacqueline Grennon, and Martin G. Brooks, In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Super- vision and Curriculum Development, 1993. 143 pages. ED 366 428. Brophy, Jere. ?Probing the Subtleties of Subject-Matter Teaching.? Educational Lead- ership 49, 7 (April 1992): 4-8. EJ 442 784. Brophy, Jere E., and T. L. Good. ?Teacher Behavior and Student Achievement.? In Handbook of Research on Teaching, edited by Merlin C. Wittrock. New York: Macmillan, 1986. 1037 pages. Brown, Ann, and Joseph Campione. ?Fostering a Community of Learners.? Forthcom- ing. Bryson, John M. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement. Revised Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996. 325 pages. ED 391 064. Bryson, John M., and William D. Roering. ?Initiation of Strategic Planning by Govern- ments.? Public Administration Review 48, 6 (November-December 1988): 995- 1004. Budde, Ray. ?Education by Charter.? Phi Delta Kappan 70, 7 (March 1989): 518-20. EJ 385 316. Bugliarello, George. ?Hyperintelligence: Humankind?s Next Evolutionary Step.? In Rethinking the Curriculum: Toward an Integrated, Interdisciplinary College Edu- cation, edited by Mary E. Clark and Sandra A. Wawrytko. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990. 272 pages. Burke, D. L. ?Multi-Year Teacher/Student Relationships Are Long-Overdue Arrange- ment.? Phi Delta Kappan 77, 5 (January 1996): 360-61. EJ 516 053. Burns, James MacGregor. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row, 1978. 530 pages. 512 BIBLIOGRAPHY Calabrese, Raymond, and Harry Schumer. ?The Effects of Service Activities on Adoles- cent Alienation.? Adolescence 21, 83 (Fall 1986): 675-87. EJ 345 025. California Department of Education. A Question of Thinking: A First Look at Students? Performance on Open-ended Questions in Mathematics. Sacramento: Author, 1989. 93 pages. ED 315 289. Callahan, Raymond E. Education and the Cult of Efficiency: A Study of the Social Forces That Have Shaped the Administration of the Public Schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. 273 pages. Campbell, Roald Fay, and Tim L. Mazzoni. State Policymaking for the Public Schools. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1976. 466 pages. Canady, Robert Lynn. ?Design Scheduling Structures to Increase Student Learning.? Focus in Change 1, 2 (March 1989): 1-2,7-8. Canady, Robert Lynn, and Michael D. Rettig. ?Restructuring Middle Level Schedules to Promote Equal Access.? Schools in the Middle (Summer 1992): 20-26. ________. ?The Power of Innovative Scheduling.? Educational Leadership 53, 3 (November 1995): 4-10. EJ 514 691. ________. ?Unlocking the Lockstep High School Schedule.? Phi Delta Kappan 75, 4 (December 1993): 310-14. EJ 474 292. Carlisle, E. R. ?Educating for the Future.? Planning and Changing 19, 3 (Fall 1988): 131-40. EJ 385 307. Carnevale, Anthony. ?Skills for the New World Order.? The American School Board Journal 179, 5 (May 1992): 28-30. ED 444 346. Carnevale, Anthony P.; Leila J. Gainer; and Ann S. Meltzer. Workplace Basics: The Skills Employers Want. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990. 494 pages. ED 319 979. Carroll, Joseph M. ?The Copernican Plan Evaluated: The Evolution of a Revolution.? Phi Delta Kappan 76, 2 (October 1994): 104-10, 112-13. EJ 490 904. ________. ?The Copernican Plan: Restructuring the American High School.? Phi Delta Kappan 71, 5 (January 1990): 358-65. EJ 400 584. Carson, C. C.; R. M. Huelskamp; and T. D. Woodall. Perspectives on Education in America. Third Draft. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories, May 1991. Carver, Sharon. ?Integrating Interactive Technologies into Classrooms: The Discover Rochester Project.? Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, Massachusetts, April 1990. Case, Ann Dinsmoor. ?The Special Education Rescue: A Case for Systems Thinking.? Educational Leadership 50, 2 (October 1992): 32-34. EJ 451 473. Center for Civic Education. National Standards for Civics and Government. Calabasas, California: Center for Civic Education, 1994. Cetron, Marvin, and Margaret Gayle. Educational Renaissance: Our Schools at the Turn of the Century. New York: St. Martin?s Press, 1991. 352 pages. Cetron, M. J. ; W. Rocha; and R. Luckins. ?Into the 21st Century: Long Term Trends Affecting the United States.? The Futurist 22, 4 (1988): 29-42. Chamberlain, Neil W., and James W. Kuhn. Collective Bargaining. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1965. 451 pages. Chenoweth, Tom. ?An Inquiry Approach to Staff Development in Accelerated Schools.? Journal of Staff Development 12, 3 (Summer 1991): 34-38. Chenoweth, Tom, and Robert Everhart. ?The Restructured School: How Do You Know If Something Is Happening?? Paper presented at the annual conference of the University Council on Educational Administration, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Oc- tober 26-28, 1991. BIBLIOGRAPHY 513 Chrispeels, Janet. ?District Leadership in Parent Involvement: Policies and Actions in San Diego.? Phi Delta Kappan 72, 5 (January 1991): 367-71. EJ 419 907. Chubb, John E., and Terry M. Moe. ?Schools in a Marketplace: Chubb and Moe Argue Their Bold Proposal.? School Administrator 48, 1 (January 1991): 18, 20, 22, 25. EJ 418 223. ________. Politics, Markets, and America?s Schools. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1990. ED 336 851. Clark, David; L. Lotto; and T. Astuto. ?Effective Schools and School Improvement: A Comparative Analysis of Two Lines of Inquiry.? Educational Administration Quarterly 20, 3 (Summer 1984): 41-68. Clark, David, and Judith Meloy. ?Recanting Bureaucracy: A Democratic Structure for Leadership in Schools.? In Schools as Collaborative Cultures: Creating the Future Now, edited by Ann Lieberman. New York: Falmer Press, 1990. 261 pages. ED 333 064. ________. ?Renouncing Bureaucracy: A Democratic Structure for Leadership in Schools.? In Schooling for Tomorrow: Directing Reform to Issues That Count, edited by Thomas Sergiovanni and John Moore. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1989. 403 pages. ED 304 774. Clarke, B. R. ?The Role of the Principal in Mainstreaming.? British Columbia Journal of Special Education 8, 3 (January 1984): 247-55. EJ 311 996. Clegg, Stewart R. Frameworks of Power. London: Sage, 1989. 297 pages. Clinchy, Evans. ?Chicago?s Great Experiment Begins: Will Radical Decentralization Bring School Reform?? Equity and Choice 5, 3 (May 1989): 40-44. EJ 393 104. Clune, William H., and Paula A. White. School-Based Management: Institutional Variation, Implementation, and Issues for Further Research. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Eagleton Institute of Politics, Center for Policy Research in Education, 1988. 46 pages. ED 300 908. Clune, William H.; Paula White; and Janice Patterson. The Implementation and Effects of High School Graduation Requirements: First Steps Toward Curricular Reform. CPRE Research Report Series. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for Policy Research in Education, Rutgers University, 1989. 78 pages. ED 304 756. Cohen, David K. The Classroom of State and Federal Policy. East Lansing, School of Education, Michigan State University, 1990. Cohen, Deborah. ?Home Visits Seen as Key Strategy To Combat a Host of Childhood Woes.? Education Week XI, 7 (October 16, 1991): 1, 24. ________. ?San Diego Agencies Join to Ensure ?New Beginnings? for Families.? Education Week X, 18 (January 23, 1991): 1,16,17,19. Cohen, Elizabeth G. ?Continuing to Cooperate: Prerequisites for Persistence.? Phi Delta Kappan 72, 2 (October 1990): 134-38. EJ 414 876. Cohen, Michael. ?Effective Schools: Accumulating Research Findings.? American Education 18, 1 (January/February 1982): 13-16. EJ 259 025. Cole, Stephen. The Unionization of Teachers: A Case Study of UFT. New York: Arno Press, 1969. 245 pages. Collins, Allan. ?The Role of Computer Technology in Restructuring Schools.? Phi Delta Kappan 73, 1 (September 1991): 28-36. EJ 431 204. Commission on Standards for School Mathematics. Curriculum and Evaluation Stan- dards for School Mathematics. Reston, Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989. Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. ?Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education.? Bulletin 1918, 35. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1928. 514 BIBLIOGRAPHY Commission on the Restructuring of the American High School. Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution. Reston, Virginia: National Association of Secondary School Principals in partnership with the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching on the High School of the 21st Century, 1996. 127 pages. ED 393 205. Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. America?s Choice: High Skills or Low Wages. Rochester, New York: National Center on Education and the Economy, 1990. 209 pages. ED 323 297. Conant, James B. The American High School Today: A First Report to Interested Citizens. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959. 140 pages. Conley, D. A Business View: Education Reform in Oregon. Portland, Oregon: Oregon Business Council, January 1993. ________. Are You Ready to Restructure? A Guidebook for Educators, Parents, and Community Members. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, 1996. 181 pages. ED 390 179. ________. ?Daddy, I?m Scared: A Prophetic Parable.? Phi Delta Kappan 78, 4 (Decem- ber 1996a): 290-97. ________. ?Eight Steps to Improved Teacher Remediation.? NASSP Bulletin 75, 536 (September 1991a): 26-41. EJ 431 215. ________. Lessons from Laboratories in School Restructuring and Site-Based Deci- sion-Making: Oregon?s 2020 Schools Take Control of Their Own Reform. OSSC Bulletin. Eugene, Oregon: Oregon School Study Council, March1991. 69 pages. ED 343 263. ________. ?Lessons from Strategic Planning.? The School Administrator (December 1994): ________. Restructuring Schools: Educators Adapt to a Changing World. Trends & Issues Series, Number 6. Eugene, Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, February 1991. 57 pages. ED 328 954. ________. ?Some Emerging Trends in School Restructuring.? ERIC Digest Series, Number 67. Eugene, Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, University of Oregon, January 1992. 2 pages. ED 343 196. ________. ?Strategic Planning for America?s Schools: An Exploratory Study? The Strategic Planner (Fall 1996): 16-19. ________. ?Strategic Planning for America?s Schools: An Exploratory Study.? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associa- tion, San Francisco, April 24, 1992. 59 pages. ED 345 359. ________. ?Strategic Planning in Practice: An Analysis of Purposes, Goals, and Proce- dures.? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Re- search Association, Atlanta, April 12, 1993. 30 pages. ED 358 530. ________. ?Where?s Waldo? The Conspicuous Absence of Higher Education From School Reform and One State?s Response.? Phi Delta Kappan 78, 4 (December 1996b): 309-14. Conley, David T.; Diane Dunlap; and Paul Goldman. ?The ?Vision Thing? and School Restructuring.? OSSC Report 32, 2 (Winter 1992): 1-8. ED 343 246. Conley, David T., and Paul Goldman. ?Reactions from the Field to State Restructuring Legislation.? Educational Administration Quarterly 31, 4 (November 1995): 512- 38. EJ 513 432. ________. ?Ten Propositions for Facilitative Leadership.? In Reshaping the Principalship: Insights from Transformational Reform Efforts, edited by Joseph Murphy and Karen Seashore Louis. 237-62. Newbury Parks, California: Corwin Press, 1994 BIBLIOGRAPHY 515 Conley, David T., and others. Proficiency-Based Admission Standards Study (PASS). Revised. Eugene, Oregon: Office of Academic Affairs, Oregon State System of Higher Education, February 1994. 180 pages. ED 367 213. Conley, David T., and Christine A. Tell. Admission Standards: Content and Process Areas Proficiencies and Indicators. Eugene, Oregon: Proficiency-Based Admis- sion Standards System (PASS) Project, Oregon State System of Higher Education, March 1996. Conley, Sharon, and Ralph Levinson. ?Teacher Work Redesign and Job Satisfaction.? Educational Administration Quarterly 29, 4 (November 1993): 453-78. EJ 470 604. Conley, Sharon. ?Review of Research on Teacher Participation in School Decision Making.? In Review of Research in Education, Vol. 17, edited by Gerald Grant. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association, 1991. Conlin, Elizabeth. ?Educating the Market.? Inc. 13, 7 (1991): 62. Conrad, Daniel, and Diane Hedin. ?School-Based Community Service: What We Know from Research and Theory.? Phi Delta Kappan 72, 10 (June 1991): 743-49. EJ 426 971. ________. ?The Impact of Experiential Education on Adolescent Development.? Child & Youth Services 4, 3-4 (1982): 56-76. EJ 270 703. Conway, J. A., and Calzi, F. ?The Dark Side of Shared Decision Making.? Educational Leadership 53, 4 (December/January 1995/96): 45-49. EJ 517 892. Cook, William J. Bill Cook?s Strategic Planning for America?s Schools. Arlington, Virginia: American Association of School Administrators, 1988. 188 pages. ED 303 870. Cooper, Bruce. Collective Bargaining, Strikes, and Financial Costs in Public Educa- tion: A Comparative Review. Eugene, Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educa- tional Management, 1982. 136 pages. ED 215 441. Corbett, H. Dickson. ?Restructuring Schools: Toward a Definition.? In At-Risk Students and School Restructuring, edited by Keith Kershner and John Connolly. Philadel- phia: Research for Better Schools, 1991. ED 335 425. Corcoran, T. B. ?Teacher Participation in Public School Decision-Making: A Discus- sion Paper.? Paper prepared for the Work in America Institute, 1987. Council of Chief State School Officers. Status Report: State Systemic Education Im- provements. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers, August 1995. Cowan, Hilary. ?Project TEACH: How Business Helps Our Schools.? Educational Leadership 47, 2 (October 1989): 6-7. EJ 397 726. Cremin, Lawrence A. American Education: The Metropolitan Experience, 1876-1980. New York: Harper & Row, 1988. 781 pages. Cresswell, Anthony M., and Fay Spargo. Impacts of Collective Bargaining Policy in Elementary and Secondary Education: A Review of Research and Methodology: Recommendations for New Research. Denver, Colorado: Education Commission of the States, 1980. 106 pages. ED 193 806. Cross, Christopher; Richard La Pointe; and Carl Jensen. ?The FIRST Grants: Federal Leadership to Advance School and Family Partnerships.? Phi Delta Kappan 72, 5 (January 1991): 383-88. EJ 419 910. Cuban, Larry. ?A Fundamental Puzzle of School Reform.? Phi Delta Kappan 69, 5 (January 1988): 341-44. EJ 364 789. ________. How Teachers Taught: Constancy and Change in American Classrooms, 1890-1980. New York: Longman, 1984a. 292 pages. ED 383 498. 516 BIBLIOGRAPHY ________. ?Reforming Again, Again, and Again.? Educational Researcher 19, 1 (January-February 1990): 3-13. EJ 408 024. ________. ?School Reform by Remote Control: SB 813 in California.? Phi Delta Kappan 66, 3 (November 1984b): 213-15. EJ 309 954. ________. ?The ?At-Risk? Label and the Problem of Urban School Reform.? Phi Delta Kappan 70, 10 (June 1989): 780-84, 799-801. EJ 390 509. Curriculum Task Force of the National Commission on Social Studies in the Schools. Charting a Course: Social Studies for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: Na- tional Commission on Social Studies in the Schools, November 1989. 92 pages. ED 317 450. Cushman, Kathleen. ?Performances and Exhibitions: The Demonstration of Mastery.? Horace 6, 3 (March 1990): 1-12. ________. ?Coalition of Essential Schools.? Horace 9, 1 (September 1992). Daniels, Harvey. ?The Best Practice Project: Building Parent Partnerships in Chicago.? Educational Leadership 53, 7 (April 1996): 38-43. EJ 522 784. Danielson, Louis C., and G. Thomas Bellamy. State Variations in Placement of Chil- dren with Handicaps in Segregated Environments. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, January 1988. 21 pages.ED 300 987. Darling-Hammond, Linda. ?Educational Indicators and Enlightened Policy.? Educa- tional Policy 6, 3 (September 1992): 235-65. EJ 448 511. ________. ?The Quiet Revolution: Rethinking Teacher Development.? Educational Leadership 53, 6 (March 1996): 4-10. EJ 519 768. ________. ?Teacher Professionalism: Why and How?? In Schools as Collaborative Cultures: Creating the Future Now, edited by Ann Lieberman. New York: Falmer Press, 1990. 261 pages. Darling-Hammond, L.; J. Ancess; and B. Falk Authentic Assessment in Action: Studies of Schools and Students at Work. New York: National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching, 1995. ED 384 572. David, Jane L. ?School-Based Decision Making: Kentucky?s Test of Decentralization.? Phi Delta Kappan 75, 9 (1994): 706-12. EJ 483 357. ________. ?Synthesis of Research on School-Based Management.? Educational Lead- ership 46, 9 (May 1989): 45-53. EJ 388 744. ________. ?The Who, What, and Why of Site-Based Management.? Educational Leadership 53, 4 (December/January 1995/1996): 4-9. EJ 517 884. ________. ?What It Takes To Restructure Education.? Educational Leadership 48, 8 (May 1991): 11-15. EJ 425 600. David, Jane L., and others. Restructuring in Progress: Lessons from Pioneering Dis- tricts. Results in Education Series. Washington, D.C.: National Governors? Asso- ciation, 1989. 60 pages. ED 306 633. ________. State Actions to Restructure Schools: First Steps. Results in Education Series. Washington D.C.: National Governors? Association, 1990. 51 pages. ED 320 221. Davies, Don. ?Restructuring Schools: Increasing Parent Involvement.? In At-Risk Stu- dents and School Restructuring, edited by Keith Kershner and John Connolly. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools, 1991a. 129 pages. ED 335 425. ________. ?Schools Reaching Out: Family, School, and Community Partnerships for Student Success.? Phi Delta Kappan 72, 5 (January 1991b): 376-380, 382. EJ 419 909. BIBLIOGRAPHY 517 Davis, Alan, and Catherine Felknor. ?The Demise of Performance-Based Graduation in Littleton.? Educational Leadership 51, 6 (March 1994): 64-5. EJ 481 250. Deal, Terrence. ?Reframing Reform.? Educational Leadership 47, 8 (May 1990): 6-7, 9, 11-12. EJ 410 201. ________. ?The Culture of Schools.? In Leadership: Examining the Elusive, edited by L. Sheive and M. Schoenheit. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Superivision and Curriculum Development, 1987. 144 pages. ED 278 154. ________. ?The Symbolism of Effective Schools.? Elementary School Journal 85, 5 (May 1985): 601-20. EJ 321 407. Deal, Terrence, and Kent Peterson. The Principal?s Role in Shaping School Culture. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1990. 122 pages. ED 325 914. Deming, W. Edwards. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge: Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1986. 507 pages. Dentler, Robert A., and others. ?Decentralization in the Cleveland Public Schools: An Evaluation.? Equity and Excellence 23, 1-2 (Spring 1987): 37-60. EJ 361 952. Dentzer, E., and A. Wheelock. Locked In/Locked Out: Tracking and Placement Prac- tices in Boston Public Schools. Boston: Massachusetts Advocacy Center, 1990. Department of the Interior?Bureau of Education. Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1928. Devaney, Kathleen. ?The Lead Teacher: Ways to Begin.? Paper prepared for the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, March 1987. Dewar, J. ?Grouping for Arithmetic Instruction in Sixth Grade.? Elementary School Journal 63 (1964): 266-69. Dianda, Marcella R., and Ronald G. Corwin. Vision and Reality: A First-Year Look at Californias Charter Schools. Los Alamitos, California: Southwest Regional Edu- cational Laboratory, May 1994. ED 373 444. DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. ?The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.? American So- ciological Review 48 (April 1983): 147-60. Dornbusch, S., and P. Ritter. ?Parents of High School Students: A Neglected Resource.? Educational Horizons 66 (1988): 75-87. Downey, Ronald G. ?Difference Between Entering Freshmen from Different Size High Schools.? Journal of College Student Personnel 19, 4 (July 1978): 353-58. EJ 186 508. Doyle, Denis. ?Can We Win the Brain Race with the Japanese?? School Administrator 48, 6 (August 1991): 16-20. EJ 429 825. Dreeben, Robert, and Adam Gamoran. ?Race, Instruction and Learning.? American Sociological Review 51, 5 (October 1986): 660-69. EJ 344 747. Drucker, Peter F. The New Realities: In Government and Politics, in Economics and Business, in Society and World View. New York: Harper & Row, 1989. 276 pages. Dryfoos, Joy G. ?Full-Service Schools.? Educational Leadership 53, 7 (April 1996): 18- 23. EJ 522 779. Duke, Daniel L.; B. K. Showers; and M. Imber. ?Teachers and Shared Decision- Making: The Costs and Benefits of Involvement.? Educational Administration Quarterly 16, 1 (Winter 1980): 93-106. EJ 225 498. Dumaine, Brian. ?What the Leaders of Tomorrow See.? Fortune (July 3, 1989): 48, 50. Dunlap, Diane, and Paul Goldman. ?Rethinking Power in Schools.? Educational Ad- ministration Quarterly 27, 1 (February 1991): 5-29. EJ 421 302. 518 BIBLIOGRAPHY ________. ??Power Over? versus ?Power Through?: Professional-Bureaucratic Rela- tionships in the 1990?s.? Paper presented at the annual conference of the University Council for Educational Administration, Phoenix, Arizona, 1989. ________. ?Power as a ?System of Authority? versus Power as a ?System of Facilita- tion?.? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Re- search Association, Boston, Massachusetts, April 16-20, 1990. 25 pages. ED 325 943. Dunlop, John T. Industrial Relations Systems. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1958. Dwyer, David. ?Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow: What We?ve Learned.? Educational Leadership 51, 7 (April 1994): 4-10. EJ 508 281. ________. ?The Principal as Instructional Leader.? Peabody Journal of Education 63, 1 (Fall 1986): 1-86. ________. ?The Search for Instructional Leadership: Routines and Subtleties in the Principal?s Role.? Educational Leadership 41, 5 (February 1984): 32-37. Dwyer, David; Cathy Ringstaff; and Judy Sandholtz. ?Changes in Teachers? Beliefs and Practices in Technology-Rich Classrooms.? Educational Leadership 48, 8 (May 1991): 45-52. EJ 425 608. Edmonds, Ronald. ?Programs of School Improvement: An Overview.? Educational Leadership 40, 3 (December 1982): 4-11. EJ 272 633. Education Commission of the States. Exploring Policy Options to Restructure Educa- tion. Denver, Colorado: Author, 1991. 95 pages. ED 332 323. Edwards, J. Clarence. ?The 4x4 Plan.? Educational Leadership 53, 3 (November 1995): 16-19. Edwards, June. ?To Teach Responsibility, Bring Back the Dalton Plan.? Phi Delta Kappan 72, 5 (January 1991): 398-401. EJ 419 913. Eisner, Elliot. ?The Ecology of School Improvement.? Educational Leadership 45, 5 (February 1988): 24-29. EJ 368 822. Elam, Stanley M., and Lowell C. Rose. ?The 27th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public?s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools.? Phi Delta Kappan 77, 1 (September 1995): 41-56. EJ 511 697. Elam, Stanley; Lowell Rose; and Alec Gallup. ?The 23rd Annual Gallup Poll of the Public?s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools.? Phi Delta Kappan 73, 1 (Septem- ber 1991): 41-56. EJ 431 206. ________. ?The 26th Annual Gallup Poll of the Public?s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools.? Phi Delta Kappan 76, 1 (1994): 41-56. EJ 489 366. Elmer-Dewitt, Philip. ?The Revolution That Fizzled.? Time 137, 20 (May 20, 1991): 48- 49. Elmore, Richard. Models of Restructured Schools. East Lansing, Michigan: Center for Policy Research in Education, Michigan State University, 1988. ________. ?On Changing the Structure of Public Schools.? In Restructuring Schools: The Next Generation of Educational Reform, edited by Richard Elmore and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990. ________. ?Teaching, Learning, and Organization: School Restructuring and the Recur- ring Dilemmas of Reform.? Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1991. Elmore, Richard F., and associates. Restructuring Schools: The Next Generation of Educational Reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990. 309 pages. EJ 356 519. Emmer, Edmund; Carolyn Evertson; and L. Anderson. ?Effective Classroom Manage- ment at the Beginning of the School Year.? Elementary School Journal 80, 5 (1980): 219-31. EJ 224 209. BIBLIOGRAPHY 519 Enderwick, Peter. ?Multinational Corporate Restructuring and International Competi- tiveness.? California Management Review (Fall 1989): 44-58. Epstein, Joyce. ?School/Family/Community Partnerships: Caring for the Children We Share.? Phi Delta Kappan 76, 9 (May 1995): 701-12. EJ 502 937. Epstein, Joyce, and Henry Becker. ?Teachers? Reported Practices on Parent Involve- ment: Problems and Possibilities.? Elementary School Journal 83, 2 (November 1982): 103-14. EJ 273 073. Esposito, Dominick. ?Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Ability Grouping: Principal Findings and Implications for Evaluating and Designing More Effective Education Environments.? Review of Educational Research 43 (1973): 163-79. Evertson, Carolyn M., and Edmund Emmer. ?Effective Management at the Beginning of the School Year in Junior High Classes.? Journal of Educational Psychology 74, 4 (August 1982): 485-98. EJ 267 792. Evertson, Carolyn M., and Alene Harris. ?What We Know About Managing Class- rooms.? Educational Leadership 49, 7 (April 1992): 74-78. EJ 442 798. Fantini, Mario, and M. Gittell. Decentralization: Achieving Reform. New York: Praeger, 1973. Fantini, Mario D., and Robert L. Sinclair, Editors. Education in School and Non-School Settings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985. 288 pages. Fink, Stephen. ?How We Restructured Our Categorical Programs.? Educational Lead- ership 50, 2 (October 1992): 42-43. EJ 451 476. Finn, Jr., Chester E. ?The Biggest Reform of All.? Phi Delta Kappan 71, 8 (April 1990): 584-92. EJ 405 151. Finn, Jr., Chester E.; B. V. Manno; and L. Bierlein. Charter Schools in Action: What Have We Learned? Indianapolis, Indiana: Hudson Institute, 1996. Finn, Jeremy D. ?Withdrawing from School.? Review of Educational Research 59, 2 (Summer 1989): 117-42. EJ 404 583. Fliegel, Seymour, and James MacGuire. Miracle in East Harlem. New York: Random House, 1993. Fogarty, Robin. ?Ten Ways to Integrate Curriculum.? Educational Leadership 49, 2 (October 1991): 61-65. EJ 432 787. Foster, June, and Candace Julyan. ?The National Geographic Kids? Network.? Science and Children 25 (1988): 38-39. Frymier, Jack. ?Children Who Hurt, Children Who Fail.? Phi Delta Kappan 74, 3 (November 1992): 257-59. EJ 452 827. Frymier, Jack, and Bruce Gansneder. ?The Phi Delta Kappa Study of Students at Risk.? Phi Delta Kappan 71, 2 (October 1989): 142-46. Fuhrman, Susan. ?Educational Policy: A New Context for Governance.? Publis: The Journal of Federalism 17, 3 (1987): 131-43. ________. ?Legislatures and Education Policy.? Paper presented at the annual confer- ence of the Eagleton Institute of Politics Symposium on the Legislature in the Twenty First Century, Williamsburg, Virginia, 1990. ________. ?The Politics of Coherence.? In Designing Coherent Policy: Improving the System, edited by Susan Fuhrman. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993. 370 pages. ED 359 626. Fullan, Michael. Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform. School Development and the Management of Change Series: 10. New York: Falmer Press, 1993. ED 373 391. ________. ?Change Processes and Strategies at the Local Level.? The Elementary School Journal 85, 3 (January 1985): 391-421. EJ 315 744. 520 BIBLIOGRAPHY ________. ?Visions That Blind.? Educational Leadership 49, 5 (February 1992): 19-20. EJ 439 278. Fullan, Michael G., and Matthew B. Miles. ?Getting Reform Right: What Works and What Doesn?t.? Phi Delta Kappan 73, 10 (June 1992): 744-52. EJ 445 727. Fullan, Michael G., and A. Pomfret. ?Research on Curriculum and Instruction Imple- mentation.? Review of Educational Research 47, 2 (1977): 335-97. Fullan, Michael G., with Suzanne Stiegelbauer. The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press, 1991. 401 pages. ED 354 588. Fuller, Bruce; Ken Wood; Tamar Rapoport; and Sanford Dornbusch. ?The Organiza- tional Context of Individual Efficacy.? Review of Educational Research 52, 1 (Spring 1982): 7-30. Galvez-Hjornevik, Cleta. ?Mentoring Among Teachers: A Review of the Literature.? Journal of Teacher Education 37, 1 (January-February 1986): 6-11. EJ 333 692. Gamoran, Adam. ?Instructional and Institutional Effects of Ability Grouping.? Sociol- ogy of Education 59, 4 (October 1986): 185-98. EJ 344 481. ________. How Tracking Affects Achievement. Madison, Wisconsin: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools, 1990. Garbarino, James. ?The Human Ecology of School Crime: A Case for Small Schools.? In School Crime, edited by Ernst Wenk. Davis, California: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1978. Garcia, Georgia, and David Pearson. ?Assessment and Diversity.? In Review of Re- search in Education, Volume 20, edited by Linda Darling-Hammond. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association, 1994. Gardner, David P., and others. A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983. 72 pages. ED 226 006. Gardner, Howard. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books, 1983. 440 pages. ________. ?Making Schools More Like Museums.? Education Week XI, 6 (October 9, 1991): 40. ________. The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach. New York: Basic Books, 1991. 303 pages. ED 368 451. Gardner, Howard, and Thomas Hatch. ?Multiple Intelligences Go to School: Educa- tional Implications of the Theory of Multiple Intelligences.? Educational Re- searcher 18, 8 (November 1989): 4-9. EJ 408 016. Garet, Michael., and Brian DeLany. ?Students, Courses, and Stratification.? Sociology of Education 61, 2 (April 1988): 61-77. EJ 369 605. Garmston, R. J. ?How Administrators Support Peer Coaching.? Educational Leadership 44, 5 (February 1987): 18-26. EJ 350 642. Gearhart, Maryl, and others. ?A New Mirror for the Classroom: Using Technology to Assess the Effects of Technology on Instruction.? Paper presented at the annual conference of the Apple Classroom of Tomorrow Symposium, Cupertino, Califor- nia, 1990. George, Paul S., and Lynn L. Oldaker. Evidence for the Middle School. Columbus, Ohio: National Middle School Association, 1985. Giorgi, Amedeo, Editor. Phenomenology and Psychological Research. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Duquesne University Press, 1985. 216 pages. Glatthorn, Allan. ?Restructuring Schools: Curriculm Reform.? In At-Risk Students and School Restructuring, edited by Keith M. Kershner and John A. Connolly. Phila- delphia, Pennsylvania: Research for Better Schools, Inc., 1991. 129 pages. ED 335 425. BIBLIOGRAPHY 521 Glickman, Carl. ?Has Sam and Samantha?s Time Come at Last?? Educational Leader- ship 46, 8 (May 1989): 4-9. EJ 388 734. Goldberger, Susan, and Richard Kazis. ?Revitalizing High Schools: What the School to Career Movement Can Contribute.? Phi Delta Kappan 77, 8 (April 1996): 547-52, 554. EJ 521 497. Goldman, Paul, and Diane Dunlap. ?Reform, Restructuring, Site-Based Management, and the New Face of Power in Schools.? Paper presented at the annual conference of the University Council for Educational Administration, Pittsburgh, Pennsylva- nia, October 26-28, 1990. 16 pages. ED 325 938. Goldman, Paul; Diane Dunlap; and David Conley. ?Administrative Facilitation and Site-Based School Reform Projects.? Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April 3-7, 1991. 32 pages. ED 332 334. ________. ?Facilitative Power and Non-Standardized Solutions to School Site Restruc- turing.? Educational Administration Quarterly 29, 1 (February 1993): 69-92. EJ 457 238. Goldman, Paul, and Neil S. Smith. ?Portrait of a Successful Educational Innovation: British Columbia?s Program for Quality Teaching.? Paper presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Kingston, Ontario, 1991. 13 pages. ED 346 587. Goldschmidt, Steven; Bruce Bowers; and Leland Stuart. The Extent and Nature of Educational Policy Bargaining. Final Report. Eugene, Oregon: Center for Educa- tional Policy and Management, 1984. 137 pages. ED 245 406. Goldschmidt, Steven, and Suzanne Painter. ?Collective Bargaining: A Review of the Literature.? Educational Research Quarterly 12,1 (1987-88): 10-24. EJ 389 988. Goldschmidt, Steven, and Leland E. Stuart. ?The Extent and Impact of Educational Policy Bargaining.? Industrial and Labor Relations Review 39, 3 (April 1986): 350-60. EJ 333 925. Goodlad, John. A Place Called School. Prospects for the Future. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1984. 396 pages. ED 236 137. Goodlad, John I., and Robert H. Anderson. The Nongraded Elementary School. New York: Teachers College Press, 1987. 248 pages. ED 279 084. Goodlad, John, and F. Klein. Looking Behind the Classroom Door. Worthington, Ohio: Charles Jones, 1970. Goodman, Kenneth S., and others. Report Card on Basal Readers. Katonah, New York: Richard C. Owen Publishers. National Council of Teachers of English, 1988. 167 pages. ED 300 794. Gordon, Jack. ?Can Business Save the Schools?? Training 27, 8 (August 1990): 19-27. EJ 412 651. Gray, Kenneth. ?Vocational Education in High School: A Modern Phoenix?? Phi Delta Kappan 72, 6 (February 1991): 437-45. EJ 421 308. Gray, William A., and Marilynne M. Gray. ?Synthesis of Research on Mentoring Beginning Teachers.? Educational Leadership 43, 3 (November 1985): 37-43. EJ 329 580. Greene, Jay P., Paul E. Peterson; and Jangfao Du; with Leesa Boeger and Curtis L. Frazier. ?The Effectiveness of School Choice in Milwaukee: A Secondary Analysis of Data from the Program?s Evaluation.? Occasional Paper 96-3. Boston, Massa- chusetts: Harvard University, August 1996. Greenfield, Elizabeth. ?ILSs: New Emphases for the Coming Years.? Technological Horizons in Education 19, 2 (September 1991): 10-12, 14. 522 BIBLIOGRAPHY Griffin, G. ?Influences of Shared Decision Making on School and Classroom Activity: Conversations with Five Teachers.? Elementary School Journal 96, 1 (September 1995): 29-45. EJ 510 577. Guiterrez, Roberto, and Robert Slavin. ?Achievement Effects of Nongraded Elementary School: A Retrospective Review.? Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, 1992. 66 pages. ED 346 996. Guskey, Thomas R., and Kent D. Peterson. ?The Road to Classroom Change.? Educa- tional Leadership 53, 4 (December/January 1995/96): 10-14. EJ 517 885. Guthrie, Grace Pung, and Larry F. Guthrie. ?Streamlining Interagency Collaboration for Youth At Risk.? Educational Leadership 49, 1 (September 1991): 17-22. EJ 432 685. Guthrie, James W. ?School-Based Management: The Next Needed Education Reform.? Phi Delta Kappan 68, 4 (December 1986): 305-9. EJ 345 283. Hall, Lena, and Ronald L. McKeen. ?Increased Professionalism in the Work Environ- ment of Teachers Through Peer Coaching.? Education 109, 3 (1989): 310-16. Hallinan, Maureen T. ?Summary and Implications.? In The Social Context of Instruc- tion: Group Organization and Group Processes, edited by P. L. Peterson and others. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, 1984. 258 pages. ED 268 075. ________. ?The Effects of Ability Grouping in Secondary Schools: A Response to Slavin?s Best-Evidence Synthesis.? Review of Educational Research 60, 3 (Fall 1990): 501-04. EJ 417 572. ________. ?Ability Grouping and Student Learning.? In The Social Organization of Schools: New Conceptualizations of the Learning Process, edited by Maureen Hallinan. New York: Plenum, 1987. 228 pages. Hallinger, Philip; Joseph Murphy; and Charles Hausman. ?Restructuring Schools: Principals? Perceptions of Fundamental Educational Reform.? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April 3-7, 1991. 42 pages. ED 334 681. Harp, Lonnie. ?Schools Urged to Revamp Instruction to Stress Workforce Skills.? Education Week X, 40 (July 31, 1991): 11. Hart, Ann Weaver. ?Creating Teacher Leadership Roles: The Impacts of Core Group Support.? Educational Administration Quarterly 30,4 (November 1994): 472-97. EJ 490 950. ________. ?Reconceiving School Leadership: Emergent Views.? Elementary School Journal 96, 1 (September 1995): 9-28. Hart, Ann Weaver, and Michael J. Murphy. ?New Teachers React to Redesigned Teacher Work.? American Journal of Education 98, 3 (May 1990): 224-50. EJ 414 380. Haselkorn, David, and Elizabeth Fideler. Breaking the Class Ceiling: Paraeducator Pathways to Teaching. Belmont, Massachusetts: Recruiting New Teachers, Inc., 1996. 304 pages. ED 398 184. Hayes, Larry. ?Re-Personalizing High Schools.? Phi Delta Kappan 73, 9 (May 1992): 724. Hearne, Jill, and Steven Schuman. Portfolio Assessment: Implementation and Use at an Elementary Level. 1992. 69 pages. ED 349 330. Heath, S.B., and M.W. McLaughlin. ?Policies for Children with Multiple Needs.? In Conditions of Children in California. Berkeley, California: Policy Analysis for California Education, 1989. 780 pages. ED 316 933. Heaviside, Sheila, and Elizabeth Farris. Education Partnerships in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statis- tics, 1989. 53 pages. ED 304 789. BIBLIOGRAPHY 523 Hechinger, Fred M., and Grace Hechinger. ?Are Schools Better in Other Countries?? American Education 10 (1974): 6-8. Hedin, Diane. ?Students as Teachers: A Tool for Improving School Climate and Productivity.? Social Policy 17, 3 (Winter 1987): 42-47. EJ 355 106. Heller, Margorie F., and William A. Firestone. ?Who?s in Charge Here? Sources of Leadership for Change in Eight Schools.? Elementary School Journal 96,1 (Sep- tember 1995): 65-86. EJ 510 579. Henderson, Anne T., Editor. The Evidence Continues to Grow: Parent Involvement Improves Student Achievement. An Annotated Bibliography. National Committee for Citizens in Education Special Report. Columbia, Maryland: National Commit- tee for Citizens in Education, 1987. 84 pages. ED 315 199. Herman, Joan, and Lynn Winters. ?Portfolio Research: A Slim Collection.? Educational Leadership 52, 2 (October 1994): 48-55. EJ 527 457. Hill, Paul T., and Josephine Bonan. Decentralization and Accountability in Public Education. Santa Monica, California: Rand, 1991. 93 pages. ED 334 665. Hirsch, Eric Donald, and others. Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs To Know. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987. 251 pages. Hoachlander, E. G.; P. Kaufman; and E. Wilen. ?Indicators of Education and the Economy.? In Education and the Economy: Hard Questions, Hard Answers. New York: The Institute on Education and the Economy, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1989. ED 329 793. Hodgkinson, Harold. ?Schools Are Really Awful, Aren?t They?? Education Week 11, 9 (October 30, 1991): 32, 25. ________. ?The Right Schools for the Right Kids.? Educational Leadership 45, 5 (February 1988): 10-14. EJ 368 819. ________. The Same Client: The Demographics of Education and Service Delivery Systems. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Educational Leadership, Center for De- mographic Policy, 1989. Hoerr, John; Leah Nathans Spiro; Larry Armstrong; and James Treece. ?Culture Shock at Home: Working for a Foreign Boss.? Business Week 3192 (December 17, 1990): 80-84. Holland, Alyce, and Thomas Andre. ?Participation in Extracurricular Activities in Secondary Schools: What Is Known, What Needs To Be Known.? Review of Educational Research 57, 4 (Winter 1987): 437-66. EJ 371 423. Hollister, Robinson. ?Why Is Equality Growing?? Focus 12, 3 (Spring 1990): 28. Hord, Shirley; William L. Rutherford; Leslie Huling-Austin; and Gene E. Hall. Taking Charge of Change. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curricu- lum Development, 1987. 102 pages. ED 282 876. Howard, Eugene. ?A Nine-Step Process for Restructuring Schools.? Unpublished paper, July 19, 1991. Huberman, A. Michael, and Matthew B. Miles. Innovation Up Close: How School Improvement Works. New York: Plenum Press, 1984. 309 pages. Huffman, Gail, and Sarah Leak. ?Beginning Teachers? Perceptions of Mentors.? Jour- nal of Teacher Education 37, 1 (January-February 1986): 22-25. EJ 333 695. Huling, Leslie. ?How School Size Affects Student Participation, Alienation.? NASSP Bulletin 64, 438 (October 1980): 13-18. EJ 232 068. Hurwitz, Sol. ?Paying Attention to the Teacher.? Across the Board 24, 11 (November 1987): 44-50. Husen, Torsten, Editor. International Study of Achievement in Mathematics: A Com- parison of Twelve Countries. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967. 524 BIBLIOGRAPHY Institute on Education Reform, University of Kentucky. The Implementation of Kentucky?s Primary Program in 1995: A Progress Report. Frankfort, Kentucky: Kentucky Institute for Educational Research, August 1995. International Reading Association. Who Is Teaching Our Children: A Look at the Use of Aides in Chapter 1. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1994. Jackson, Philip W. The Practice of Teaching. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1986. 159 pages. ED 271 427. Jacobs, Heidi Hayes. ?Design Options for an Integrated Curriculum.? In Interdiscipli- nary Curriculum: Design and Implementation, edited by Heidi Hayes Jacobs. 13- 24. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop- ment, 1989. ED 316 506. Jennings, L. ?Parents as Partners: Reaching Out to Families to Help Students Learn.? Education Week (August 1, 1990). Johnson, David W., and Roger T. Johnson. ?What to Say to Advocates for the Gifted.? Educational Leadership 50, 2 (October 1992): 44-47. EJ 451 477. ________. Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1991. ED 369 778. Johnson, David W.; Roger T. Johnson; and E. J. Holubec. Circles of Learning: Coopera- tion in the Classroom. Edina, Minnesota: Interaction Book Company, 1986. ED 241 516. Johnson, Susan Moore. ?Can Schools Be Reformed at the Bargaining Table?? Teachers College Record 89, 2 (Winter 1987): 269-80. ED 366 867. Johnston, Robert C. (1996, December 4). In ?96 Sessions, Charter Laws Keep Spread- ing. Education Week 16, 14 (December 4, 1996): 14, 19. Joint Committee on National Health Education Standards. National Health Education Standards: Achieving Health Literacy. Reston, Virginia: Association for the Ad- vancement of Health Education; Washington, DC: American Public Health Asso- ciation; Kent, Ohio: American School Health Association, 1995. 90 pages. ED 386 418. Jones, John Hodge. ?Extending School Hours: A Capital Idea.? Educational Leadership 53, 3 (November 1995): 44-46. EJ 514 700. Joyce, Bruce R. ?The Doors to School Improvement.? Educational Leadership 48, 8 (May 1991): 59-62. EJ 425 610. Joyce, Bruce, and Emily Calhoun. ? School Renewal: An Inquiry, Not a Prescription.? In Learning Experiences in School Renewal: An Exploration of Five Successful Programs, edited by Bruce Joyce and Emily Calhoun. Eugene, Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, 1996. Joyce, Bruce R.; Richard H. Hersh; and Michael McKibbin. The Structure of School Improvement. New York: Longman, 1983. 290 pages. ED 228 233. Joyce, Bruce, and Beverly Showers. ?Low-Cost Arrangements for Peer-Coaching.? Journal of Staff Development 8, 1 (Spring 1987): 22-24. EJ 356 225. Joyce, Bruce; Beverly Showers; and C. Rolheiser-Bennett. ?Staff Development and Student Learning: A Synthesis of Research on Models of Teaching.? Educational Leadership 45, 2 (October 1987): 11-23. EJ 362 222. Kahne, Joseph, and Joel Westheimer. ?In the Service of What? The Politics of Service Learning.? Phi Delta Kappan 77, 9 (May 1996): 529-99. EJ 524 359. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. Change Masters: Innovation for Productivity in the American Corporation. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983. 432 pages. Kantrowitz, B., and P. Wingert. ?How Kids Learn.? Newsweek (April 17, 1989): 50-57. BIBLIOGRAPHY 525 Kauffman, James M.; John Wills Lloyd; John Baker; and Teresa M. Riedel.?Inclusion of All Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders? Let?s Think Again.? Phi Delta Kappan 76, 7 (March 1995): 542-46. EJ 499 171. Kearns, David. ?An Educational Recovery Plan for America.? Phi Delta Kappan 69, 8 (April 1988): 565-70. EJ 370 234. Kearns, David, and Dennis Doyle. Winning the Brain Race: A Bold Plan to Make Our Schools Competitive. San Francisco: ICS Press, 1988. Kendall, J. S., and R. J. Marzano. Content Knowledge: A Compendium of Standards and Benchmarks for K-12 Education. Aurora, Colorado: Mid-continent Regional Edu- cational Laboratory, 1995. Kendall, John S., and Robert J. Marzano. Content Knowledge: A Compendium of Standards and Benchmarks for K-12 Education. Aurora, Colorado: Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory, 1996. Kentucky Revised Statutes, 1995. KRSA 160.345. Kentucky Department of Education. Kentucky School Laws. Frankfort, Kentucky: Bank-Baldwin Law Publishing, 1990. Kerchner, Charles Taylor, and Krista D. Caufman. ?Building the Airplane While It?s Rolling Down the Runway.? In A Union of Professionals: Labor Relations and Educational Reform, edited by Charles Taylor Kerchner and Julia E. Koppich. 1- 24. New York: Teachers College Press, 1993. 224 pages. ED 366 053. Kerchner, Charles Taylor, and Julia E. Koppich (Eds.). A Union of Professionals: Labor Relations and Educational Reform. New York: Teachers College Press, 1993. 224 pages. ED 366 053. Kerchner, Charles T., and Douglas E. Mitchell. ?Teaching Reform and Union Reform.? Elementary School Journal 86, 4 (March 1986): 449-70. EJ 337 993. Kierstad, R. ?A Comparison and Evaluation of Two Methods of Organization for the Teaching of Reading.? Journal of Educational Research 56 (1963): 317-21. Kim, Hye-Sook. ?A Microeconomic Approach to the Issue of Quality in the Teaching Force.? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Finance Association, Albuquerque, March 1993. 32 pages. ED 358 579. Kirst, Michael W. ?Pitfalls to Restructuring.? EDCAL 20, 24 (1991): 1. ________. Who Controls Our Schools?: American Values in Conflict. New York: Freeman, 1984. 183 pages. Kirst, Michael W., and Milbrey McLaughlin. ?Rethinking Children?s Policy.? In Na- tional Society for the Study of Education (NSSE) Yearbook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. Kim, Hye-Sook. ?A Microeconomic Approach to the Issue of Quality in the Teaching Force.? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Finance Association, Albuquerque, March 1993. 32 pages. ED 358 579. Kleine-Kracht, Paula. ?Indirect Instructional Leadership: An Administrator?s Choice.? Educational Administration Quarterly 29, 2 (May 1993): 187-212. EJ 463 847. Kochan, Thomas A. Collective Bargaining and Industrial Relations: From Theory to Policy and Practice. Homewood, Illinois: Irwin, 1980. 523 pages. Kolderie, Ted A Guide to Charter Activity. St. Paul, Minnesota: Center for Policy Studies, August 1996. Koppich, Julia E. ?Getting Started: A Primer on Professional Unionism.? In A Union of Professionals, edited by Charles Taylor Kerchner and Julia E. Koppich. 194-204. New York: Teachers College Press, 1993. Koppich, Julia E., and Charles T. Kerchner. Educational Policy Trust Agreements: Connecting Labor Relations and School Reform. A Report on Year Two of the Trust 526 BIBLIOGRAPHY Agreement Project. Policy Paper No. PP90-2-1. Berkeley, California: Policy Analysis for California Education, 1990. 68 pages. ED 320 291. Koretz, D.; Stecher, B.; and E. Deibert. The Reliability of Scores from the 1992 Vermont Portfolio Assessment Program. Technical Report No. 355. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, December 1992. ED 355 284. Kram, K.E. ?Phases of the Mentor Relationship.? Academy of Management Journal 26, 4 (1983): 608-25. Krupp, Judy-Arin. ?Mentoring: A Means by Which Teachers Become Staff Develop- ers.? Journal of Staff Development 8, 1 (Spring 1987): 12-15. EJ 356 223. Kulik, Chen-Lin C., and J. A. Kulik. ?Effects of Ability Grouping on Secondary School Students: A Meta-Analysis of Evaluation Findings.? American Educational Re- search Journal 19, 3 (Fall 1982): 415-28. Kysilko, David (Ed.). Winners All: A Call for Inclusive Schools. Alexandria, Virginia: National Association of State Boards of Education, 1992. 44 pages. ED 381 916. Lanier, Judith, and Michael Sedlak. ?Teacher Efficacy and Quality Schooling.? In Schooling for Tomorrow: Directing Reform to Issues That Count, edited by Thomas Sergiovanni and John Moore. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1989. 403 pages. ED 304 774. Lapointe, Archie E.; Nancy Mead; and Gary Phillips. A World of Differences. An International Assessment of Mathematics and Science. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1989. 93 pages. ED 309 068. Lawton, Millicent. ?Summit Accord Calls for Focus on Standards.? Education Week 15, 28 (April 3, 1996): 1, 14. ________. ?Youth-Service Mandate Splits Educators in Maryland.? Education Week XI, 15 (December 11, 1991): 18. Lee, Valerie E., and Julia B. Smith. Effects of High School Restructuring and Size on Gains in Achievement and Engagement for Early Secondary School Students. Center on Organization and Restucturing of Schools, Madison, Wisconsin, April 1, 1994. ED 370 210. ________. Effects of School Restructuring on the Achievement and Engagement of Middle-Grade Students. Madison, Wisconsin: Center on Organization and Re- structuring of Schools, 1992. ________. ?High School Restructuring and Student Achievement: A New Study Finds Strong Links.? Issues in Restructuring Schools 7 (Fall 1994): 1-5, 16. ED 376 565. Leggett, Diana, and Sharon Hoyle. ?Peer Coaching: One District?s Experience in Using Teachers as Staff Developers.? Journal of Staff Development 8, 1 (Spring 1987): 16-20. EJ 356 224. Leinhardt, Gaea. ?What Research on Learning Tells Us About Teaching.? Educational Leadership 49, 7 (April 1992): 20-25. EJ 442 787. Leithwood, Kenneth A. ?The Move Toward Transformational Leadership.? Educa- tional Leadership 49, 5 (February 1992): 8-12. EJ 439 275. LeMahieu, P.; D. H. Gitomer; and J. T. Eresh. ?Portfolios in Large-Scale Assessment: Difficult but Not Impossible.? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 14, 3 (Fall 1995): 11-16, 25-28. EJ 512 938. ?Lessons from the Trenches.? U. S. News & World Report 108, 8 (February 1990): 50. Levinson, Eliot. ?Will Technology Transform Education or Will the Schools Co-Opt Technology?? Phi Delta Kappan 72, 2 (October 1990): 121-26. EJ 414 874. Lewis, Anne C. ?Getting Unstuck: Curriculum as a Tool of Reform.? Phi Delta Kappan 71, 7 (March 1990): 534-38. EJ 403 809. BIBLIOGRAPHY 527 ________. Gaining Ground: The Highs and Lows of Urban Middle School Reform 1989-1991. New York: Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, 1991. 129 pages. ED 341 742. ________. Restructuring America?s Schools. Arlington, Virginia: American Associa- tion of School Administrators, 1989. 249 pages. ED 314 820. Licklider, Barbara L. ?Breaking Ranks: Changing the Inservice Institution.? NASSP Bulletin 81, 585 (January 1997): 9-22. Lieberman, Ann. ?Expanding the Leadership Team.? Educational Leadership 45, 5 (February 1988): 4-8. EJ 368 818. ________. ?Teachers and Principals: Turf, Tension, and New Tasks.? Phi Delta Kappan 69, 9 (May 1988): 948-53. EJ 370 310. Lieberman, Ann, Editor. Schools as Collaborative Cultures: Creating the Future Now. Bristol, Pennsylvania: The Falmer Press, 1990. 264 pages. ED 333 064. Lieberman, Ann, and Milbrey W. McLaughlin. ?Networks for Educational Change: Powerful and Problematic.? Phi Delta Kappan 73, 9 (May 1992): 673-77. EJ 442 877. Lieberman, Ann, and Lynne Miller. ?Restructuring Schools: What Matters and What Works.? Phi Delta Kappan 71, 10 (June 1990): 759-63. EJ 410 181. Lieberman, Myron C. Public Sector Bargaining: A Policy Reappraisal. Lexington, Massachusetts: Heath, 1980. 180 pages. Lindblom, Charles E. ?The Science of ?Muddling Through?.? Public Administration Review XX, 2 (Spring 1959): 79-88. ________. The Science of Muddling Through. New York: Irvington, 1993. Lindle, Jane Clark. ?Lessons from Kentucky About School-Based Decision Making.? Educational Leadership 53, 4 (December/January 1995/96): 20-23. EJ 517 887. Lindsay, Paul. ?The Effect of High School Size on Student Participation, Satisfaction, and Attendance.? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 4 (1982): 57-65. Linn, Robert, and Eva L. Baker. ?What Do International Assessments Imply for World- Class Standards? Implications of International Assessments.? Educational Evalu- ation and Policy Analysis 17, 4 (Winter 1995): 405-18. EJ 520 981. Liontos, Lynn Balster. ?Collaboration Between Schools and Social Services.? ERIC Digest Series. Number 48. Eugene, Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, 1990. ED 320 197. Lipsky, David B. ?The Effect of Collective Bargaining on Teacher Pay: A Review of the Evidence.? Educational Administration Quarterly 18, 1 (Winter 1982): 14-42. EJ 259 504. Little, Judith Warren. ?Assessing the Prospects for Teacher Leadership.? In Building a Professional Culture in Schools, edited by Ann Lieberman. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1988. 251 pages. ED 300 877. Little, Judith Warren. ?Contested Ground: The Basis of Teacher Leadership in Two Restructuring High Schools.? Elementary School Journal 96, 1 (September 1995): 47-63. EJ 510 578. ________. ?Norms of Collegiality and Experimentation: Workplace Conditions of School Success.? American Educational Research Journal 19, 3 (Fall 1982): 325- 40. EJ 275 511. ________. ?The ?Mentor? Phenomenon and the Social Organization of Teaching.? Review of Research in Education 16 (1990). Lloyd-Jones, Richard, and Andrea A. Lunsford, Editors. The English Coalition Confer- ence: Democracy through Language. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teach- ers of English, 1989. 111 pages. ED 303 815. 528 BIBLIOGRAPHY Louis, Karen Seashore. Restructuring and the Problem of Teachers? Work. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992. Louis, Karen Seashore, and Matthew B. Miles. Improving the Urban High School: What Works and Why. New York: Teachers College Press, 1990. 357 pages. ED 327 623. Louis, Karen Seashore, and B. Smith. ?Teacher Working Conditions.? In Teachers and Their Workplace: Commitment, Performance, and Productivity, edited by Pedro Reyes. 23-27. Newbury Park, California: Sage, 1990. 317 pages. ED 329 533. Love, Mary Joyce. ?The Home Visit?An Irreplaceable Tool.? Educational Leadership 47, 2 (October 1989): 29. EJ 397 734. Luchs, Kathy. ?Selected Changes in Urban High School Students after Participation in Community-Based Learning and Service Activities.? Doctoral dissertation, Uni- versity of Maryland, 1981. Luckmann, Thomas, Editor. Phenomenology and Sociology: Selected Readings. New York: Penguin, 1978. Lueder, Donald C. ?Tennessee Parents Were Invited To Participate?and They Did.? Educational Leadership 47, 2 (October 1989): 15-17. EJ 397 729. Lutz, F. Public Participation in Local School Districts. Boston: Lexington Books, 1978. MacDowell, Michael A. ?Partnerships: Getting a Return on the Investment.? Educa- tional Leadership 47, 2 (October 1989): 8-11. EJ 397 727. Maeroff, Gene I. ?A Blueprint for Empowering Teachers.? Phi Delta Kappan 69, 7 (March 1988): 472-47. EJ 368 805. ________. ?Teacher Empowerment: A Step Toward Professionalization.? A ?Bulletin? Special. NASSP Bulletin 72, 511 (November 1988): 52-54, 56-60. EJ 379 966. Malen, Betty; Michael J. Murphy; and Ann Weaver Hart. ?Restructuring Teacher Compensation Systems: An Analysis of Three Incentive Strategies.? In Attracting and Compensating Teachers: Eighth Annual Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association, edited by K. Alexander and D. H. Monk. 91-142. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger, 1987. Malen, Betty, and Rodney T. Ogawa. ?Professional-Patron Influence on Site-Based Governance Councils: A Confounding Case Study.? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 10, 4 (Winter 1988): 251-70. EJ 422 199. Malen, Betty; Rodney Ogawa; and Jennifer Kranz. ?Unfulfilled Promises.? School Administrator 47, 2 (February 1990): 30, 32, 53-56, 59. EJ 402 409. ________. ?What Do We Know About School-Based Management? A Case Study of the Literature?A Call for Research.? In Choice and Control in American Educa- tion, edited by William H. Clune and John F. Witte. New York: Falmer, 1990. Mandel, Michael, and Aaron Bernstein. ?Dispelling the Myths That Are Holding Us Back.? Business Week, Special Report 3192 (December 17, 1990): 66-70. Marcoulides, George A., and Ronald H. Heck. ?Educational Policy Issues for the 1990s?Balancing Equity and Excellence in Implementing the Reform Agenda.? Urban Education 25, 11 (April 1990): 55-67. EJ 407 975. Marks, Merle B. ?Teacher Leadership in Staff Development.? Educational Research Quarterly 7, 4 (Winter 1983): 2-5. EJ 284 819. Marris, Peter. Loss and Change. New York: Pantheon Books, 1974. 179 pages. Marsh, R. S., and M. A. Raywid. ?How To Make Detracking Work.? Phi Delta Kappan 76, 4 (December 1994): 314-17. EJ 494 680. Martin, Michael. ?Trading the Known for the Unknown: Warning Signs in the Debate Over Schools of Choice.? Education and Urban Society 23, 2 (February 1991): 119-43. EJ 342 286. BIBLIOGRAPHY 529 Matthews, Marian. ?Six Ways to Make Cooperative Learning More Effective.? Educa- tional Leadership 50, 2 (October 1992): 50. Mazzoni, Tim L. ?Analyzing State School Policymaking: An Arena Model.? Educa- tional Evaluation and Policy Analysis 13, 2 (Summer 1991): 115-38. EJ 430 688. McCarthy, J. and S. Still. ?Hollibrook Accelerated Elementary School.? In Restructur- ing Schooling: Learning from Ongoing Efforts edited by Joseph Murphy and Phillip Hallinger. 63-83. Newbury Park, California: Corwin Press, 1993. 295 pages. ED 357 437. McClure, Robert M. ?The Evolution of Shared Leadership.? Educational Leadership 46, 3 (November 1988): 60-62. EJ 385 349. McCune, Shirley. ?Schools and Restructuring.? Policy Notes 3, 1 (Fall 1988): 1-9. McDaniel, Thomas. ?Review of ?What Do Our 17-Year-Olds Know?? ? Educational Leadership 47, 3 (November 1989): 99. McDonnell, Lorraine M., and Anthony Pascal. Teacher Unions and Educational Re- form. Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation, 1988. 84 pages. ED 293 837. McLaughlin, Milbrey. ?The RAND Change Agent Study Revisited: Macro Perspectives and Micro Realities.? Educational Researcher 19, 9 (December 1990). McLaughlin, Milbrey, and D. Marsh. ?Staff Development and School Change.? Teach- ers College Record 80, 1 (September 1978): 69-94. EJ 195 497. McNeil, Linda M. Contradictions of Control: School Structure and School Knowledge. New York: Routledge and Paul, 1986. 234 pages. Meadows, B.J. ?The Rewards and Risks of Shared Leadership.? Phi Delta Kappan 71, 7 (March 1990): 545-48. EJ 403 811. Mecklenburger, James A. ?Educational Technology Is Not Enough.? Phi Delta Kappan 72, 2 (October 1990): 104-8. EJ 414 869. ________. ?The Braking of the ?Break-the-Mold? Express.? Phi Delta Kappan 74, 4 (December 1992): 280-89. EJ 455 655. Medina, N. J., and D. M. Neill. Fallout from the Testing Explosion. Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Center for Fair and Open Testing, 1988. ED 318 749. Mehlinger, Howard D. ?School Reform in the Information Age.? Phi Delta Kappan 77, 6 (February 1996): 400-07. EJ 517 857. Meier, Deborah. ?Central Park East: An Alternative Story.? Phi Delta Kappan 68, 10 (June 1987): 753-57. EJ 355 462. Melaville, Atelia, and Martin J. Blank. What It Takes: Structuring Interagency Partner- ships to Connect Children and Families with Comprehensive Services. Washing- ton, D.C.: Education and Human Services Consortium, 1991. 57 pages. ED 330 748. Merenda, Daniel. ?Partners in Education: An Old Tradition Renamed.? Educational Leadership 47, 2 (October 1989): 4-7. EJ 397 725. Mertens, Sally, and Sam J. Yarger. ?Teaching as a Profession: Leadership, Empower- ment, and Involvement.? Journal of Teacher Education 39, 1 (January-February 1988): 32-37. EJ 374 363. Meyer, Alan; Geoffrey Brooks; and James Goes. ?Environmental Jolts and Industry Revolutions: Organizational Responses to Discontinuous Change.? Strategic Man- agement Journal 11 (1990): 93-110. Meyer, John, and Brian Rowan. ?The Structure of Educational Organizations.? In Dynamics of Organizational Change in Education, edited by Victor Baldridge and Terrence Deal. Berkeley: McCutchan, 1983. 490 pages. ________. ?The Structure of Educational Organizations.? In Environments and Organi- zations, edited by M. Meyer and others. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978. 530 BIBLIOGRAPHY Miller, Lynne. ?The Regular Education Initiative and School Reform: Lessons from the Mainstream.? Remedial and Special Education 11, 3 (May-June 1990): 17-22, 28. EJ 414 957. Minnesota Department of Education. Proposed Rule for Secondary Graduation. Minne- sota: Author, April 22, 1991. Mitchell, Douglas. ?Educational Politics and Policy: The State Level.? In Handbook of Research on Educational Administration: A Project of the American Educational Research Association, edited by N. Boyan. New York: Longman, 1988. 767 pages. Mitchell, James. ?Coaxing Staff from Cages for Site-Based Decisions to Fly.? School Administrator 47, 2 (February 1990): 23-24, 26. EJ 402 408. Mohrman, Allan M.; R. A. Cooke; and S. A. Mohrman. ?Participation in Decision Making: A Multidimensional Perspective.? Educational Administration Quarterly 14, 1 (Winter 1978): 13-29. EJ 183 277. Mojkowski, Charles, and Richard Bamberger, Editors. Developing Leaders for Restruc- turing Schools: New Habits of Mind and Heart. A Report of the National LEADership Network Study Group on Restructuring Schools. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Programs for the Improvement of Prac- tice, 1991. 79 pages. ED 330 078. Moorhouse, W. F. ?Interclass Grouping for Reading Instruction.? Elementary School Journal 64 (1964): 280-86. Morgan, David L., and Duane F. Alwin. ?When Less Is More: School Size and Student Social Participation.? Social Psychology Quarterly 43, 2 (June 1980): 241-52. EJ 233 235. Morris, V. P. ?An Evaluation of Pupil Achievement in a Non-graded Primary Plan After Three, and Also Five Years of Instruction.? Doctoral dissertation. Dissertation Abstracts 29:3809A. 1969. Mortimore, Peter, and Pam Sammons. ?New Evidence on Effective Elementary Schools.? Educational Leadership 45, 1 (September 1987): 4-8. Morton, Chris. ?The Modern Land of Laputa: Where Computers Are Used in Education.?Phi Delta Kappan 77,6 (February 1996): 416-19. EJ 517 859. Moses, Monte C., and Kathryn S. Whitaker. ?Ten Components for Restructuring Schools.? School Administrator 47, 8 (September 1990): 32-34. EJ 413 141. Moye, Jack, and Katherine M. Rodgers. ?Teachers As Staff Developers: A Success Story.? Journal of Staff Development 8, 1 (Spring 1987): 42-44. EJ 356 231. Moynihan, Daniel Patrick. ?Our Poorest Citizens?Children.? Focus 11, 1 (Spring 1988): 5. Muncey, Donna E., and Patrick J. McQuillan. ?Preliminary Findings from a Five-Year Study of the Coalition of Essential Schools.? Phi Delta Kappan (February 1993): 486-89. EJ 457 284. Munro, Petra, and Jack Elliott. ?Instructional Growth Through Peer Coaching.? Journal of Staff Development 8, 1 (Spring 1987): 25-28. EJ 356 226. Murnane, Richard J., and Frank Levy. ?Why Money Matters Sometimes.? Education Week 16, 2 (September 11, 1996): 48, 36. Murphy, Carlene. ?Lessons from a Journey into Change.? Educational Leadership 48, 8 (May 1991): 63-67. EJ 425 611. Murphy, Carol. Effective Principals: Knowledge, Talent, Spirit of Inquiry. Research Brief: Improvement Support Program, May 1983. ED 234 521. Murphy, Joseph. Restructuring Schools: Capturing and Assessing the Phenomena. New York: Teachers College Press; Nashville, Tennessee: National Center for Educa- tional Leadership, 1991. 131 pages. ED 377 591. BIBLIOGRAPHY 531 ?NAEYC Position Statement on Developmentally Appropriate Practices in the Primary Grades.? Young Children 43, 2 (Janury 1988): 64-84. EJ 365 176. Nancy, Perry. ?How to Help America?s Schools.? Fortune 120, 14 (December 4, 1989): 137-42. Nathan, Joe. ?More Public School Choice Can Mean More Learning.? Educational Leadership 47, 2 (October 1989): 51-55. EJ 397 743. ________. ?Possibilities, Problems, and Progress: Early Lessons from the Charter Movement.? Phi Delta Kappan 78, 1 (September 1996): 18-23. National Academy of Science. Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1989. 131 pages. ED 309 938. National Alliance of Business. A Blueprint for Business on Restructuring Education. A Corporate Action Package. New York: Author, 1989. 51 pages. ED 312 486. National Assessment of Educational Progress. Reading, Thinking, and Writing: Results from the 1979-80 National Assessment of Reading and Literature. Denver, Colo- rado: Education Commission of the States, 1981. 82 pages. ED 209 641. National Association for Sport and Physical Education. Moving into the Future. Na- tional Standards for Physical Education: A Guide to Content and Assessment. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby, 1995. National Business Roundtable. The Role of Business in Education Reform: Blueprint for Action. Report of the Business Roundtable Ad Hoc Committee on Education, 1988. 42 pages. ED 302 602. National Center for History in the Schools. National Standards for History for Grades K-4. Los Angeles: National Center for History in the Schools, 1995. ED 375 075. _____. National Standards for United States History. Los Angeles: University of California, 1995. _____. National Standards for World History. Los Angeles: University of California, 1995. National Center for Improving Science Education. The Reform of Science Education in Elementary School. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1989. National Center on Education and the Economy. America?s Choice: High Skills or Low Wages! Report of the Commission on the Skills of the American Work Force. Rochester, New York: Author, 1990. 209 pages. ED 323 297. National Commission on Social Studies in the Schools. Charting a Course: Social Studies for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1989. 92 pages. ED 317 450. National Committee for Standards in the Arts. National Standards for Arts Education: What Every Young American Should Know and Be Able To Do in the Arts. Consortium of National Arts Education Associations, 1994. ED 365 622. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995. National Council for the Social Studies. Expectations of Excellence: Curriculum Stan- dards for Social Studies. Washington, D.C.: Author, February 1994. 187 pages. ED 378 131. National Council of Teachers of English. Report Card on Basal Readers. Author, January 1988. 167 pages. ED 300 794. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Assessment Standards for School Math- ematics. Reston, Virginia: Author, May 1995. 102 pages. ED 388 516. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, Virginia: Author, 1989. 258 pages. ED 304 336. 532 BIBLIOGRAPHY National Education Association. Status of the American Public School Teacher, 1990- 1991. Washington, D. C.: Author, 1992. National Governors? Association. From Rhetoric to Action: State Progress in Restruc- turing the Education System. Washington, D.C.: National Governors? Association, 1991. 60 pages. ED 336 831. National Research Council. Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. 1989. 114 pages. National Retail Federation. Raising Retail Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Retail Federation, October 1994. National Science Teachers Association. Essential Changes in Secondary Science: Scope, Sequence, and Coordination. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1989. National Science Teachers Association. Scope, Sequence, and Coordination of Second- ary School Science, Volume III: A High School Framework for National Science Education Standards. Washington D.C.: Author, 1995. ?NCTE/IRA Say Standards Effort Will Continue.? The Council Chronicle 3, 1 (June 1994): 4. Newman, Denis. ?Opportunities for Research on the Organizational Impact of School Computers.? Educational Researcher 19, 3 (April 1990): 8-13. EJ 411 284. Newmann, Fred M. ?Can Depth Replace Coverage in the High School Curriculum?? Phi Delta Kappan 69, 5 (January 1988): 345-48. EJ 364 790. ________. ?Linking Restructuring to Authentic Student Achievement.? Phi Delta Kappan 72, 5 (February 1991a): 458-63. EJ 421 313. ________. What Is a?Restructured? School? A Framework to Clarify Means and Ends. Issues in Restructuring Schools, Report No. 1. Madison, Wisconsin: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, 1991b. Newmann, Fred M., and others. ?Authentic Achievement: Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality.? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996. Newmann, Fred M., and Gary G. Wehlage. Successful School Restructuring. Madison, Wisconsin: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools and Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 1995. 72 pages. ED 387 925. Nickle, Melinda Nixon; Fran Carter Flynt; Stephen Douglas Poynter; and James A. Rees Jr. ?Does It Make a Difference If You Change Structure? School-Within-a-School.? Phi Delta Kappan 72, 2 (October 1990): 148-52. EJ 414 879. Noble, Donna L. ?What Are the Effects of the Training Experience on Staff Develop- ment Trainers?? Journal of Staff Development 8, 1 (Spring 1987): 29-31. EJ 356 227. O?Neil, John. ?An Echo from the Past?? Educational Leadership 53, 3 (November 1995b): 13. ________. ?Finding Time to Learn.? Educational Leadership 53, 3 (November 1995a): 11-15. EJ 514 692. ________. ?Piecing Together the Restructuring Puzzle.? Educational Leadership 47, 7 (April 1990): 4-10. EJ 405 184. ________. ?Preparing for the Changing Workplace.? Educational Leadership 49, 6 (March 1992a): 6-9. EJ 441 164. ________. ?Wanted: Deep Understanding: Constructivism Posits New Conception of Learning.? ASCD Update 34, 3 (March 1992b): 1, 4-5, 8. Oakes, Jeannie. Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality. New Haven, Con- necticut: Yale University Press, 1985. 231 pages. ED 274 749. BIBLIOGRAPHY 533 ________. ?Tracking in Secondary Schools: A Contextual Perspective.? Educational Psychology 22 (1987): 129-53. ED 298 643. Oakes, Jeannie, and Martin Lipton. ?Detracking Schools: Early Lessons from the Field.? Phi Delta Kappan 73, 6 (February 1992): 448-54. EJ 439 294. ________. Making the Best of Schools: A Handbook for Parents, Teachers, and Policymakers. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1990. 334 pages. ED 324 375. Odden, Allan. ?Productive Discussions About the Education Dollar.? Education Week 15, 20 (February 7, 1996): 56-64. Odden, Allan, and Priscilla Wohlstetter. ?The Role of Agenda Setting in the Politics of School Finance: 1970-1990.? Educational Policy 6, 4 (December 1992): 355-76. EJ 454 382. Olson, Lynn. ?Advocates React Angrily to Study Questioning Merits of Choice.? Education Week XII, 9 (November 4, 1992): 5. ________. ?Black Community Is Frustrated over Lack of Results from Desegregation.? Education Week X, 7 (October 17, 1990): 1,12-13. ________. ?Calif. Businessman?s Drive for Choice Sparking Battle.? Education Week XI, 3 (September 18, 1991): 1, 19. ________. ?California Is Second State To Allow Charter Schools.? Education Week XII, 4 (September 30, 1992): 1, 23. ________. ?Claims for Choice Exceed Evidence, Carnegie Reports.? Education Week XII, 8 (October 28, 1992): 1, 12. ________. ?Detroit Board Set To Vote on Plan ?To Empower? Schools.? Education Week XI, 26 (March 18, 1992): 5. ________. ? ?Dramatic? Rise in Kentucky Test Scores Linked to Reforms.? Education Week 14, 5 (October 5, 1994): 13, 15. ________. ?11 Design Teams Are Tapped To Pursue Their Visions of ?Break the Mold? Schools.? Education Week XI, 40 (August 5, 1992): 1, 47. ________. ?Missouri School?s Reform: Getting Better or ?Messing Around with a Good Thing??? Education Week IX, 38 (June 13, 1990): 1, 8. ________. ?Nation?s First ?Charter? School Clears a Key Hurdle.? Education Week XI, 13 (November 27, 1991): 18. ________. ?New Studies on Private Choice Fan the Flames.? Education Week 16, 1 (September 4, 1996): 1, 20-21. ________. ?Parents as Partners: Redefining the Social Contract Between Families and Schools.? Education Week IX (April 4, 1990). ________. ?Shortcomings in School-Based Management in Boston Noted.? Education Week XI, 4 (September 25, 1991): 5. _____. ? Student Gains, Intensive Restructuring Linked, Study Finds.? Education Week 12, 20 (February 10, 1993): 5. ________. ?Winning NASDC Project Takes Flight in Md.? Education Week XII, 17 (January 20, 1993): 1, 12-13. Oregon Business Council. Restructuring K-12 Education: An OBC Action Plan. Port- land, Oregon: Author, April 1996. Oregon Department of Education. School Improvement and Professional Development Program 1990-1991. Guidelines. Salem: Author, 1990. Orland, Martin E., and Carol E. Cohen. State Investments in Education and Other Children?s Services: The Fiscal Challenges Ahead. Washington, D. C.: The Fi- nance Project. November 1995. 51 pages. ED 394 206. 534 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ornstein, Allan C. ?Administrative Decentralization and Community Policy: Review and Outlook.? Urban Review 15, 1 (1983): 3-10. EJ 282 279. ________. Race and Politics in School/Community Organizations. Pacific Palisades, California: Goodyear, 1974. 277 pages. ED 092 659. ?Outlook Positive for Job Seekers.? Eugene Register-Guard (March 17, 1996): 2D. Oxley, D. ?Organizing Schools into Small Units: Alternatives to Homogeneous Group- ing.? Phi Delta Kappan 75, 7 (March 1994): 521-26. EJ 481 228. Pace, Glennellen. ?Stories of Teacher-Initiated Change from Traditional to Whole- Language Literacy Instruction.? Elementary School Journal 92, 4 (March 1992): 461-76. EJ 441 942. PASS Project. Mathematics Proficiency E with Performance Levels?Draft Version. Eugene, Oregon: Proficiency-based Admission Standards System (PASS) Project, Oregon State System of Higher Education, March 1996. Patriarca, Linda A., and Donna M. Kragt. ?Teacher Expectations and Student Achieve- ment: The Ghost of Christmas Future.? Curriculum Review 25, 5-6 (May-June 1986): 48-50. EJ 339 149. Paulson, F. Leon; Pearl Paulson; and Carol Meyer. ?What Makes a Portfolio a Portfo- lio?? Educational Leadership 48, 5 (February 1991): 60-63. EJ 421 352. Pavan, Barbara Nelson. ?The Benefits of Nongraded Schools.? Educational Leadership 50, 2 (October 1992): 22-25. EJ 451 471. Payzant, Thomas. ?To Restructure Schools, We?ve Changed the Way the Bureaucracy Works.? Amercian School Board Journal 176, 10 (October 1989): 19-20. EJ 396 532. Pea, Roy. ?Distributed Intelligences and Education.? In Teaching for Understanding in the Age of Technology, edited by David Perkins and others, forthcoming. Pearsall, M. K. (Ed.). Scope, Sequence, and Coordination of Secondary School Science. Volume 1: The Content Core: A Guide for Curriculum Developers. Washington, D.C: National Science Teachers Association, 1993. Pennar, Karen. ?The Rich Are Richer?and America May Be the Poorer.? Business Week 3240 (November 18, 1991): 85, 88. Perkins, David N. and others. (Ed.) Software Goes To School: Teaching for Understand- ing with New Technologies. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. 288 pages. Perry, C. R., and W. A. Wildman. The Impact of Negotiations in Public Education. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 1970. Peshkin, Alan. Growing Up American: Schooling and the Survival of Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. 256 pages. ED 161 577. Peterson, Kenneth D. ?Assistance and Assessment for Beginning Teachers.? In The New Handbook of Teacher Evaluation: Assessing Elementary and Secondary School Teachers, edited by Jason Millman and Linda Darling-Hammond. Newbury Park, California: Sage, 1990. 443 pages. Peterson, Kent D. Secondary Principals and Instructional Leadership: Complexities in a Diverse Role. Madison, Wisconsin: Center for Educational Research, 1989. 38 pages. ED 305 718. Peterson, Penelope L. ?Selecting Students and Services for Compensatory Education: Lessons from ApTitude-Treatment Interaction Research.? In Designs for Compen- satory Education: Conference Proceedings and Papers. Washington, D.C.: June 17-18, 1986. 49 pages. ED 293 903. Phelan, P. The Addition of Computers to a First-Grade Classroom: A Case Study of Two Children. Unpublished Report, Palo Alto, 1989. Phillips, Mary D., and Carl D. Glickman. ?Peer Coaching: Developmental Approach to Enhancing Teacher Thinking.? Journal of Staff Development 12, 2 (Spring 1991): 20-25. EJ 431 946. BIBLIOGRAPHY 535 Pipho, Chris. ?Outcomes or ?Edubabble??? Phi Delta Kappan 73, 9 (May 1992): 662-63. ________. ?Time for Results.? Education Week X, 13 (November 28, 1990): 24. Pittman, Robert, and Perri Haughwout. ?Influence of High School Size on Dropout Rate.? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 9, 4 (Winter 1987): 337-43. EJ 381 162. Pitner, Nancy, and Steven M. Goldschmidt. ?Bargain over School Reform: California?s Mentor Teacher Program.? Paper presented at the annual conference of the Ameri- can Educational Research Association, Washington, D. C., April 1987. Ponessa, Jeanne. ?AFT Cautiously Embraces Charter Schools.? Education Week (Au- gust 7, 1996). Port, Otis; Zachary Schiller; Resa King; David Woodruff; Steven Phillips; and John Carey. ?A Smarter Way to Manufacture.? Business Week 3157 (April 30, 1990): 110-16. Powell, Arthur G. ?Student Incentives and Academic Standards: Independent Schools as a Coherent System.? In Designing Coherent Policy: Improving the System, edited by Susan Fuhrman. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993. ED 359 626. Prager, Karen. ?Estimating the Extent of School Restructuring.? Brief to Policymakers 4 (Fall 1992): 1, 4, 6. Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, Madison, Wisconsin. ED 352 714. Prestine, Nona. ?Completing the Essential Schools Metaphor: Principal as Enabler.? Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, 1991. Prestine, Nona, and Chuck Bowen. ?Benchmarks of Change: Assessing Essential School Restructuring Efforts.? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15, 3 (Fall 1993): 298-319. EJ 471 908 Project 2061 and American Association for the Advancement of Science. Science for All Americans. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1992. ________. Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Provus, M. M. ?Ability Grouping in Arithmetic.? Elementary School Journal 64 (1960): 387-92. Purkey, Stewart C., and Susan Degen. Beyond Effective Schools to Good Schools: Some First Steps. Eugene, Oregon: Center for Educational Policy and Management, 1985. 9 pages. ED 263 652. Purkey, Stewart C., and Marshall S. Smith. ?Effective Schools: A Review.? Elementary School Journal 83, 4 (March 1983): 427-52. EJ 281 542. Quigley, C. N., and C. F. Bahmmeller. (Eds.). Civitas: A Framework for Civic Educa- tion (National Council for Social Sciences Bulletin no. 86). Calabasas, California: Center for Civic Education, 1991. 693 pages. ED 340 654. Raby, M. ?The Career Academies.? In Education Through Occupation in American High Schools: Approaches To Integrating Academic and Vocational Education, edited by W. Norton Grubb. New York: Teachers College Press. ED 392 922. Ratzki, Anne. ?Creating a School Community: One Model of How It Can Be Done.? American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers 12, 1 (Spring 1988): 10-17, 38-43. EJ 372 828. Ratzki, Anne, and Angela Fisher. ?Life in a Restructured School.? Educational Leader- ship 47, 4 (December/January 1989-90): 46-51. EJ 400 500. Ravitch, Diane. ?Education in the 1980?s: A Concern for ?Quality?.? Education Week IX, 17 (1990): 33, 48. 536 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ravitch, Diane, and Chester E. Finn, Jr. What Do Our 17-Year-Olds Know?: A Report on the First National Assessment of History and Literature. New York: Harper & Row, 1987. 293 pages. Rebarber, Theodor. ?State Policies for School Restructuring.? Denver, Colorado: Na- tional Conference of State Legislatures, January 1992. 33 pages. ED 345 366. Reese, W. The Origins of the American High School. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1995. 326 pages. ED 398 089. Reich, Robert. Education and the Next Economy. Washington, D.C.: National Educa- tion Association, 1988. 28 pages. ED 320 277. ________.?Preparing Students for Tomorrow?s Economic World.? In School Reform: Making Sense of It All, edited by S. Bacharach. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1990. Resnick, Lauren. Education and Learning to Think. Washington, D.C.: Academy Press, 1987. 71 pages. ED 289 832. Resnick, Lauren B., and others. ?Benchmarking Education Standards.? Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17, 4 (Winter 1995): 438-61. EJ 520 983. Richards, Craig E., and Mwalimu Shujaa. State-Sponsored School Performance Incen- tive Plans: A Policy Review. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University, Center for Policy Research in Education, 1989. EJ 406 424. Richmond, George. The Micro-Society School: A Real World in Miniature. New York: Harper & Row, 1974. 285 pages. ________. ?The Future School: Is Lowell Pointing Us Toward a Revolution in Education?? Phi Delta Kappan 71, 3 (November 1989): 232-36. EJ 398 938. Rogers, Vincent R., and Chris Stevenson. ?How Do We Know What Kids Are Learning in School?? Educational Leadership 45, 5 (February 1988): 68-75. EJ 368 832. Rosenberger, K. Maryland School Performance Program. Baltimore: Maryland State Department of Education, February 22, 1996. Rosenholtz, Susan. Teachers? Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools. New York: Teachers? College Press, 1991. ________. Teachers? Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools. White Plains, New York: Longman, 1989a. 238 pages. ________. ?Workplace Conditions That Affect Teacher Quality and Commitment: Implications for Teacher Induction Programs.? The Elementary School Journal 89, 4 (March 1989b): 421-39. EJ 387 704. Rosenholtz, Susan, and Susan Kyle. ?Teacher Isolation: Barrier to Professionalism.? American Educator (1984): 10-15. Rosenstock, Larry. ?The Walls Come Down: The Overdue Reunification of Vocational and Academic Education.? Phi Delta Kappan 72, 6 (February 1991): 434-36. EJ 421 307. Rothman, Robert. ?E.D. Consortium Seeks to Spur Alternative Assessments.? Educa- tion Week X, 25 (March 13, 1991): 34. ________. ?Focus on Self-Esteem, Achievement Turns School into Showcase.? Educa- tion Week XI, 9 (October 30, 1991): 14. ________. ?Large ?Faculty Meeting? Ushers in Pioneering Assessment in Vermont.? Education Week X, 6 (October 10, 1990): 1, 18. ________. ?Panel Unveils Proposed Assessments To Measure Progress Toward Goals.? Education Week XI, 28 (April 3, 1991): 1, 16, 17. ________. ?Pennsylvania Board Delays Vote on ?Learning Outcomes? Plan.? Educa- tion Week XII, 3 (September 23, 1992): 19. ________. ?Schools Stress Speeding Up, Not Slowing Down.? Education Week XI, 9 (October 20, 1991): 1, 15. BIBLIOGRAPHY 537 ________. ?Study Confirms ?Fears? Regarding Commercial Tests: Low-Level Content and Pervasive Effects Found.? Education Week XII, 7 (October 21, 1992): 1, 13. ________. ?Supply of New Assessment Methods Said Trailing Behind Strong De- mand.? Education Week X, 26 (March 20, 1991): 11. Rusch, E. The Voices of Restructuring: Democratic Practices in Oregon Network Schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1992. Sagor, Richard. ?Three Principals Who Make a Difference.? Educational Leadership 49, 5 (February 1992): 13-18. EJ 439 277. ________. ?What Project LEARN Reveals about Collaborative Action Research.? Educational Leadership 48, 6 (March 1991): 6-10. EJ 422 845. Sarason, Seymour Bernard. The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971. ________. The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform: Can We Change Course Before It?s Too Late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990. 187 pages. ED 354 587. Saunders, P., and J. Gilliard. (Eds.). A Framework for Teaching Basic Economic Concepts with Scope and Sequence Guidelines, K-12. New York: National Council on Economic Education, 1995. Saxl, Ellen R., and others. ?Help Is at Hand: New Knowledge for Teachers as Staff Developers.? Journal of Staff Development 8, 1 (Spring 1987): 7-11. EJ 356 222. Scardamalia, Marlene, and others. ?Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environ- ments.? Journal of Educational Computing Research 5, 1 (1989): 51-68. EJ 389 346. Schaefer, W., and C. Olexa. Tracking and Opportunity. Scranton, Pennsylvania: Chan- dler, 1971. Schlechty, Phillip. Restructuring Schools for the 21st Century. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1990. Schmidt, Peter. ?Employees Protest Firm?s Tactics at Baltimore School.? Education Week XII, 2 (September 16, 1992): 1, 19. ________. ?Flap in Baltimore Spurs Calls for Revisions in E.A.I. Pact.? Education Week 14, 8 (October 26, 1994): 13. Schmidt, Warren, and Jerome Finnigan. The Race Without a Finish Line: America?s Quest for Total Quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992. 400 pages. ED 362 089. Schmuck, Patricia, and Richard Schmuck. Small Schools, Big Problems. Newbury Park, California: Corwin, 1992. Schmuck, Richard A., and Philip J. Runkel. Handbook of Organization Development in Schools. Third Edition. Palo Alto, California: Mayfield Publishing Co., 1985. ED 280 178. Schnaiberg, Lynn. ?For First Time ?Hands Off? Ariz. Revokes Charter for School.? Education Week 16, 13 (November 27, 1996): 6. Schofield, Janet Ward, and David Verban. ?Computer Usage in Teaching Mathematics: Issues Which Need Answers.? In Effective Mathematics Teaching. Vol. 1, edited by Douglas Grouws and others. Reston, Virginia: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1988. 261 pages. ED 297 933. Sch?n, Donald A. ?Coaching Reflective Teaching.? In Reflection in Teacher Education, edited by Peter Grimmett and Gaalen L. Erickson. Vancouver, B.C.: Pacific Educational Press, 1988. 214 pages. ________. ?Professional Knowledge and Reflective Practice.? In Schooling for Tomor- row: Directing Reform to Issues That Count, edited by Thomas J. Sergiovanni and John H. Moore. Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, 1989. 403 pages. ED 304 774. 538 BIBLIOGRAPHY ________. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books, 1983. 374 pages. School of Education, University of Louisville. The Implementation of Performance Assessment in Kentucky Classrooms. Frankfort, Kentucky: Kentucky Institute for Education Research, August 1995. 105 pages. ED 394 918. ?Schools Selected for Testing Pilot Project.? EDCAL 21, 6 (1991): 1, 5. Schorr, Lisbeth B., and Daniel Schorr. Within Our Reach: Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1988. 398 pages. ED 354 089. Schray, V. L. Setting Proficiency Standards: Results of the Processes Used by the Business and Management Certificate of Advanced Mastery Curriculum Develop- ment Team. Gresham, Oregon: Mt. Hood Community College, August 1995. Secretary?s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report for America 2000. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, June 1991. 60 pages. ED 332 054. Seeley, David. ?A New Paradigm for Parent Involvement.? Educational Leadership 47, 2 (October 1989): 46-48. EJ 397 741. Segal, Troy; Del Valle; David Greising; Rena Miller; Julia Flynn; and Jane Prendergast. ?Saving Our Schools: With America?s Classrooms Besieged on So May Fronts, Here?s How the Private Sector Can Help.? Business Week 3283 (September 14, 1992): 70-78. Senge, Peter M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organiza- tion. New York: Doubleday/Currency, 1990. 424 pages. Senge, Peter, and Colleen Lannon-Kim. ?Recapturing the Spirit of Learning Through a Systems Approach.? School Administrator 48, 9 (November 1991): 8-13. EJ 434 404. Sergiovanni, Thomas. ?Adding Value to Leadership Gets Extraordinary Results.? Edu- cational Leadership 47, 8 (May 1990): 23-27. EJ 410 204. ________. ?The Leadership Needs for Quality Schooling.? In Schooling for Tomorrow: Directing Reforms to Issues That Count, edited by Thomas J. Sergiovanni and John H. Moore. Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, 1989. ED 304 774. Servatius, Joanna Dee, and Shareen E. Young. ?Implementing the Coaching of Teach- ing.? Educational Leadership 42, 7 (April 1985): 50-53. EJ 319 799. Sewall, Gilbert T. Necessary Lessons: Decline and Renewal in American Schools. New York: The Free Press, 1983. 206 pages. Shanker, Albert. ?The Conditions of Teaching: Flexibility and Authority in the Class- room.? In School Reform: Making Sense of It All, edited by S. Bacharach. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1990. Shedd, Joseph B. Involving Teachers in School and District Decision-Making. Manu- script prepared for the State Education Department, the University of the State of New York, Organizational Analysis and Practice, 1987. Shedd, Joseph B., and Samuel B. Bacharach. Tangled Hierarchies: Teachers as Profes- sionals and the Management of Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991. 232 pages. ED 354 586. Sheingold, Karen. ?Restructuring for Learning with Technology: The Potential for Synergy.? Phi Delta Kappan 73, 1 (September 1991): 17-27. EJ 431 203. Sherry, Mark. ?Implementing an Integrated Instructional System: Critical Issues.?Phi Delta Kappan 72, 2 (October 1990): 118-20. EJ 414 873. Short, Paula M., and J. T. Greer. ?Restructuring Schools Through Empowerment.? In Restructuring Schooling: Learning from Ongoing Efforts, edited by Joseph Murphy and Phillip Hallinger. 165-87. Newbury Park, California: Corwin Press, 1993. ED 357 437. BIBLIOGRAPHY 539 Short, Paula; J. Greer; and R. Michael. ?Restructuring Schools through Empowerment: Facilitating the Process.? Journal of School Leadership 1, 2 (April 1991): 127-39. EJ 425 553. Showers, Beverly. Peer Coaching: A Strategy for Facilitating Transfer of Training. Eugene, Oregon: Center for Educational Policy and Management, University of Oregon, 1984. 106 pages. ED 271 849. Silvestri, Kenneth. ?Educating Parents for a Larger Role in School Improvement.? Educational Leadership 47, 2 (October 1989): 43. Sizer, Theodore R. ?A Working Design: The Coalition of Essential Schools and Re:Learning.? In A Leader?s Guide to School Restructuring: A Special Report of the NASSP Commission on Restructuring. Reston, Virginia: National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1992. 62 pages. ________. ?No Pain, No Gain.? Educational Leadership 48, 8 (May 1991): 32-34. EJ 425 605. ________. Horace?s Compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1984. 241 pages. ED 264 171. Skapski, M. K. ?Ungraded Primary Reading Program: An Objective Evaluation.? Elementary School Journal 61 (1960): 41-45. Slavin, Robert E. ?A Theory of School and Classroom Organization.? Educational Psychologist 22 (1987a): 89-108. ________. ?Ability Grouping and Student Achievement in Elementary School: A Best- Evidence Synthesis.? Review of Educational Research 57, 3 (Fall 1987b): 293-336. EJ 366 906. ________. ?Ability Grouping in Secondary Schools: A Response to Hallinan.? Review of Educational Research 60, 3 (Fall 1990a): 505-7. EJ 417 573. ________. ?Achievement Effects of Ability Grouping in Secondary Schools: A Best- Evidence Synthesis.? Review of Educational Research 60, 3 (1990b): 471-99. EJ 417 571. ________. Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1990c. 173 pages. ________. ?Synthesis of Research of Cooperative Learning.? Educational Leadership 48, 5 (February 1991): 71-82. EJ 421 354. ________. ?Synthesis of Research on Grouping in Elementary and Secondary Schools.? Educational Leadership 46, 1 (September 1988): 67-77. ________. ?The Nongraded Elementary School: Great Potential, but Keep It Simple.? Educational Leadership 50, 2 (October 1992): 24. Slavin, R., and N. Karweit. ?Effects of Whole Class, Ability Grouped, and Individual- ized Instruction on Mathematics Achievement.? American Educational Research Journal 22, 3 (Fall 1985): 351-67. EJ 321 805. Smey-Richman, Barbara. Teacher Expectations and Low Achieving Students. Philadel- phia: Research for Better Schools, Inc., 1989. 47 pages. ED 328 627. Smith, James F. ?Ensuring the Quality of the Labor Force of the Future.? Business Economics 26, 1 (January 1991): 18-20. Smith, Kevin B., and Kenneth J. Meier. ?School Choice: Panacea or Pandora?s Box?? Phi Delta Kappan 77, 4 (December 1995): 312-16. EJ 516 013. Smith, M. S., and J. O?Day. ?Systemic School Reform.? In The Politics of Curriculum and Testing: The 1990 Yearbook of the Politics of Education Association, edited by S.H. Fuhrman and B. Malen. Philadelphia: Falmer Press, 1991. Smith, P. B., and M. F. Peterson. Leadership, Organizations, and Culture: An Event Management Model. London: Sage, 1988. 540 BIBLIOGRAPHY Smith, Stuart C.; Diana Ball; and Demetri Liontos. Working Together: The Collabora- tive Style of Bargaining. Eugene, Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, 1990. 82 pages. ED 321 341. Smith, W. M. ?The Effect of Intra-Class Ability Grouping on Arithmetic Achievement in Grades Two Through Five.? Doctoral dissertation. Dissertation Abstracts Inter- national 21: 563-64. 1960. Smith, Wilma F., and Richard L. Andrews. Instructional Leadership: How Principals Make a Difference. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curricu- lum Development, 1989. 165 pages. ED 314 826. Smylie, Mark A. ?New Perspectives on Teacher Leadership.? Elementary School Journal 96, 1 (September 1995): 3-7. EJ 510 575. Sommerfeld, Meg. ?Internships Connect Students to the Real World of Work.? Educa- tion Week XV, 27 (March 27, 1996): 6-8. ________. ?RJR Nabisco Lays $30-Million Bet On ?Bottom Up? Reform Strategy.? Education Week XI, 38 (June 10, 1992): 1, 10-11. Sorensen, Aage B. ?The Organizational Differentiation of Students in Schools as an Opportunity Structure.? In The Social Organization of Schools: New Conceptualizations of the Learning Process, edited by Maureen T. Hallinan. New York: Plenum, 1987. 228 pages. Sorensen, Aage B., and Maureen T. Hallinan. ?Effects of Ability Grouping on Growth in Academic Achievement.? American Educational Research Journal 23, 4 (Win- ter 1986): 519-42. EJ 351 742. Sparks, Dennis. ?Schools Must Be Fundamentally Restructured: An Interview with Albert Shanker.? Journal of Staff Development 12, 3 (Summer 1991): 2-5. Stansberry, Domenic. ?Taking the Plunge.? Newmedia (February 1993): 30-36. Stedman, Lawrence C. ?It?s Time We Changed the Effective Schools Formula.? Phi Delta Kappan 69, 3 (November 1987): 215-24. EJ 360 782. Steffy, Betty. The Kentucky Education Reform Act: Lessons for America. Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Technomics, 1993. Steinberg, Laurence; Bradford Brown; and Sanford M. Dornbusch. Beyond the Class- room: Why School Reform Has Failed and What Parents Need to Do. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996. 223 pages. Stevenson, Harold, and James Stigler. The Learning Gap: Why Our Schools Are Failing and What We Can Learn from Japanese and Chinese Education. New York: Summit Books, 1992. Stockard, Jean, and Maralee Mayberry. Effective Educational Environments. Newbury Park, California: Corwin Press, 1992. 168 pages. ED 350 674. Stone, Calvin R. ?School/Community Collaboration: Comparing Three Initiatives.? Phi Delta Kappan 76, 10 (June 1995): 794-96, 798-800. EJ 505 027. Strauber, Sandra K.; Sara Stanley; and Carl Wagenknecht. ?Site-Based Management at Central-Hower.? Educational Leadership 47, 7 (April 1990): 64-66. EJ 405 194. Stroble, Elizabeth, and James Cooper. ?Mentor Teachers: Coaches or Referees?? Theory into Practice 27, 3 (Summer 1988): 231-36. EJ 383 215. Stuart, Leland E.; Steven M. Goldschmidt; with Suzanne Painter. Collective Bargaining in American Public Education: The First Twenty-five Years. Eugene, Oregon: Center for Educational Policy and Management, University of Oregon, 1986. 119 pages. ED 271 833. Stuart v. School District No. 1 of the Village of Kalamazoo. 30 Mich. 69 (1874). Sullivan, Maureen. ?Staff Development through Professional Reading and Discussion.? Journal of Staff Development 8, 1 (Spring 1987): 39-41. EJ 356 230. BIBLIOGRAPHY 541 ?Summary of Panel Report on Measures of Progress Toward Goals.? Education Week X, 28 (April 3, 1991): 18. Szabo, Joan. ?Do Public Schools Miss the Mark?? Nation?s Business 78, 10 (October 1990): 37-39. Tallerico, Kathryn. ?Building Level Staff Development: A Personal Account of a Peer Helping Peers.? Journal of Staff Development 8, 1 (Spring 1987): 32-34. EJ 356 228. Teddlie, Charles, and Samuel Stringfield. Schools Make a Difference. New York: Teachers College Press, 1993. ?The New Industrial Relations.? Special Report. Business Week (May 11, 1981): 85. Thines, George. Phenomenology and the Science of Behavior: A Historical and Episte- mological Approach. London: Allen & Unwin, 1977. ?Thompson Endorses Hiring Private-Practice Teachers.? Education Week X, 21 (Febru- ary 13, 1991): 18. Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 509 (1969). Trotter, Andrew. ?Deus Ex Denver.? American School Board Journal 178, 6 (June 1991): 27-28. EJ 427 012. Turner, Claude C., and James M. Thrasher. School Size Does Make a Difference. San Diego: Institute for Educational Management, 1970. 54 pages. ED 043 946. Turney, David T. Secretaries for Teachers. Nashville, Tennessee: Department of Edu- cation, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1962. Tyack, David B. ? ?Restructuring? in Historical Perspective: Tinkering Toward Utopia.? Teachers College Record 92, 2 (Winter 1990): 170-91. EJ 422 096. ________. The One Best System. A History of American Urban Education. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1974. 353 pages. Tyack, David, and Larry Cuban. Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1995. 190 pages. ED 391 847. Tye, Barbara Benham. Multiple Realities: A Study of 13 American High Schools. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1985. ________. ?The Deep Structure of Schooling.? Phi Delta Kappan 69, 4 (December 1987): 281-84. EJ 363 380. Tye, Kenneth. The Junior High: School in Search of a Mission. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1985. Tyler, Ralph. ?The Five Most Significant Curriculum Events of the Twentieth Cen- tury.? Educational Leadership 44, 4 (December/January 1986/1987): 36-38. Tyson-Bernstein, Harriet. ?The Academy?s Contribution to the Impoverishment of America?s Textbooks.? Phi Delta Kappan 70, 3 (November 1988): 192-98. EJ 379 976. U.S. Department of Education. America 2000: An Education Strategy. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1991. Van Dusen, Lani M., and Blaine R.Worthen. ?Can Integrated Instructional Technology Transform the Classroom?? Educational Leadership 53, 2 (October 1995): 28-33. EJ 513 394. Van Horn, Carl E., Editor. The State of the States. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1989. 235 pages. Vars, Gordon F. A Bibliography of Research on the Effectiveness of Block-Time, Core, and Interdisciplinary Team Teaching Programs. Kent, Ohio: National Association for Core Curriculum, 1984. 542 BIBLIOGRAPHY Vars, Gordon. ?Integrated Curriculum in Historical Perspective.? Educational Leader- ship 49, 2 (October 1991): 14-15. EJ 432 773. Viadero, D. ?Even as Popularity Soars, Portfolios Encounter Roadblocks.? Education Week XIV, 28 (April 5, 1995): 8-9. ________. ?Maine?s ?Common Core? Offers a Lesson in Standards.? Education Week XI, 28 (April 1, 1992): 1, 21-23. ________. ?Mixed Record for Coalition Schools Is Seen.? Education Week 15, 9 (November 1, 1995): 1, 12-13. ________. ?NASBE Endorses ?Full Inclusion? of Disabled Students.? Education Week XII, 9 (November 4, 1992): 1, 30. ________. ?Standards Setters Search for Balance Between Excellence, Equity.? Educa- tion Week XII, 3 (September 23, 1992): 21. ________. ?Teachers Found Skeptical About Revamped Tests.? Education Week 15,30 (April 17, 1996): 1, 9. ________. ?Teen Culture Seen Impeding School Reform.? Education Week 15, 37 (June 5, 1996): 1, 10. ________. ?Texas Board Fines Publishers Over Error-Filled Textbooks.? Education Week XI, 18 (January 22, 1992): 5. Viadero, D., and S. Drummond. ?By the Numbers: Ideal High School Size Found To Be 600 to 900.? Education Week 15, 31 (April 24, 1996): 10. Vickery, Tom Rusk. ?ODDN: A Workable Model for Total School Improvement.? Educational Leadership 47, 7 (April 1990): 67-70. EJ 405 195. Victorian Board of Studies. Guide to the VCE: 1996-97. Victoria, Australia: Victorian Board of Studies, Melbourne, 1995. Vopat, James. The Parent Project: A Workshop Approach to Parent Involvement. York, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers, January 1994. 200 pages. ED 381 606. Walsh, M. ?Businesses? Enthusiasm for Reform Seen Flagging.? Education Week XIV, 38 (June 14, 1995): 11. Waltner, Jean Campbell. ?Learning from Scientists at Work.? Educational Leadership 49, 6 (March 1992): 48-52. EJ 441 175. Wanat, Carolyn. ?Of Schools, Single Parents, and Surrogates.? Education Week X, 33 (May 8, 1991): 25. Wang, Margaret; Herbert Walberg; and Maynard Reynolds. ?A Scenario for Better? Not Separate?Special Education.? Educational Leadership 50, 2 (October 1992): 35-38. EJ 451 474. Wang, Margaret C.; C. Reynolds; and H. J. Walberg. ?Integrating the Children of the Second System.? Phi Delta Kappan 70, 3 (November 1988): 248-51. EJ 379 984. Wasley, Patricia A. ?From Quarterback to Coach, from Actor to Director.? Educational Leadership 48, 8 (May 1991): 35-40. EJ 425 606. Wasson Restructuring Committee. The Wasson Block Schedule. Colorado Springs: Wasson High School, 1990. Watson, Tim, and others. ?The Relationship of Parents? Support to Children?s School Achievement.? Child Welfare 62 (1983): 175-80. Watzlawick, Paul; John H. Weakland; and Richard Fisch. Change: Principles of Prob- lem Formation and Problem Resolution. New York: Norton, 1974. 172 pages. Weber, Arnold R., Editor. The Structure of Collective Bargaining. New York: Free Press, 1964. Weick, Karl. ?Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems.? Administrative Science Quarterly 21, 1 (March 1976): 1-19. EJ 134 531. BIBLIOGRAPHY 543 Weisman, Jonathan. ?Amid Publicity Over Declining Scores, Acclaimed Saturn School Faces Review.? Education Week X, 40 (July 31, 1991): 12. ________. ?Business Roundtable Assessing State Progress on Reforms.? Education Week XI, 12 (November 20, 1991): 22. ________. ?Report Cautiously Optimistic on School-Business Ties.? Education Week X, 24 (March 6, 1991): 19. ________. ?Workforce Skills Hamper Productivity, Manufacturers Say.? Education Week XI, 15 (December 11, 1991): 5. Weiss, Andrew M. ?System 2000: If You Build It, Can You Manage It?? Phi Delta Kappan 77, 6 (February 1996): 408-15. EJ 517 858. Weiss, Carol H. ?Shared Decision-Making About What? A Comparison of Schools With and Without Teacher Participation.? Teachers College Record 95, 1 (Fall 1993): 69-92. EJ 475 129. West, Peter. ?Parents Prove To Be the Toughest Nut to Crack in an Effort To Reform Science in Anchorage.? Education Week X, 40 (July 31, 1991): 8-9. ________. ?Project To Reform Elementary Science Lauded.? Education Week X, 29 (April 10, 1991): 8. Westerberg, Tim, and Dan Brickley. ?Restructuring a Comprehensive High School.? Educational Leadership 48, 8 (May 1991): 23-26. EJ 425 603. Wheelock, Anne. ?The Case for Untracking.? Educational Leadership 50, 2 (October 1992): 6-10. EJ 451 468. Whelan, Carol Scott, and Charles Teddlie. ?Self-Fulfilling Prophesy and Attribution of Responsibility: Is There a Causal Link to Achievement?? Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Fran- cisco, California, March 27-31, 1989. 27 pages. ED 323 211. ?Whittle To Spend Millions on ?State of the Art? Schools.? EDCAL 20, 34 (1991): 1, 4. ?Who?s Who in National Standards and Assessments.? Education Week XI, 8 (October 23, 1991): 14, 15. Wicker, Allan W. ?Cognitive Complexity, School Size, and Participation in School Behavior Settings: A Test of the Frequency of Interaction Hypothesis.? Journal of Educational Psychology 60, 3 (1969): 200-3. EJ 005 570. ________. ?Undermanning, Performances, and Students? Subjective Experiences in Behavior Settings of Large and Small High Schools.? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 10 (1968): 255-61. Widell, Brian. ?Business Steps In.? Business Today 28, 3 (Fall 1991): 13-23. Wiggins, Grant. Assessing Student Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993. ________. ?Standards, Not Standardization: Evoking Quality Student Work.? Educa- tional Leadership 48, 5 (February 1991): 18-25. EJ 421 344. ________. ?The Futility of Trying to Teach Everything Important.? Educational Lead- ership 47, 3 (November 1989): 44-48, 57-59. EJ 398 953. Willems, Edwin. ?Sense of Obligation to High School Activities as Related to School Size and Marginality of Students.? Child Development 38, 4 (December 1967): 1247-60. ED 023 724. Williams, David L., and Nancy Feyl Chavkin. ?Essential Elements of Strong Parent Involvement Programs.? Educational Leadership 47, 2 (October 1989): 18-20. EJ 397 730. Willis, Scott. ?Cooperative Learning Shows Staying Power.? ASCD Update 34, 3 (March 1992): 1, 2. Wirt, Frederick M., and Michael W. Kirst. Schools in Conflict: The Politics of Educa- tion. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1989. 413 pages. 544 BIBLIOGRAPHY ?With Funds Restored, CAP Adds ?More Authentic Measures?.? EDCAL 20, 24 (1991): 2, 5. Witte, J. F., and others. Second-Year Report: Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Madison, Wisconsin: Department of Political Science and Robert M. La Follette Institute Institute of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin, 1992. Wohlstetter, Priscilla, and Thomas Buffett. ?Decentralizing Dollars Under School- Based Management: Have Policies Changed?? Educational Policy 6, 1 (March 1992): 35-54. EJ 441 096. Wohlstetter, Priscilla, and Allan Odden. ?Rethinking School-Based Management Policy and Research.? Educational Administration Quarterly 18, 4 (November 1992): 529-49. EJ 451 467. Wolf, Joan S., and Thomas M. Stephens. ?Parent/Teacher Conferences: Finding Com- mon Ground.? Educational Leadership 47, 2 (October 1989): 28-31. EJ 397 733. Wu, P.C. ?Teachers as Staff Developers: Research, Opinions, and Cautions.? Journal of Staff Development 8, 1 (Spring 1987): 4-6. EJ 356 221. Wurtz, Emily, and others. Promises to Keep: Creating High Standards for American Students. National Education Goals Panel, Goal 3 and 4 Technical Planning Group on the Review of Education Standards, November 15, 1993. ED 366 613. Wynne, E. A., and H. J. Walberg. ?Persisting Groups: An Overlooked Force for Learning.? Phi Delta Kappan 75, 7 (March 1994): 527-28, 530. EJ 481 229. Zigmond, N.; J. Jenkins; L. S. Fuchs; S. Deno; D. Fuchs; J. N. Baker; L. Jenkins; and M. Couthino.?Special Education in Restructured Schools: Findings from Three Multi- Year Studies.? Phi Delta Kappan 76, 7 (March 1995): 531-40. EJ 499 169. Zimet, M. A Case Study of the Decentralization Law in New York City. New York: Teachers College Press, 1973. Zimmerman, Jack; Dia Norris; Jerry Kirkpatrick; Augusta Mann; and Ron Herndon. Partners for Success: Business and Education. Portland, Oregon: National Asso- ciation for Schools of Excellence, 1990. 67 pages. ED 322 257. Zimpher, Nancy L., and Susan R. Rieger. ?Mentoring Teachers: What Are the Issues?? Theory Into Practice 27, 3 (Summer 1988): 175-82. EJ 383 206. SUBJECT INDEX 545 SUBJECT INDEX 545 A Ability gr0ouping. See Tracking Absolutist educational philosophies, vs. constructivism, 181 Academic-learning standards, 123-24 Accelerated schools, 283-84 Accountability. See also Assessment; Stan- dards and central-office administration, 82 emphasis on, in restructuring efforts, 28, 495 vs. empowerment, 502 and government reinvention, 44 increasing demand for, 203 and individualism, 40 and principals, 354-55 and public demonstrations, 52-53 in restructured high school, 481-82 and students, 93 and teachers, 91 Accreditation, and state standards, 70 Achievement tests, implementation of, 20 ACOT project, and computer use in schools, 238-42 Action planning and implementation phase, of restructuring, 414-15 Active participation, in learning, 54-57, 92-94, 171, 488 Adaptation, as strategy for change, 12 Administrations central. See Central administrations school-site. See Principals; Site-based management Administrative intern, as form of teacher leadership, 341-42 Adults, as positive role models, 61 Advanced Placement program creation of, 25-26 as performance-based standard, 137 Affiliation, students? need for, 60-62 AFT. See American Federation of Teach- ers Alignment phase, of restructuring, 413-14 All-school themes, as integrated curricu- lum, 151 Alternative assessment. See Authentic as- sessment America 2000, 67, 139-40. See also Goals 2000: Educate America Act American Association for the Advance- ment of Science, 156 American Federation of Teachers (AFT), changes occurring in, 390-93 American Memory: A Report on the Hu- manities in the Nation?s Public Schools, 157 Americans with Disabilities Act, 39-40 America?s Choice: High Skills or Low Wages, 45 ?America?s Shame: How We?ve Aban- doned Our Children?s Future,? 237 Analytic thinking, as intellectual and so- cial-skill standard, 125 Apple Classroom of Tomorrow. See ACOT project Applied academics, and vocational train- ing, 165-66 AP program. See Advanced Placement Program Arbitrators, central administrators as, 80 Are You Ready to Restructure?, 7 Arts, national curriculum document on, 160 ARTS PROPEL project, portfolio assess- ments used in, 197 Assessment. See also Accountability; Stan- dards 546 SUBJECT INDEX and academic-learning standards, 123- 24 authentic, 187-88 examples of, 189-96 as central variable of restructuring, 116- 17 changes in, and restructuring, 184-205, 489-90 community involvement in, 106-7 and computer use, 241 vs. evaluation, 52 holistic, with rubrics, 191-93 integrated with learning, 53 and intellectual and social-skill stan- dards, 124-25 limitations of current approaches, 185- 87 local vs. state, 82 problems with new strategies, 196-202 questions on, to frame restructuring ef- forts, 422-23 in restructured high school, 481-82 vs. standards, 184 and technology, 257-58 Assessment Standards for School Math- ematics, 158 Association representative, as form of teacher leadership, 338 ?At-risk? track development of, in high schools, 26 effort expended on, 37 Attendance compulsory, implementation of, 20 issues of, and Factory Management Ap- proach, 43-44 Attrition. See Dropout rates; Graduation rates Authentic assessment, 187-88 B Background, of restructuring, 17-29 ?Back to basics? movement and content knowledge, emphasis on, 149-50 emergence of, 28 Baker, Eva, and authentic assessment, 187- 88 Behaviorism and assessment methods, 185 vs. constructivism, 171, 176, 180-81 and content emphasis, 149-50 Behavior-management issues, and Factory Management Approach, 43-44 Benchmarks for Science Literacy, 158 Block scheduling, 290-97, 456 Board-of-directors model, of boards of education, 76-77 Boards of education, 74-77 challenges to, 75 new model for, 76-77 Book discussion groups, to build readi- ness for change, 411 Boundaries, crossing of by central administrators, 79-80 by principals, 349-50 British Columbia, and multiage grouping, 209 Budgets. See Public funding, of schools Bureaucratic approach, of school organi- zation, 60 as challenge to restructuring, 439-41 vs. sense of community, 502-3 and teachers, 90 Business community. See also Private sec- tor as active partner, in education, 103-4 and constructivism, 177 and early school reforms, 20-21, 28 education agendas of, vs. educators? agendas, 47-48 and educational standards, support of, 142-44 educators? perception of, 269 and restructuring, influence on, 21-22, 28, 44-48, 118, 490 role and expectations of, 263-71 and school-to-work programs, 167, 228 Business courses, changes in, 165-66 Business Roundtables, and educational change, 106, 264-66 C CAI. See Computer-assisted instruction Calculators, use of, in schools, 244-45 Calendar, of school year, extension of, 297-301 California charter schools in, 314-15 and CLAS assessment, 198 California Business Roundtable, and school reform recommendations, 264-66 California Partnership Academies, 230 CAM. See Certificates of Initial and Ad- vanced Mastery SUBJECT INDEX 547 Cardinal Principles of Secondary Educa- tion, 24-25 Card sorts, as assessment strategy, 189 Career-academy model in partnership with businesses, 271 of school-to-work program, 167, 229-30 Carnegie unit and consistency of process, 52 implementation of, 19-20, 23 replacements for, 493 and school schedules, 290 and technology use, 255-56 CATs. See Common Assessment Tasks CBAM. See Concerns-Based Adoption Model CD-ROMs, and integrated learning sys- tems, 246 Center for Research on Evaluation, Stan- dards, and Student Testing, and authen- tic assessment, 187-88 Center for Teaching and Learning, 391-92 Center for the Study of Reading (CSR), 159 Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools (CORS), 473-74 Central administrations and governance changes, reactions to, 119 role of and allocation of resources, 82 and restructuring, 77-84 standard-setting by, 81-82 structure of, 77 Centralization and collective bargaining, 375 of past curriculum development, 162 of school administrations, 77-78 Central variables, of restructuring, 114- 17, 115f challenge of changing, 203-5 Certificates of Initial and Advanced Mas- tery (CIMs, CAMs), used in Oregon, 201-2, 268 Certificates of mastery, and job skills, 104, 271 Certified support staff changing role of, 367-69 as supporting variable of restructuring, 120 Change continuous vs. discontinuous, 11-12, 110-11 fear of, 10-11 incremental, 11-13, 110-11 vs. fundamental, 112-13 reactive strategies for, 11-12 societal forces for, 31-34 strategies for, preparation of, 402 Charter schools, 110, 313-20 elements of, 317 key early lessons of, 318 key policy lessons of, 318-19 and parents, 319 problems with, 319-20 Charting a Course: Social Studies for the 21st Century, 156 Chinese schools, teachers? workday issues in, 459-60 Choice among educational options, 321-27 recommendations for, 322-33 and decision-making, 313-20 issues of, in public education, 119 in marketplace economic model, 42, 304 and parental involvement, 102 CIM. See Certificates of Initial and Ad- vanced Mastery Citizens 2000 school, charter revoked for, 320 Civics, national curriculum documents on, 160-61 Civil-rights movement and American individualism, 39 and high school reform, 26 Civitas: A Framework for Civic Educa- tion, 161 CLAS assessment, in California, 198 Classified staff, as supporting variable of restructuring, 120 Class sizes, and staffing flexibility, 362- 64 Club sponsor, as form of teacher leader- ship, 335 Coach, as form of teacher leadership, 335 Coalition of Essential Schools, 476-78 and constructivism, 176 principals in, 85-86, 348 and schools-within-schools, 212 Cognitive skills. See Process skills Collaborative bargaining vs. formal collective bargaining, 384- 86, 496 guides for beginning, 387-88 548 SUBJECT INDEX Collective action, in American society, vs. individual rights, 39 Collective bargaining, 121, 373-94 vs. collaborative bargaining, 384-86 flexibility needed during, 379-80 future evolution of, 377-78, 496 and role redefinition, 381-83 College Board, 23 and Advanced Placement program, 137 The College Entrance Examination Board, 23 Colleges. See also Higher education; Uni- versities admission standards for and high school core curriculum, 168- 69 and PASS project, 133-36 expectations of, and influence on high schools, 23, 490-91 preparation for, by 1930s ?progressive? schools, 18-19 and school choice, 324 and standards, limited support of, 23 Cologne, Germany, K?ln-Holweide school in, 214-16 Commission on Social Studies in the Schools, 156 Commission on the Restructuring of the American High School, and restructured high school, vision of, 478-85 Committee member/chair, as form of teacher leadership, 336 Committee of Ten, and standardization, recommendations for, 23-24 Common Assessment Tasks (CATs), and Victorian Certificate of Education, 138 Common Assessment Tasks, used in Or- egon, 202 Communication and central administrators, 80 competence in, as intellectual and so- cial-skill standard, 125 facilitated by principals, 349-50 Internet used for, 251 between parents and teachers, 99 Communities and funding for schools, 102 involvement with schools, 57-59, 102-7 changes in, 260-87 vs. professionalism, 501 used as curriculum, 218-21 Community-based learning, 217-21 Community, sense of vs. bureaucracy, 502-3 developed in schools, 59-62 and school size, 61 in schools-within-schools, 216-17 and teachers, 62 Community-service requirement, 217-18 Comparisons, international. See Interna- tional comparisons Competition vs. cooperation, and computer use, 242 in marketplace economic model, 42, 304 Complementary discipline units/courses, and curriculum integration, 153 The Comprehensive Plan for the Mary- land School Performance Program, 199 Compulsory school attendance, implemen- tation of, 20 Computer-assisted instruction (CAI), 239 Computer networks, 243 and curriculum development, influence on, 156 Computers and record-keeping, 368 in schools, 237-42 and assessment, 241 Concept-progress model, of middle school scheduling, 296-97 Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM), and readiness for change, 402-4 Conferences, to build readiness for change, 411 Conflict, avoidance of, and teachers? unions, 378-79 Connected model, of curriculum integra- tion, 152 Constructivism vs. behaviorism, 171, 176, 180-81 challenges to, 180-83 and curriculum development, influence on, 172 guiding principles of, 174-75 instructional practices of, examples of, 178-80 and integrated learning systems, 246 and multimedia technology, 249 and restructuring, 176-78 vs. standards, 499-500 Consumer purchasing power, and govern- ment reinvention, 44 SUBJECT INDEX 549 Content knowledge and academic-learning standards, 124 and constructivism, 177 vs. process, and curriculum changes, 149- 51 and technology, 126 ?Contextual learning experiences,? devel- opment of, 131 Continuous change, vs. discontinuous change, 11-12 Contractual relationships questions about, to frame restructuring efforts, 426 and restructuring, 373-94 as supporting variable of restructuring, 120-21 Controversy about history curriculum standards, 159 about international comparisons, judg- ments based on, 36-37 about performance standards, 122, 136- 37 Cooperation, vs. competition, and com- puter use, 242 Cooperative learning as constructivist practice, 178-79 and gifted students, 225-27 Coordination, between organization lev- els, by central administrators, 81 Copernican Plan, and time restructuring, 290-92 impacts of, 292 Core curriculum, 23-24, 151 challenge for, 168-69 CORS. See Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools Counselors, role of, and restructuring, 367- 68 Coverage vs. depth, in curriculum, 147-49 Craft-Workshop Approach, of school or- ganization, 60 ?Creativity schools,? 73 Criterion-Referenced Tests, used in Or- egon, 202 CSR. See Center for the Study of Reading Culture, importance of, and challenges to restructuring, 441-45 Curriculum as central variable of restructuring, 116 changes in, 155-56, 487 trends in, 146-47 community used as, 218-21 and content vs. process, 149-51 coverage vs. depth in, 147-49 in high schools, 23-24 vision of, 479 integration of, 151-54, 487-88 problems with, 154 national standards documents for, 156- 63 questions on, to frame restructuring ef- forts, 421-22 and restructuring, 145-70 standards for, 123 and technology, 257 Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, 156-58 Curriculum developer, as form of teacher leadership, 340-41 Cutscores, and international comparisons, 139 D Dalton Plan, and time restructuring, 294- 96 Data collection, to build readiness for change, 411, 413 Decentralization. See also Governance and accountability, importance of, 327- 29 and collective bargaining, 375-76 of curriculum development, 162-63 increasing, in school administrations, 77- 78 Decision-making and choice, 313-20 community involvement with, 106 consensus in, 352-53 parents? involvement with, 99-100, 279 shared, 43, 305-13, 346, 494-95 by students, 93 Delegation model, of education, limits of, 96-97, 283 Democracy Through Language, 156 Democratic institutions, growth of, and impact on education, 43 Demonstrations, public. See Public dem- onstrations, of student skills Department chair, as form of teacher lead- ership, 336-37 Depth vs. coverage, in curriculum, 147-49 Desegregation process, and high school reform, 26 550 SUBJECT INDEX Dewey, John, and Progressive movement, 20 Discipline, issues of, and Factory Man- agement Approach, 43-44 Discontinuous change, vs. continuous change, 11-12, 110-11 Disputes, mediation of, by central admin- istrators, 80 Distance learning, using satellite transmis- sions, 244 Districts. See School districts Diversity in restructured high school, 483 in workplace, and effect on schools, 32 Dropout rates. See also Graduation rates in high schools, 22, 50 and school size, 210 E EAI. See Educational Alternatives Incor- porated Early-release days, 458-59 Economic changes, and impact on schools, 31-32 Economics, national curriculum document on, 161 Economic utility, of education, 53-54 Edison Schools, 110 Educational Alternatives Incorporated (EAI), and instructional interns, use of, 364-65 Educational entrepreneur, as form of teacher leadership, 341 Educational-finance policy, as challenge to restructuring, 435-38 Educational theory, changes in, and early high school reform, 24-25 Education and Human Services Consor- tium, and interagency collaboration, 272 Education by Charter, 313 Education Commission of the States, 71- 72 Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142) (1975), 26, 39 Efficiency, enhancement of, by central administrators, 81 Eight Year Study, of 1930s ?progressive? schools, 18-19 Employers and certificates of mastery, 104 involvement with schools, 45-48 and school visits, release of workers for, 105 skills desired by, 45-48, 127-28, 263-71 Empowerment vs. accountability, 502 vs. power-sharing, 358 Enabling variables, of restructuring, 115f, 117-18, 301-2 English Coalition Report, 156 Enrollment, increase in, in late 19th cen- tury, 19, 23 Entrance examinations, for college, 23 as outcome of Eight Year Study, 18 Environment. See Learning environment Equity, vs. excellence, as educational goal, 49-50 Essential Changes in Secondary Science: Scope, Sequence, and Coordination, 156 Evaluation vs. assessment, 52 of newly hired teachers, 370 Everyone Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Educa- tion, 156 Evolution, as strategy for change, 12 Excellence, vs. equity, as educational goal, 49-50 Expectations of Excellence: Curriculum Standards for Social Studies, 162 Exploring Policy Options to Restructure Education, 71-72 ?External model,? of school-community interaction, 261 F Facilitative leadership and communication, 349-50 distinguishing factors of, 357-59 and fragmented schools, 347-48 and isolation, within school district, 355- 57 and new leadership structures, 348-49 and principals, 343-59 and process vs. product, balance between, 351-53 and readiness for change, 350-51 and ?reinventing the wheel,? 353-54 and tension creation/management, 344- 45, 466 and vision-driven system, 345-46, 430 SUBJECT INDEX 551 Facilitators central administrators as, 79 principals as, 85-89. See also Facilita- tive leadership Factory Management Approach and multiage grouping, challenge of, 209 in secondary schools, 22, 40-41, 60 and behavior-management issues, 43-44 and teachers, 90 Faculty development, and restructuring, 462-65, 482 Faculty meetings, to build readiness for change, 412 Failure of reforms, 445-46 Fax machines, use of, in schools, 243 Fear, of change, 10-11 Federal government and public education, involvement in, 66-68 and state authority, struggle with, 68 Field-based studies, as school-to-work pro- gram, 228 Financing. See Public funding, of schools First-order change, vs. second-order change, 11-12 Follow Through program, 66 Foreign language, national curriculum document on, 161 Four-block model, of middle school sched- uling, 296 ?4x4 Plan,? and time restructuring, 293- 94 Fragmentation in schools, management of, by principals, 347-48 Fragmented model, of curriculum integra- tion, 152 A Framework for Teaching Basic Eco- nomic Concepts with Scope and Se- quence Guidelines, K-12, 161 Free market. See Marketplace economic model Full inclusion. See Special-education pro- grams ?Full-service schools,? and school-based student services, 282-83 Fundamental change, vs. incremental change, 112-13 Funding, public, of schools as challenge to restructuring, 435-38 and community, 102 establishment of, 19, 23 movement from local to state, 19, 23 new limits on, 44 patterns of, 362 and technology, 253 G General Achievement Test, and Victorian Certificate of Education, 138 Generic work-readiness standards, 127-28 Geography for Life: National Geography Standards, 160 Geography, national curriculum document on, 160 Germany (Cologne), K?ln-Holweide school in, 214-16 Gerstner, Louis, and educational standards, support of, 142 Gifted programs teachers for. See Certified support staff and tracking, 225-27 Global economy America?s new role in, 22 and effect on schools, 32, 138 Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 67, 129 Goals, for education business community?s vs. educators,? 47- 48 national, 66-68 and need for clarity, 486 parents? involvement in, 99 Governance alternative structures of, 312-13 changes in, 303-29 strategies for, 304-5 questions on, to frame restructuring ef- forts, 425 in restructured high school, 483 as supporting variable of restructuring, 119 Government changing roles of, in education, 66-73 ?reinvention? of, 42-48 Grade-level organization, implementation of, 19-20 Grading procedures, standardization of, 23 Graduation rates. See also Dropout rates in American high schools, 25 in Japanese high schools, 51 552 SUBJECT INDEX Grouping strategies ability. See Tracking mixed-age, 207-9 Guidance counseling, new role of, 367-68 implementation of, 25 H Hardware acquisitions, and technology development plans, 256-57 Head Start program, 66 Health, national curriculum document on, 161 Higher education. See also Colleges; Uni- versities influence on restructuring, past vs. present, 29 and school choice, 324 and standards, limited support of, 23 ties to, in restructured high school, 484 A High School Framework for National Science Education Standards, 158 High schools. See also Secondary schools curriculum in, 23 dropout rate in, 22 evolution of, 22-27 reforms in 1890s, 23 1911, 24-25 1957, 25-26 1960s, 26, 28 restructured, vision of, 478-85 schedule changes in, 289-97 Hiring, of new teachers, 369-72 History, national curriculum documents on, 159 Holistic assessment with rubrics, 191-93 Home-economics classes, changes in, 166 Home schooling, and Internet use, 251 Home visits, 101, 274-76 I IAEP. See International Assessment of Educational Progress ILS. See Integrated Learning Systems Immersed model, of curriculum integra- tion, 152 Immigration, effects of, on late 19th cen- tury schools, 19, 23 Implementation phase, of restructuring, 414-15 Inclusion. See Special-education programs Incomplete Work of the Task Forces of the Standards Project for the English Lan- guage Arts, 159 Incremental change, 11-13, 110-13 Individualism, in American society, and effect on schools, 39-42 Individualized instruction, vs. multiage grouping, 208 Industrialization, effects of, on late 19th century schools, 19 Industry-skill standards, 128-32 examples of, 129-31 Information, dissemination of, by princi- pals, 86-88, 349-50 ?Institutional isomorphism,? 111 Instruction as central variable of restructuring, 116 changes in, and restructuring, 171-83 questions on, to frame restructuring ef- forts, 422 in restructured high school, 479-80 and technology, 257 Instructional interns, vs. paraprofession- als, 364-65 Integrated-day model, of curriculum inte- gration, 153-54 Integrated Instructional Systems (IIS). See Integrated Learning Systems Integrated Learning Systems (ILS) criteria for effective use, 247 evolution of, 245-49 impact on achievement, 247 Integrated model, of curriculum integra- tion, 152 Integration, of curriculum, 151-54, 487- 88 problems with, 154 Integrative thinking, as intellectual and social-skill standard, 126 Intellectual and social-skill standards, 124- 27 Intelligence, normal distribution of, as un- derlying assumption, 50-52 Intelligence testing, implementation of, 19- 20 Interaction effects, between dimensions of restructuring, 114 Interdisciplinary curriculum design, 153 SUBJECT INDEX 553 ?Internal model,? of school-community interaction, 261 International Assessment of Educational Progress, criticism of use, 37 International comparisons and American students, performance of, 34-37 judgments based on, controversy sur- rounding, 36-37 International economic system America?s new role in, 22 and effect on schools, 32, 138 International Reading Association (IRA), 159-60 The International Study of Achievement in Mathematics, 34-35 Internet, 250-52 and curriculum development, influence on, 156 and record-keeping, 368 Internships, as school-to-work program, 228 IQ tests, implementation of, 19-20 IRA. See International Reading Associa- tion Isolation of facilitative leaders, 355-57 of teachers, 261 as old norm, 90 J Japanese high schools, graduation rates in, 51 Jobs part-time, held by high school students, 94, 269-71 skills for desired by employers, 45-48, 127-28 and education, 53-54, 94, 104, 142-43, 263-71 Joplin Plan, mixed-age groups in, 208 K Kearns, David, and educational standards, support of, 142 Kentucky and multiage grouping, 209 restructuring in, effects of, 471-72 Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA), and assessment changes, 199-201 Kentucky Instructional Results Informa- tion System (KIRIS), 200 Kentucky schools, new forms of assess- ment in, 199-201 KERA. See Kentucky Education Reform Act Kidnet (National Geographic), 243 KIRIS. See Kentucky Instructional Results Information System Knowledge accessibility of, and new role of teach- ers, 33 objectivity of, as underlying assumption, 146 K?ln-Holweide school, in Cologne, Ger- many, 214-16 L Labor force changes in, and impact on schools, 31- 32 preparation for, as education goal, 20, 53-54, 94, 104, 142-43, 263-71 skills needed for, 45-48, 127-28 Labor-management relations. See also Collective bargaining and restructuring, 373-94 and role redefinition, 381-83 ?Lake Wobegon Effect,? of standardized- achievement tests, 82 Language arts, national curriculum docu- ments on, 159-60 Leadership, 330-60 changes in for principals, 343-60 for teachers, 330-43 facilitative. See Facilitative leadership interactive, development of, 359-60 ?letting go? of, by principals, 87-89. See also Shared decision-making in restructured high school, 484-85 as supporting variable of restructuring, 120 transition of, 355-57 Leadership for Education Administration Development, and central-office admin- istration, role of, 83 Leader snapshots, as assessment strategy, 189 Lead teacher, as form of teacher leader- ship, 337-38 554 SUBJECT INDEX Learning active participation in, 54-57, 92-94, 171, 488 as goal vs. process, 52-53 integrated with assessment, 53 as primary goal of restructuring, 9-10 rote, counterproductivity of, 34 as social phenomenon, 146 standards, 122-44 Learning communities, creation of, 213- 17 Learning environment changes in, and restructuring, 206-36 as enabling variable of restructuring, 117- 18 questions on, to frame restructuring ef- fort, 424 in restructured high school, 480 Learning logs, as assessment strategy, 189 Learning time. See Teaching and learning time Librarian, new role of, 368-69 Local school choice, 324 Longitudinal Study of School Restructur- ing, 473 Lowell Public Schools (Massachusetts), and microsociety program, 220-21 M Macrolevel challenges, to restructuring, 433-49 Magnet programs and school choice, 324 as schools-within-schools programs, 212 Mainstreaming. See Special-education pro- grams Man: A Course of Study, 162 Marketplace economic model and government reinvention, 42 and school choice, 321 Mark Twain Elementary School, and ho- listic assessment with rubrics, 192-93 Maryland, new forms of assessment in, 199 Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP), 199 Maryland School Performance Report, 199 Masconomet Regional High School (Mas- sachusetts), time restructuring at, 291- 92 Massachusetts Advocacy Center, and untracked schools, 224-25 Mastery, certificates of, 104, 271 Mathematics international comparisons in, 34-36 national curriculum documents on, 157- 58 renewed emphasis on, after Sputnik launch, 25 standards for, example of, 133-36 Matrix style, of central-office administra- tion, 82-83 Media, and negative test scores, focus on, 37 Mediation, of disputes, by central admin- istrators, 80 Mentorships as school-to-work program, 228 for teachers, 335, 342-43, 371 Metamorphosis, as strategy for change, 12 Microsociety program, in Lowell (Massa- chusetts) public schools, 220-21 The Micro-Society School: A Real World in Miniature, 220 Middle schools, schedule changes in, 289- 97 Mimetic teaching, and constructivism, 172 Minnesota, charter schools in, 314 Mixed-age grouping strategies, 207-9 Motivation, differences in, among students, 55-56 Moving into the Future: National Stan- dards for Physical Education: A Guide to Content and Assessment, 161-62 MSPAP. See Maryland School Perfor- mance Assessment Program Multiage grouping strategies, 207-9 Multiculturalism, and restructuring, influ- ence on, 4 Multimedia technology, 249-50 N NAEP. See National Assessment of Edu- cational Progress NASDC. See New American Schools De- velopment Corporation National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 35 and content vs. process, 150-51 SUBJECT INDEX 555 National Association of Manufacturers, and school-business partnerships, sur- vey on, 266-67 National Business Roundtable, and school reform recommendations, 264 National Center for Improving Science Education, 156 and constructivism, 172 National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), 156, 159-60 National Council of Teachers of Math- ematics (NCTM) and constructivism, 172 standard-setting by, 67-68, 156-58 National Council on Economics in Educa- tion (NCEE), 161 National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS) of 1988, 472 National Education Association (NEA), changes occurring in, 390-93 National Education Goals Panel (NEGP), 67-68, 140-41 National Education Standards and Im- provement Council (NESIC), 67-68, 140- 41 National Geographic?s Kidnet, 243 National Health Education Standards: Achieving Health Literacy, 161 National LEADership Network Study Group on Restructuring Schools, and central-office administration, role of, 83 National Research Council, 156 National Retail Federation, and industry- skill standards, 129 National Science Education Standards, 158 National Science Foundation curriculum development programs of, 162 and review of standardized tests, 185-86 National Science Teachers Association, 156 National Skills Standards Board, and in- dustry-skill standards, 129 National standards, 66-68, 139-41 reports on, 156-63 National Standards for Civics and Gov- ernment, 160-61 National Standards for Foreign Language Education, 161 National Standards for History for Grades K-4, 159 National Standards for United States His- tory, 159 National Standards for World History, 159 National subject-area reports, 156-63 NCEE. See National Council on Econom- ics in Education NCTE. See National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) NCTM. See National Council of Teachers of Mathematics NEA. See National Education Association Negative test scores, media focus on, 37 NEGP. See National Education Goals Panel NELS. See National Educational Longitu- dinal Study of 1988 NESIC. See National Education Standards and Improvement Council Nested model, of curriculum integration, 152 Networked model, of curriculum integra- tion, 152 Networking. See Computer networks; Internet New American Schools Development Cor- poration, 110, 113 New American Schools Development Cor- poration (NASDC), and restructuring competition, 474-75 ?New Beginnings? program, and school- based student services, 281-82 Nongraded grouping strategies, 207-9 O ?Open architecture? designs, and integrated learning systems, 246 Open-ended tests, as assessment strategy, 189 Open Enrollment plan, and school choice, 324 Opportunity-to-learn standards, 136-37 Oregon new forms of assessment in, 201-2 Renaissance 2000 project in, 229 Oregon Business Council (OBC), and strat- egies for reform, 268-69 556 SUBJECT INDEX Oregon Network, and facilitative leader- ship, 343-54 Oregon?s ?2020 schools.? See ?2020 schools? program (Oregon) Oregon?s PASS system. See Proficiency- based Admission Standards System Organization, of schools approaches to, 60 and teachers, 91 Other Ways (Berkeley), and community used as curriculum, 218-19 Outcome-based learning and content vs. process balance, 149 and intellectual and social-skill stan- dards, 124 Outward Bound, as completely integrated curriculum, 154 P Paraeducators, 366-67 Parallel-discipline design, of curriculum integration, 153 Paraprofessionals, role of, 364-67, 496 The Parent Project, 280 Parents and boards of education, challenges to, 75 and calculator use, in schools, 245 and charter schools, 319 involvement with schools, 57-59, 96- 102 challenges and rewards of, 284-86 expectations for, 101, 276-87 and student success, 280-81 types of, 277-79 new roles of, and restructuring, 96-102 opposition to restructuring, 28 of special-needs students, 236 and teachers communication with, 99 partnership between, 91-92 Parkway Program (Philadelphia), and com- munity used as curriculum, 218-19 Participation, active, in learning, 54-57, 92-94, 171, 488 Partnership between schools and communities, 57- 59, 102-7 as enabling variable of restructuring, 118 between teachers and parents, 91-92 ?Partnership movement,? between schools and businesses, 267-68 Part-time jobs, held by high school stu- dents, 94, 269-71 PASS. See Proficiency-based Admission Standards System Peer observer/peer coach, as form of teacher leadership, 335-36 Performance. See also Standards emphasis on, 52-53 Performance demonstrations, as assess- ment strategy, 193-95 Performance standards, 122-44 controversy about, 122, 136-37 criteria for, 122-23 examples of, 137-38 questions on, to frame restructuring ef- forts, 421 ?Permissive language,? and contractual relationships, changes in, 120-21 Personnel, professional and classified questions on, to frame restructuring ef- forts, 426 as supporting variable of restructuring, 120 Phi Delta Kappa Study of Students at Risk, 37 Phonics, vs. ?whole language,? 182-83 Physical education, national curriculum document on, 161-62 Pitfalls, of school restructuring, 451-55 Planners, central administrators as, 79 Policy-making, by states, strategies for, 71-72 Policy system, toward education, ambigu- ity of, 433-35 Policy trust agreements vs. formal collective bargaining, 121, 386 guidelines for beginning, 387-88 Portfolios, of student work as assessment strategy, 190-91, 193-94 problems with, 196-98 Positive role models, adults as, 61 Postsecondary options, and school choice, 324 Power alternative conceptions of, 312-13 sharing vs. granting, 358 Primary schools, curriculum integration in, 153-54 SUBJECT INDEX 557 Principals and accountability, 354-55 critical role of, 465-69 as facilitative leaders, 343-59 leadership of questions on, to frame restructuring ef- forts, 425-26 as supporting variable of restructuring, 120 in noneducational settings, 104-5, 409- 10 role of, and restructuring, 85-89 and teachers, new roles of, 90-91 ?Principles of Technology,? as replace- ment for shop programs, 165 Private sector. See also Business commu- nity influence of, in late 19th century, 19 restructuring in, 7 Privatization, of public education, 321 Problem-solving, as intellectual and so- cial-skill standard, 125-26 Process skills and academic-learning standards, 124 and constructivism, 177 vs. content, and curriculum changes, 149- 51 and technology, 126 Professional associations, teachers? unions as, 376 Professional development, and restructur- ing, 462-65, 482 Professionalism, sense of and collective bargaining, 376-78 vs. community involvement, 501 Professional staff, as supporting variable of restructuring, 120 Professional unionism, 388-90 preconditions for, 389-90 Proficiency-based Admission Standards System (PASS), 133, 201-2 Program Development plan, of school choice, 324 Program standards, 123 Progressive Education Association, and Eight-Year Study, 18-19 Progressive movement, in education, 18- 20 and current reforms, 21 Project-based learning, as school-to-work program, 228 ?Project-itis,? vs. fundamental change, 112 ProTech (Boston), as school-to-work pro- gram, 229, 231 Public demonstrations, of student skills, 52-53, 190-91 community judges for, 106-7 Public funding, of schools as challenge to restructuring, 435-38 and community, 102 establishment of, 19, 23 movement from local to state, 19, 23 new limits on, 44 patterns of, 362 and technology, 253 Pullout programs, for special-education students, limited success of, 232 Purchasing power, and government rein- vention, 44 Q Quality work, as intellectual and social- skill standard, 127 R ?R&D? programs, 72-73 schools-within-schools used as, 211-12 summer-school programs used as, 457 REACH. See Rural Educational Alliance for Collaborative Humanities program Readiness, for restructuring, 7, 412-13 creation of, 400-415 principals? recognition of, 350-51 Reading and constructivism, 182-83 as intellectual and social-skill standard, 125 international comparisons in, 36 Reflective practitioner, as form of teacher leadership, 341-42 Reform failure of, 445-46 social. See Social reform, education as tool for success of, 446-49 Reform-driven activities as incremental change, 13 in public schools, 8-9 Reliability, of authentic assessment, 188 Renaissance 2000 project (Oregon), as school-to-work program, 229 558 SUBJECT INDEX Renaissance Plan, and time restructuring, 291-92 Renewal activities as incremental change, 13 in public schools, 8 Report Card on Basal Readers, 156 ?Research and development? programs, 72-73 schools-within-schools used as, 211-12 summer-school programs used as, 457 Researcher role, of teacher, 338-39 Research, Internet used for, 251 Resources allocation of and central-office administration, 82 by principals, 87 coordination of, between communities and schools, 105 declining, vs. achievement expectations, 501-2 in restructured high school, 483 Responsibilities, redefinition of, and re- structuring, 64-65 Restructuring central variables of, 114-17, 115f challenges of changing, 203-5 and constructivism, 176-78 contradictions of, 499-504 and curriculum, 145-70 difficulties in describing, 4-5 enabling variables of, 115f117-18 and governments, 66-73 historical background of, 17-29 known effects of, 471-78 macrolevel challenges to, 433-49 nine pitfalls of, 451-55 phases of, 398f, 398-99, 412-15 prerequisites to, 417-20 and principals, 85-89 private sector vs. school, 7 readiness for, 7, 400-415 principals? recognition of, 350-51 vs. renewal and reform, 8-9 and school districts, 74-84 as second-order change, 13 and students, 92-94 supporting variables of, 115f, 119-21 and teachers, 89-92 and technology, 237-59 twelve dimensions of, 115f preview of, 112-21 values embedded in, 49-52 and visits to nonschool sites, 409-10 and visits to schools, 405-9 Restructuring for Higher Order Learning pilot, 73 Retreats, to build readiness for change, 412 Revolution, as strategy for change, 12 ?Right of Passage Experience? (ROPE), as assessment strategy, 193-95 Rindge School of Technical Arts (Cam- bridge, Massachusetts), as school-to- work program, 229 Role models, adults as, 61 Roles, and restructuring, 64-65. See also specific roles ROPE. See Right of Passage Experience Rote learning, counterproductivity of, 34 Rubrics, holistic assessment with, 191-93 Rural Educational Alliance for Collabora- tive Humanities (REACH) program, 190 S Salaries, of teachers, and staffing flexibil- ity, 362-64 Satellite transmissions, use of, in schools, 244 SBM. See Site-based management SCANS Report, and work-readiness stan- dards, 127, 263 Schedule, of school. See Teaching and learning time School boards. See Boards of education School budgets. See Public funding, of schools School calendar, extension of, 297-301 School choice, 321-27 properties of, 322 recommendations for programs of, 322- 23 types of plans for, 323-24 School-community relations, 57-59, 102-7 changes in, 260-87, 493-94 as enabling variable of restructuring, 118 vs. professionalism, 501 questions on, to frame restructuring ef- forts, 424-25 School day, extension of, 299-300 School-desegregation process, and high school reform, 26 SUBJECT INDEX 559 School districts role of, in restructuring, 74-84 standard-setting by, 141 School enrollments, increase in, in late 19th century, 19, 23 School Improvement and Professional Development Act. See ?2020 Schools? program (Oregon) School Mathematics Study Group pro- gram, 162 School Restructuring Study (SRS), 473 Schools for the 21st Century, 73 School size and schools-within-schools, 210 and sense of community, 61 and student attitudes, 209-10 Schools-within-schools, 209-12 and counselors, 368 magnet programs as, 212 problems with, 210-11 as research and development centers, 211-12 and school choice, 324 sense of community in, 216-17 School-to-work programs, 131-32, 165, 167, 228-32 in Oregon, 268 in partnership with businesses, 271 work-based opportunities in, 231 School year, extension of, 297-301 Science international comparisons in, 35 national curriculum documents on, 158 renewed emphasis on, after Sputnik launch, 25 Science Essentials, 250 Science for All Americans: A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology, 156, 158 Scope, Sequence, and Coordination of National Science Education Content Standards, 158 Secondary schools. See also High schools; Middle schools Factory Management Approach in, 40-41, 60 schedule changes in, 289-97 Second-order change, vs. first-order change, 11-12 Secretary?s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. See SCANS Report, and work-readiness standards Senior projects, as assessment strategy, 195-96 Sequenced model, of curriculum integra- tion, 152 Service programs, 217-18 as integrated curriculum, 154 75-75-30 plan, for middle school schedul- ing, 296 Shared decision-making, 43, 305-13, 346, 494-95 Shared model, of curriculum integration, 152 Shop programs, changes in, 165 Site-based management (SBM), 119, 305- 13 benefits/defects of, 310-12 characteristics of, 306 obstacles to, 306-7 and unions? desire for representation, 380-81 Site councils. See Site-based management Situational pictures, as assessment strat- egy, 189 Size, of schools. See School size Skills, desired by employers, 45-48, 127- 28 and education, 53-54, 94, 104, 142-43, 263-71 Small-group interviews, as assessment strategy, 189 Social changes, and impact on schools, 32-33 Social reform, education as tool for, 20, 27-28 Social-service agencies, educators? coop- eration with, 271-76 Social-skill standards, 124-27 Social studies, national curriculum docu- ment on, 162 Societal changes and current restructuring, 31-34 and early high school reform, 24 and value shifts, 38-42 Software needs, and technology develop- ment plans, 257 South Pointe Elementary School (Florida), and instructional interns, use of, 365 560 SUBJECT INDEX Special-education programs changes recommended for, 233-34 inclusion vs. pullout programs, 232-36 and parent groups, 236 teachers for. See Certified support staff Specialty School plan, and school choice, 324 SPELA. See Standards Project for the En- glish Language Arts Sputnik, launching of, and effect on Ameri- can education, 25 SRS. See School Restructuring Study Staff developer, as form of teacher leader- ship, 339-40 Staff development and newly-hired teachers, 370 and restructuring, 462-65, 482 and technology usage, 257 Standardization of educational system, 19-20 of grading procedures, 23 of high school curriculum, 23 Standardized achievement tests and constructivism, 182 implementation of, 20 inconsistency of, within states, 70 limitations of, 185-86 loss of credibility of, 82 Standards. See also Accountability; As- sessment for academic learning, 123-24 example of, 133-36 vs. assessments, 184 as central variable of restructuring, 116 components of, 132-33 vs. constructivism, 499-500 controversy about, 122 criteria for, 122-23 for curriculum, 123 future of, 142-44 for generic work-readiness, 127-28 industry-skill, 128-32 examples of, 129-31 for intellectual and social skills, 124-27 international. See International compari- sons learning, 122-44 for mathematics, example of, 133-36 national, 66-68, 139-41 opportunity-to-learn, 136-37 parents? knowledge about, 98-99 revolutionary effects of, 486-87 set by central administrators, 81-82 state, 82, 141 and accreditation, 70 types of, 123-32 Standards Project for the English Language Arts (SPELA), 159 State governments and boards of education, challenges to, 75 and curriculum frameworks, 163 and federal authority, struggle with, 68 policy-making by, strategies for, 71-72 and public education, involvement with, 69-73 State standards, 82, 141 and accreditation, 70 Student-leadership advisor, as form of teacher leadership, 335 Students and affiliation, need for, 60-62 and demonstrations of skills. See Public demonstrations, of student skills and learning, active participation in, 54- 57, 92-94, 171, 488 and motivation, differences among, 55- 56 new roles of, and restructuring, 92-94 and teachers, in multi-year groups, 213- 14 Study groups, to build readiness for change, 210-11 Study of Chicago School Reform, 473 Success of reforms, 446-49 Summer service programs, as integrated curriculum, 154 Superintendents. See Central administra- tions Supporting variables, of restructuring, 115f, 119-21 Support staff, certified changing role of, 367-69 as supporting variable of restructuring, 120 T Task forces, to build readiness for change, 411 Teacher-effects research, and constructivism, 174 Teacher researcher, as form of teacher lead- ership, 338-39 SUBJECT INDEX 561 Teachers and active participation, in learning, 56 and boards of education, challenges to, 75 and constructivism, 181-82 and curriculum changes, 169-70 leadership of, 330-43 development of, 331-34 options for, 335-43 questions on, for framing restructuring efforts, 425-26 as supporting variable of restructuring, 120 newly hired, 369-72 new roles of, 89-92 in noneducational settings, 104-5, 409- 10 and parents communication with, 99 partnership between, 91-92 reactions to restructuring, 119 1960s vs. 1990s, 28 and sense of community, 62 and students, in multi-year groups, 213- 14 and technology, 239 Teachers? unions. See also Collective bar- gaining and instructional interns, use of, 365 and professional unionism, 388-90 roots in industrial unionism, 373-76 as supporting variable of restructuring, 120-21 Teacher Ver ifications, used in Oregon, 202 Teaching and learning time changes in, 288-302, 491-92 benefits of, 290-91 reasons for, 288-89 in secondary schools, 289-97 as enabling variable of restructuring, 118 questions on, to frame restructuring ef- forts, 423-24 in restructured high school, 481 Teamwork, as intellectual and social-skill standard, 126 Technology as enabling variable of restructuring, 117- 18 future use of, 248-49 as intellectual and social-skill standard, 126 multimedia, 249-50 non-computer, 242-45 plans for developing, 256-58 problems with, 252-56 questions on, to frame restructuring ef- forts, 423 and record-keeping, 368 in restructured high school, 480-81 and restructuring, 33-34, 237-59, 492- 93 recommendations for linking, 258-59 and teachers? roles, 239 ?Tech-prep? education, 165 Telecommunications, use of, in schools, 242-44 Telephone, use of, in schools, 242-43 Tension, creation/management of, by prin- cipals, 344-45, 466 Tenure, excellence as condition of, 372 Test scores, negative, media focus on, 37 Textbooks and curriculum, effect on, 147-48 errors in, 155 as obsolete technology, 33 The Content Core: A Guide for Curricu- lum Designers, 158 The Nongraded Primary, 207 The Reform of Science Education in El- ementary School, 156 Threaded model, of curriculum integra- tion, 152 Time additional, strategies for creating, 456- 58 in Asian schools, 459-60 needed for restructuring, 455-61 teaching and learning. See Teaching and learning time ?Tinkering toward utopia,? incremental change described as, 112-13 Tracking. See also Untracked schools alternatives to, 221-24 drawbacks of, 221-22 and self-esteem, 223 Transformative teaching, and constructivism, 172 ?2020 schools? program (Oregon), 73 lessons from, 469-70 principals? role in, 86 ?21st Century Schools? program, 72-73 562 SUBJECT INDEX U Unionism, professional, 388-90 preconditions for, 389-90 Unions. See also Collective bargaining and instructional interns, use of, 365 and professional unionism, 389-90 as supporting variable of restructuring, 120-21 teachers,? roots in industrial unionism, 373-76 Universities. See also Colleges; Higher education expectations of, and influence on high schools, 23, 490-91 preparation for, by 1930s ?progressive? schools, 18-19 and school choice, 324 and standards, limited support of, 23 Untracked schools, 224-27 Urbanization, effects of, on late 19th cen- tury schools, 19 V Validity, of authentic assessment, 188 Values embedded in restructuring, 38-42 shifts within society, and impact on schools, 49-52 VCE. See Victorian Certificate of Educa- tion Verbal learning, vs. visual learning, and computer use, 242 Vermont, portfolio assessments used in, 197 Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE), as performance-based standard, 138 Video camera, use of, in schools, 243-44 Vision definition of, 427-28 development of, 6, 427-29 by central administrators, 78-79, 431 prerequisites for, 429-32 by principals, 86, 345-47, 430 lack of, as restructuring pitfall, 451 of restructured high school, 478-85 Visits to nonschool sites, 409-10 to restructuring schools, 405-9 Visual learning, vs. verbal learning, and computer use, 242 Vocational programs and academic education, 54, 166 implementation of, 25 new structures for, 163-66 Vouchers, and school choice, 321 W ?Waiver of performance? strategies, 234 Walden III, and performance demonstra- tions, use of, 193-95 Webbed model, of curriculum integration, 152 Webster Elementary School, Accelerated Schools approach in, 283 What Every Young American Should Know and Be Able To Do in the Arts, 160 What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report for America 2000, 46 ?Whole language? movement and constructivism, 172, 179 vs. phonics, 172, 179 Word-readiness standards, generic, 127- 28 Work-based opportunities, in school-to- work programs, 231 Work force changes in, and impact on schools, 31- 32 preparation for, as education goal, 20, 53-54, 94, 104, 142-43, 263-71 skills needed for, 45-48, 127-28 Workplace Basics: The Skills Employers Want, 45, 127, 177-78, 263-64 Work Requirements, and Victorian Cer- tificate of Education, 138 Writing, as intellectual and social-skill standard, 125 Y Year-round school, 298-99 AUTHOR INDEX 563 AUTHOR INDEX 563 Acheson, Keith A., 337 Acquarelli, Kris, 463-64 Adelman, Nancy, 461 Akers, John, 104 Alderman, M. Kay, 52 Aldridge, Bill G., 158 Alexander, Karl L., 224 Alwin, D. F., 209 American Association for the Advance- ment of Science, 156, 158 American Council of Teachers of Foreign Languages, 161 Amster, Jeanne, and others, 266 Anastos, Joy, 336 Ancess, J., 186 Ancowitz, Robert, 336 Anderson, James G., 60 Anderson, L., 371 Anderson, Robert H., 207 Andre, T., 210 Andrews, Richard L., 465 Anrig, Gregory, 30 Applebee, Arthur, 150 Archbald, Doug A., 187 Argys, L. M., 221-22 Armstrong, Larry, 32 Associated Oregon Industries and the Na- tional Association for Schools of Excel- lence, 106 Astuto, Terry, 85 Ayers, William, 83, 312 Bacharach, Samuel B., 40, 60, 312, 377- 79, 382-83 Bahmmeller, C. F., 161 Baird, L., 209 Baker, Eva L., 138 Baker, J. N., 235 Baker, John, 235 Baker, Stephen, 32 Ball, Diana, 384 Ballinger, Charles, 298-99 Bamberger, Richard, 83, 466, 468 Barker, Roger Garlock, 209 Barone, Thomas, 190 Barrett, Michael J., 297 Barr, Rebecca, 224 Bates, Percy, 33 Bauch, Jerold, 101 Beane, James, 92 Beck, Melinda, 30 Becker, H. J., 247 Bednarz, Sarah, 160 Begle, E. G., 222 Bellah, Robert N., 39 Bellamy, G. T., 233 Benjamin, Steve, 30 Bennis, Warren, 427 Berends, Mark, 497 Berger, Peter L., 171 Berliner, David, 36 Berman, Paul, 9, 396 Berman, Paul, and others, 106, 264, 266 Bernstein, Aaron, 31 Berry, Barnett, 337-38 Bertani, Albert, 340 Bierlein, Louann, 316 Bimber, Bruce, 306 Blank, Martin J., 106, 272-73 Blau, Peter, 359 Bloom, Allan David, 26 Blum, Robert E., 8 564 AUTHOR INDEX Bodilly, Susan, 113, 475-76 Boeger, Leesa, 325 Bolin, Frances S., 331 Bolman, Lee G., 428, 444 Bonan, Josephine, 304, 309 Borrell, Jerry, 34, 237 Bowen, Chuck, 476 Bowers, B., 375 Boyer, Ernest, 33, 324 Bracey, Gerald W., 36-37, 339 Bradley, Ann, 185, 365, 391-92 Brandt, Ron, 331, 371 Bredeson, Paul, 345, 358, 466 Brewer, Dominic J., 221-22 Brickley, Dan, 113 Bridge, R. Gary, 222 Bridges, Edwin, 310 Broder, David, 30 Brooks, Geoffrey, 11 Brooks, Jacqueline Grennon, 92, 172, 174 Brooks, Martin G., 174 Brophy, Jere E., 92, 174, 222, 463 Brown, Ann, 241-42 Brown, Bradford, 213 Bryson, John M., 79 Budde, Ray, 313 Buffett, Thomas, 308 Bugliarello, George, 33 Burke, Daniel L., 214 Burns, James MacGregor, 427 Butler, Jocelyn A., 8 Calabrese, Raymond, 218 Calhoun, Emily, 465 Callahan, Raymond E., 17, 21, 377 Calzi, Frank, 309 Campbell, Roald Fay, 69 Campione, Joseph, 241-42 Canady, Robert Lynn, 289, 296 Carey, John, 43 Carlisle, E. R., 30 Carnevale, Anthony P., 30, 46, 54, 127, 177, 263-64 Carroll, Joseph M., 290-92 Carson, C. C., 36 Carver, Sharon, 241 Case, Ann Dinsmoor, 233 Caufman, Krista D., 389 Center for Civic Education, 160 Cetron, Marvin J., 30 Chamberlain, Neil W., 378 Chavkin, Nancy Feyl, 101 Chenowith, Tom, 283, 405 Chrispeels, Janet, 101, 103, 281 Chubb, John E., 321 Clark, David, 85, 439-40 Clarke, B. R., 8 Clegg, Stewart R., 313 Clinchy, Evans, 83, 119, 312 Clune, William H., 150, 307-8 Cohen, Carol E., 362, 437 Cohen, Deborah, 103, 274 Cohen, D. K., 434 Cohen, Elizabeth G., 227 Cohen, Michael, 8 Cole, Stephen, 377 Collins, Allan, 241 Commission on the Reorganization of Sec- ondary Education, 25 Commission on the Restructuring of the American High School, 478-79 Commission on the Skills of the American Work Force, 30, 45 Conant, James B., 25 Conley, David T., 2, 8, 31, 34, 85-88, 91, 113, 127, 143, 168-69, 245, 268, 300, 312-13, 334, 343, 345, 370, 375, 398, 407, 427, 429, 431-32, 451, 453, 466, 469 Conley, Sharon, 60, 310-12 Conlin, Elizabeth, 365 Conrad, Daniel, 218 Consortium of National Arts Education Associations, 160 Conway, J. A., 309 Cooke, R. A., 310 Cook, William J., 8 Cooper, Bruce, 374 Cooper, James, 342 Corbett, H. Dickson, 85 Corcoran, T. B., 311 Corwin, Ronald G., 316 Council of Chief State School Officers, 136, 141 Couthino, M., 235 AUTHOR INDEX 565 Cowan, Hilary, 104 Cremin, Lawrence A., 17 Cresswell, Anthony M., 374 Cross, Christopher, 101 Cuban, Larry, 12, 17, 112, 396 Cushman, Kathleen, 85, 194 Daniels, H., 280 Danielson, L. C., 233 Darling-Hammond, Linda, 186-87, 195, 330-31, 440, 462 David, Jane L., 65, 91, 113, 119, 305-6, 307 David, Jane L., and others, 114 Davies, Don, 91, 101-2, 275-76, 280 Davis, Alan, 149 Deal, Terrence, 428, 441-44 Degen, Susan, 8 DeLany, Brian, 224 Deno, S., 235 Dentler, Robert A., and others, 312 Dentzer, E., 221 Devaney, Kathleen, 332-34, 337 Dewar, J., 222 Dianda, Marcella R., 316 Diebert, E., 197 DiMaggio, Paul J., 111, 409 Dornbusch, Sanford, 59, 101, 213 Downey, R. G., 209-10 Doyle, Denis, 51, 142 Dreeben, Robert, 224 Drucker, Peter F., 242 Drummond, S., 210 Dryfoos, J. G., 282 Du, Jangfao, 325 Duke, D. L., 310 Dumaine, Brian, 30 Dunlap, Diane, 2, 8, 85-86, 91, 312-13, 334, 343, 345, 375, 429, 431, 453, 466, 469 Dunlop, John T., 378 Dwyer, David, 113, 239, 240-41, 465 Edmonds, Ronald, 8 Education Commission of the States, 71 Edwards, J. Clarence, 293 Edwards, June, 294-95 Eisner, Elliot, 396 Elam, Stanley M., 28, 119 Elliott, Jack, 336 Elmer-Dewitt, Philip, 33-34 Elmore, Richard F., 114, 119, 498 Emmer, Edmund, 371 Enderwick, Peter, 7 Epstein, Joyce, 261, 276-77 Eresh, J. T., 197 Esposito, Dominick, 222 Everhart, Robert, 405 Evertson, Carolyn, 371 Evertson, Carolyn M., 371 Falk, B., 186 Fantini, Mario D., 272, 308 Farris, Elizabeth, 267 Felknor, Catherine, 149 Fideler, Elizabeth, 366 Fink, Stephen, 234 Finn, Chester E. Jr., 36, 316 Finnigan, Jerome, 401 Finn, Jeremy D., 210 Firestone, William A., 332, 359 Fisch, Richard, 11 Fisher, Angela, 94-95 Fliegel, Seymour, 326 Flynn, Julia, 58, 104 Flynt, Fran Carter, 216 Fogarty, Robin, 151 Frazier, Curtis L., 325 Frymier, Jack, 30, 37 Fuchs, D., 235 Fuchs, L. S., 235 Fuhrman, Susan, 69, 434 Fullan, Michael G., 9-10, 12, 345, 396, 400, 430, 433, 445, 451, 465 Fuller, Bruce, 59 Gainer, Leila J., 46, 54, 127, 177, 263-64 Gallup, Alec M., 28 Galvez-Hjornevik, Cleta, 342 Gamoran, Adam, 224, 227 Gansneder, Bruce, 30 Garbarino, James, 210 Garcia, G., 186 Gardner, David P., 436 Gardner, Howard, 50-51, 147, 186, 219 Garet, Michael, 224 Garmston, Robert J., 336 566 AUTHOR INDEX Gayle, Margaret, 30 Gearhart, Maryle, and others, 241 George, Paul S., 214 Gilliard, J., 161 Ginsberg, Rick, 337-38 Giorgi, Amedeo, 171 Gitomer, D. H., 197 Gittell, M., 308 Glatthorn, Allan, 103 Glickman, Carl, 113, 336 Goes, James, 11 Goldberger, Susan, 228-29, 231 Goldman, Paul, 2, 8-9, 85-86, 91, 300, 312-13, 334, 343, 345, 349, 356, 375, 429, 431, 453, 466, 469 Goldschmidt, Steven M., 373-75 Goodlad, John I., 56, 60, 207, 210, 396, 418, 497 Good, Thomas L., 222 Gordon, Jack, 266 Gray, Kenneth, 163-64 Gray, Marilynne M., 342 Gray, William A., 342 Greene, Jay P., 325 Greenfield, Elizabeth, 246 Greer, J. T., 312, 359 Greising, David, 58, 104 Griffin, G., 332 Guiterrez, R., 208 Gump, Paul V., 209 Guskey, Thomas R., 306 Guthrie, Grace Pung, 272 Guthrie, James W., 119 Guthrie, Larry F., 272 Hall, Gene E., 402 Hallinan, Maureen T., 222 Hallinger, Philip, 358, 381, 465 Hall, Lena, 336 Harp, Lonnie, 263 Harris, Alene, 371 Hart, Ann Weaver, 331-32, 359 Haselkorn, David, 366 Hatch, Thomas, 50 Haughwout, Perri, 210 Hausman, Charles, 358, 381, 465 Hayes, Larry, 94, 210 Hearne, J., 197 Heath, S. B., 272 Heaviside, Sheila, 267 Hechinger, Fred M., 35 Hechinger, Grace, 35 Heck, Ronald H., 49 Hedin, Diane, 218 Heller, Marjorie F., 332, 359 Henderson, Anne T., 91, 98, 280 Herman, Joan, 197-98 Herndon, Ron, 106 Hersh, Richard H., 396, 434 Hill, Paul T., 304, 309 Hirsch, Eric Donald, and others, 26 Hoachlander, E. G., 32 Hodgkinson, Harold, 30, 36, 272 Hoerr, John, 32 Holland, A., 210 Hollister, Robinson, 32 Holubec, E. J., 227 Hord, Shirley, 402-3 Howard, Eugene, 412-13 Hoyle, Sharon, 340 Huberman, A. Michael, 396 Huelskamp, R. M., 36 Huffman, Gail, 342 Huling-Austin, Leslie, 402 Huling, L., 209 Hurwitz, Sol, 266 Husen, Torsten, 34 Imber, M., 310 Institute on Education Reform, University of Kentucky, 209 International Reading Association, 366 Jackson, Philip W., 172 Jacobs, Heidi Hayes, 153 Jenkins, J., 235 Jenkins, L., 235 Jennings, L., 101 Jensen, Carl, 101 Johnson, David W., 226-27 Johnson, Roger T., 226-27 Johnson, Susan Moore, 377 Johnston, Robert C., 316 Joint Committe on National Health Edu- cation Standards, 161 Jones, John Hodge, 299 Joyce, Bruce R., 8, 95, 336, 396, 434, 465 AUTHOR INDEX 567 Judd, Charles M., 222 Kahne, Joseph, 218 Kanter, Rosabeth Moss, 427 Kantrowitz, B., 186 Karweit, N., 222 Kauffman, James M., 235 Kaufman, P., 32 Kazis, Richard, 228-29, 231 Kearns, David, 142 Kendall, John S., 123, 157-59, 161 Kentucky Department of Education, 199 Kentucky Revised Statutes, 310 Kerchner, Charles Taylor, 376-77, 386, 388-89 Kierstad, R., 222 Kim, Hye-Sook, 332 King, Resa, 43 Kirkpatrick, Jerry, 106 Kirst, Michael W., 69, 75, 112, 272, 328, 396, 451 Kleine-Kracht, Paula, 343 Klein, F., 396 Kochan, Thomas A., 378 Kolderie, Ted, 314 Koppich, Julia E., 386, 388-89 Koretz, Daniel, 197 Kragt, Donna M., 52 Kram, K. E., 342 Kranz, Jennifer, 100, 307, 309, 396 Krupp, Judy-Arin, 335, 342 Kuhn, James W., 378 Kulik, Chen-Lin C., 222 Kulik, J. A., 222 Kyle, Susan, 90 Langer, Judith, 150 Lanier, Judith, 59, 311 Lapointe, Archie E., 30, 35 LaPointe, Richard, 101 Lawler, Edward J., 312 Lawton, Millicent, 217, 269 Leak, Sarah, 342 Lee, Valerie E., 210, 472, 497 Leggett, Diana, 340 Leinhardt, Gaea, 92, 173, 464 Leithwood, Kenneth A., 343 LeMahieu, P., 197 Levinson, Eliot, 33, 248, 259 Levy, Frank, 312 Lewis, Anne C., 114, 145-46, 149-50, 177, 217 Licklider, Barbara L., 464 Lieberman, Ann, 89-91, 312, 331 Lieberman, Myron C., 376 Lindblom, Charles E., 112, 360 Lindle, Jane Clark, 310 Lindsay, Paul, 210 Linn, Robert, 138 Liontos, Demetri, 384 Liontos, Lynn Balster, 33, 102 Lipsky, David B., 374 Lipton, Martin, 91, 224 Little, Judith Warren, 8, 90, 332-34, 342 Lloyd, John Wills, 235 Lotto, L., 85 Louis, Karen Seashore, 85, 331, 359, 466 Love, Mary Joyce, 92 Luchs, Kathy, 218 Luckins, R., 30 Luckmann, Thomas, 171 Lueder, Donald C., 101 Lutz, F., 49 MacDowell, Michael A., 102 MacGuire, James, 326 Madsen, Richard, 39 Maeroff, Gene I., 310, 331 Malen, Betty, 100, 307-9, 312, 328, 396 Mandel, Michael, 31 Mann, Augusta, 106 Manno, Bruno V., 316 Marcoulides, George A., 49 Marks, Merle B., 340 Marris, Peter, 441 Marsh, D., 396 Marsh, R. S., 221 Martin, Michael, 322 Marzano, Robert J., 123, 157-59, 161 Matthews, Marian, 226 Mayberry, Maralee, 33, 59, 61, 95, 206, 209, 222-24 Mazzoni, Tim L., 69 McCarthy, J., 312, 359 McClure, Robert M., 331 McCune, Shirley, 176 McDaniel, Thomas, 36 568 AUTHOR INDEX McDill, Edward L., 224 McDonnell, Lorraine M., 376 McKeen, Ronald L., 336 McKibbin, Michael, 396, 434 McLaughlin, Milbrey W., 9, 90, 272, 396, 476 McNeil, Linda M., 43, 60 McQuillan, Patrick J., 348, 451, 476-77 Mead, Nancy, 30, 35 Meadows, B. J., 91 Mecklenburger, James A., 259 Medina, N. J., 186 Mehlinger, Howard D., 237 Meier, Deborah, 94 Meier, Kenneth J., 325-26 Melaville, Atelia, 106, 272-73 Meloy, Judith, 439-40 Meltzer, Ann S., 46, 54, 127, 177, 263-64 Merenda, Daniel, 267 Mertens, Sally, 119 Meyer, Alan, 11 Meyer, Carol, 190 Meyer, John, 375, 441 Michael, R., 312 Miles, Matthew B., 359, 396, 433, 445, 451, 466 Miller, Lynne, 89, 232 Miller, Rena, 58, 104 Mitchell, Douglas E., 69, 376-77 Mitchell, James, 346 Mitchell, S., 312 Moe, Terry M., 321 Mohrman, Allan M., 310 Mohrman, S. A., 310 Mojkowski, Charles, 83, 466, 468 Moock, Peter R., 222 Moorhouse, W. F., 222 Morgan, D. L., 209 Mortimore, Peter, 8, 92, 280 Morton, Chris, 253 Moses, Monte C., 91, 331 Moye, Jack, 340 Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, 33 Mullis, Ina, 150 Mumme, Judith, 463-64 Muncey, Donna E., 348, 451, 476-77 Munro, Petra, 336 Murnane, Richard J., 312 Murphy, Carlene, 85, 113 Murphy, Joseph, 64-65, 146, 332, 358, 381, 465 Nancy, Perry, 104, 266 Nanus, Burt, 427 Nathan, Joe, 316, 319, 323 National Alliance of Business, 104, 106 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 187 National Association for Sport and Physi- cal Education, 161 National Business Roundtable, 106 National Center for History in the Schools, 159 National Center for Improving Science Education, 156 National Commission on Social Studies in the Schools, 156 National Committee on Science Educa- tion Standards and Assessment, 158 National Council for the Social Studies, 162 National Council of Teachers of English, 156 National Council of Teachers of Math- ematics, 156-58 National Education Association, 366 National Endowment for the Humanities, 157 National Governors? Association, 73, 139 National Research Council, 156 National Retail Federation, 129 National Science Teachers Association, 156 Neill, D. M., 186 Newman, Denis, 242 Newmann, Fred M., and others, 474 Newmann, Fred M., 92-93, 155, 187, 312, 473 Nickle, Melinda Nixon, 216 Noble, Donna L., 340 Norris, Dia, 106 Oakes, Jeannie, 91, 221, 223-24 O?Day, J., 43, 69, 145, 149, 155, 433, 436 Odden, Allan, 44, 307, 309, 436-37 Ogawa, Rodney T., 100, 307-9, 312, 328, 396 Oldaker, Lynn L., 214 AUTHOR INDEX 569 Olexa, C., 224 Olson, Lynn, 33, 42, 49, 101, 314, 325-26, 328, 452, 472, 474 O?Neil, John, 166, 172, 185, 289, 293, 297 Oregon Business Council, 268 Oregon Department of Education, 86 Orland, Martin E., 362, 437 Ornstein, Allan C., 308 Oxley, Diana, 214 Pace, Glennellen, 183 Painter, Suzanne, 374 Pascal, Anthony, 376 PASS Project, 136 Patriarca, Linda A., 52 Patterson, Janice, 150 Paulson, F. Leon, 190 Paulson, Pearl, 190 Pavan, Barbara Nelson, 207-8 Payzant, Thomas, 103 Pearsall, M. K., 158 Pearson, D., 186 Pennar, Karen, 30, 33, 53 Perry, C. R., 374 Peshkin, Alan, 209 Peterson, Kenneth D., 371 Peterson, Kent D., 306, 343, 443-44 Peterson, M. F., 360 Peterson, Paul E., 325 Peterson, Penelope L., 149 Phelan, P., 240 Phillips, Gary, 30, 35 Phillips, Mary D., 336 Phillips, Steven, 43 Pipho, Chris, 297 Pitner, Nancy, 374 Pittman, Robert, 210 Pomfret, A., 9, 396 Ponessa, Jeanne, 392 Port, Otis, 43 Powell, Arthur G., 26 Powell, Walter W., 111, 409 Poynter, Stephen Douglas, 216 Prager, Karen, 497 Prendergast, Jane, 58, 104 Prestine, Nona, 85, 89, 343, 476 Pringle, Beverly, 461 Proctor, Jack, 340 Purkey, Stewart C., 8, 85, 102 Quigley, C. N., 161 Raby, M., 229-30 Rapoport, Tamar, 59 Ratzki, Anne, 94-95, 215-16 Ravitch, Diane, 36, 69 Raywid, Mary Anne, 221 Rebarber, Theodor, 83 Rees, D. I., 221-22 Reese, W., 23 Reich, Robert, 22, 31 Resnick, Lauren, 139, 186 Rettig, Michael D., 289, 296 Reynolds, C., 233-34 Reynolds, Maynard, 234 Richards, Craig E., 437 Richmond, George, 95, 220-21 Riedel, Teresa M., 235 Rieger, Susan R., 342 Ringstaff, Cathy, 113, 239 Ritter, P., 101 Rocha, W., 30 Rodgers, Katherine M., 340 Roering, William D., 79 Rogers, Vincent R., 189 Rolheiser-Bennett, Carol, 95 Rose, Lowell C., 28, 119 Rosenberger, K., 199 Rosenholtz, Susan, 57, 59, 79, 90, 311, 357 Rosenstock, Larry, 166 Rothman, Robert, 95, 140, 185, 187-88, 283, 454 Rowan, Brian, 375, 441 Runkel, Philip J., 396 Rusch, Edith, 348 Rutherford, William L., 402 Sagor, Richard, 339, 468 Sammons, Pam, 8, 92, 280 Sandholtz, Judy, 113, 239 Sarason, Seymour Bernard, 396 Saunders, P., 161 Saxl, Ellen R., and others, 79 Scardamalia, Marlene, and others, 241-42 Schaefer, W., 224 Schiller, Zachary, 43 570 AUTHOR INDEX Schlechty, Phillip, 121 Schmidt, Peter, 364-65 Schmidt, Warren, 401 Schmuck, Patricia, 331 Schmuck, Richard A., 331, 396 Schnaiberg, Lynn, 320 Schofield, Janet Ward, 241-42 Sch?n, Donald A., 79, 341-42 School of Education, University of Louis- ville, 201 Schorr, Lisbeth B., 272 Schray, Vicky L., 130 Schuman, S., 197 Schumer, Harry, 218 Secretary?s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, 46, 127 Sedlak, Michael, 59, 311 Seeley, David, 96, 283 Segal, Troy, 58, 104, 106, 268 Senge, Peter M., 343 Sergiovanni, Thomas, 468 Servatius, Joanna Dee, 336 Sewall, Gilbert T., 20, 25 Shanker, Albert, 362-63 Shedd, Joseph B., 40, 60, 310, 377-79, 382-83 Sheingold, Karen, 33, 258 Sherry, Mark, 247 Short, Paula M., 312, 359 Showers, Beverly K., 95, 310, 336 Shujaa, Mwalimu, 437 Silvestri, Kenneth, 101 Sinclair, Robert L., 272 Sizer, Theodore R., 60, 92, 147, 176, 477 Skapski, M. K., 222 Slavin, Robert E., 95, 178-79, 208-9, 222 Smey-Richman, Barbara, 52 Smith J., 104 Smith, James F., 266 Smith, Julia B., 210, 472, 497 Smith, Kevin B., 325-26 Smith, Marshall S., 8, 43, 69, 85, 102, 145, 149, 155, 433, 436 Smith, Neil S., 9 Smith, P. B., 360 Smith, Stuart C., 337, 384, 386-87 Smith, Wilma F., 465 Smith, W. M., 222 Smylie, Mark A., 331 Sommerfeld, Meg, 231 Sorensen, Aage B., 222-24 Spargo, F., 374 Sparks, Dennis, 363-64 Spiro, Leah Nathans, 32 Stanley, Sara, 113, 453 Stansberry, Domenic, 249-50 Stecher, B., 197 Stedman, Lawrence C., 8 Steffy, Betty, 200, 472 Steinberg, Laurence, 213, 270, 284-86 Stephens, Thomas M., 101 Stevenson, Chris, 189 Stevenson, Harold, 36, 41, 51-52, 61, 98, 297-98, 459 Stiegelbauer, Suzanne, 9, 345, 400 Stigler, James, 36, 41, 51-52, 61, 98, 297- 98, 459 Still, S., 312, 359 Stockard, Jean, 33, 59, 61, 95, 206, 209, 222-24 Stone, Calvin R., 281 Strauber, Sandra K., 113, 453 Stringfield, Samuel, 396 Stroble, Elizabeth, 342 Stuart, Leland E., 373-75 Sullivan, Maureen, 342 Sullivan, William, 39 Swidler, Ann, 39 Szabo, Joan, 30 Tafel, Linda, 340 Tallerico, Kathryn, 340 Teddlie, Charles, 52, 396 Tell, Christine, 127 Thines, G., 171 Thrasher, James M., 209 Tipton, Steve, 39 Treece, James, 32 Trotter, A., 247 Turner, Claude C., 209 Turney, David T., 366 Tyack, David B., 17, 112, 170 Tye, Barbara Benham, 66, 259, 497 Tye, Kenneth, 497 Tyler, Ralph, 18 AUTHOR INDEX 571 Tyson-Bernstein, Harriet, 155 Valle, Del, 58, 104 Van Dusen, Lani M., 246-47 Van Horn, Carl E., 69 Vars, Gordon F., 151, 297 Verban, David, 241-42 Viadero, Debra, 149, 155, 197-98, 210, 213, 236, 476 Vickery, Tom Rusk, 8 Victorian Board of Studies, 138 Vopat, James, 280 Vydra, Joan, 340 Wagenknecht, Carl, 113, 453 Walberg, Herbert J., 213, 233-34 Walsh, M., 269 Waltner, Jean Campbell, 105 Wanat, Carolyn, 30, 33 Wang, Margaret C., 233-34 Wasley, Patricia A., 21 Wasson Restructuring Committee, 294 Watson, Tim, and others, 98 Watzlawick, Paul, 11 Weakland, John H., 11 Weber, Arnold R., 378 Wehlage, Gary G., 312, 473 Weick, Karl, 375 Weisman, Jonathan, 30, 104, 264, 266 Weiss, Andrew M., 254 Weiss, Carol H., 309-10 Westerberg, Tim, 113 Westheimer, Joel, 218 West, Peter, 452 Wheelock, Anne, 221, 224-25 Whelan, Carol Scott, 52 Whitaker, Kathryn S., 91, 331 White, Paula A., 150, 307-8 Wicker, Allan W., 209-10 Widell, Brian, 104 Wiggins, Grant, 147-48, 168, 187 Wildman, W. A., 374 Wilen, E., 32 Willems, E., 209-10 Williams, David L., 101 Willis, Scott, 179 Wingert, P., 186 Winters, Lynn, 197 Wiratchai, Nonglak, 224 Wirt, Frederick M., 69, 75 Witte, J. F., 325 Wohlstetter, Priscilla, 307-9, 436-37 Wolf, Joan S., 101 Woodall, T. D., 36 Wood, Ken, 59 Woodruff, David, 43 Worthen, Blaine R., 246-47 Wu, P. C., 340 Wurtz, Emily, 132 Wynne, E. A., 213 Yarger, Sam J., 119 Young, Shareen E., 336 Zigmond, N., 235 Zimet, M. A., 308 Zimmerman, Jack, 106 Zimpher, Nancy L., 342 572 WEBSITE You?ll be amazed how fast and easy it has become to find information on just about any topic in education. Our website is your gateway to information about educational policy and management. You can stay up to date on trends and issues, order our publications, learn how to submit documents to ERIC, view the full text of recent ERIC Digests, and search the ERIC database. Through the ERIC/CEM website, you can also link to the sites of other clearinghouses in the ERIC system and to other education-related websites. http://eric.uoregon.edu Search all or part of our website, including in- process ERIC/CEM Abstracts. Learn about our publications, including ERIC Digests and free books. Get in-depth information on key topics. Submit your documents for possible addition to the ERIC database. Your gateway to information available from other organizations in our field. Can't find what you need here? Check our list of other resources on the Web. Who we are, what we do, and how to contact us. ? C LEARINGHOUSE ON EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ? UNIVERSITY OF OREGON WELCOME TO ERIC?THE WORLD?S LARGEST DATABASE ON EDUCATION 573 Measuring Leadership: A Guide to Assessment for Development of School Executives Larry Lashway ? 1999 ? 6x9 inches ? viii + 117 pages ? perfect bind ? ISBN 0-86552-140-9 ? $9.75. Code: EMOMLG. Lashway guides district administrators and principals through the maze of issues on leadership assessment: what leadership is, how to select an instrument, and how to interpret and use the data it generates. Descriptions of about twenty instruments are in- cluded. Student Motivation: Cultivating a Love of Learning Linda Lumsden ? 1999 ? 6 x 9 inches ? vi + 113 pages ? perfect bind ? ISBN 0-86552-141-7 ? $9.50. Code: EMOSMC. This thoughtful book underscores the importance of caring and high expectations, while addressing both class- room and schoolwide considerations. Practitioners? and stu- dents? perspectives show how theory translates into practice. School Leadership: Handbook for Excellence Edited by Stuart C. Smith and Philip K. Piele ? Third Edition ? 1997 ? xvi + 432 pages ? Cloth ISBN 0-86552-134-4 ($29.95) Code: EMOSLC. Paper ISBN 0-86552-135-2 ($19.95) Code: EMOSLP. Five new chapters?on ethics, vision, school culture, quality work teams, and shared decision-making?appear in this latest edition of the Clearinghouse?s flagship title. The handbook suggests the knowledge, values, structure, and skills necessary for a leader to inspire all members of the school community to work together toward the goal of educational excellence. OTHER TITLES STUDENT MOTIVATION 574 OTHER TITLES Leading with Vision Larry Lashway ?1997 ? 6x9 inches ? xii + 148 pages ? perfect bind ? ISBN 0-86552-138-7 ? $13.50. Code: EMOLWV. School leaders have in this book a guide as they seek to construct a vision that will ?energize their schools and inspire everyone to commit their energies to organizational excellence.? Learning Experiences in School Renewal: An Exploration of Five Successful Programs Edited by Bruce Joyce and Emily Calhoun ? 1996 ? 6 x 9 inches ? viii + 208 pages ? perfect bind ? ISBN: 0-86552- 133-6 ? $14.50. Code: EMOLES. This book provides candid, captivating accounts of the experiences of five school districts that sought to build learning communities for adults and children alike. The five programs share three characteristics: a primary focus on improving student learning; an investment in people as a major school- improvement strategy; and a goal of learning through the process and thereby expanding understanding of school renewal and staff develop- ment. Transforming School Culture: Stories, Symbols, Values, and the Leader?s Role Stephen Stolp and Stuart C. Smith ? 1995 ? 6 x 9 inches ? xii + 92 pages ? perfect bind ? ISBN: 0-86552-132-8 ? $12.50. Code: EMOTSC. What distinguishes an ineffective school culture from an effective one, and how can a school culture that fails to support excellence be changed? Stolp and Smith provide some an- swers. This refreshing book demystifies the concept of school culture. The authors clarify the meaning of culture and offer many examples to illustrate its significance in schools. Their goal is to help school admin- istrators and teachers cultivate a school culture that is ?a positive force for excellence.? Children at the Center: Implementing the Multiage Classroom Bruce A. Miller ? 1994 ? 8 1/2 x 11 inches ? xii + 123 pages ? perfect (sew/wrap) bind ? ISBN: 0-86552-130-1 ? $15.95 Code: EMOCAC. ?Changing to a multiage classroom reflects a magni- tude of change far greater than simply changing to a new textbook or learning a new strategy or program,? writes Bruce Miller, OTHER TITLES 575 researcher at the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. ?Imple- menting multiage instruction and organization represents a major shift in classroom norms.? Planning for Effective Staff Development: Six Research-Based Models Meredith D. ?Mark? Gall, Roseanne O?Brien Vojtek ? 1994 ? x + 54 pages ? 6 x 9 ? saddle bind ? ISBN: 0-86552-126- 3 ? $6.95. Code: EMOPFE. This brief monograph organizes staff development ob- jectives, models, and program-design features into an under- standable, comprehensive framework. Implementing Problem-Based Learning in Leadership Development Edwin M. Bridges and Philip Hallinger ? 1995 ? xii + 194 pages ? perfect (sew/wrap) bind ? ISBN 0-86552-131-X ? $14.95. Code: EMOIPB. Problem-based learning (PBL), a concept borrowed from the medical field, is a training strategy in which students, working in groups, take responsibility for solving professional problems. This book builds on the authors? experiences in using PBL in a variety of settings. They discuss the operation of PBL in the classroom and describe their template for developing PBL instructional materials. In examining the role of the instructor, the authors highlight the attitudes, thinking, and behaviors essential to successful implementation of PBL. They also address evaluation of student performance, and illustrate op- tions for incorporating PBL into Ed.D. research projects. On Understanding Variables & Hypotheses in Scientific Research W.W. Charters, Jr. ? Foreword by Richard A. Schmuck ? 1992 ? viii + 44 pages ? saddle bind ? ISBN 0-86552- 115-8 ? $6.95. Code: EMOUVH. Advice on research techniques has been hard to find, and novice researchers have often been left to their own resources. Not any longer. Aspiring researchers now have an opportunity to learn from a master teacher. In this manual, W. W. Charters, Jr. discusses the ways in which variables and hypotheses appear in research, the functions they serve, and common problems that researchers have with them. 576 ORDER FORM Roadmap to Restructuring: Charting the Course of Change in American Education, 2nd ed., by David T. Conley Please send me: ___ copies of Cloth @ $34.95 ____copies of Paper@ $23.95 Plus these other best-selling ERIC/CEM titles: ___ Measuring Leadership: A Guide to Assessment for Development of School Executives, by Larry Lashway @$9.75 ___ Student Motivation: Cultivating a Love of Learning, by Linda Lumsden @ $9.50 ___ Leading with Vision, by Larry Lashway @ 13.50 ___ School Leadership: Handbook for Excellence, edited by Stuart C. Smith and Philip K. Piele ___ copies of Cloth @ $29.95 ___ copies of Paper@ $19.95 ___ Learning Experiences in School Renewal: An Exploration of Five Successful Programs, edited by Bruce Joyce and Emily Calhoun @ $14.50 ___ Transforming School Culture: Stories, Symbols, Values, and the Leader?s Role, by Stephen Stolp and Stuart C. Smith @ $12.50 ___ Children at the Center: Implementing the Multiage Classroom, by Bruce A. Miller @ $15.95 ___ Planning for Effective Staff Development: Six Research-Based Models, by Meredith D. ?Mark? Gall, Roseanne O?Brien Vojtek @ $6.95 ___ Implementing Problem-Based Learning in Leadership Develop- ment, by Edwin M. Bridges and Philip Hallinger @ $14.95 ___ On Understanding Variables & Hypotheses in Scientific Research, by W.W. Charters, Jr. @ $6.95 Name: _______________________________________________ Title: ________________________________________________ Phone: ( ) ______________ Fax: ( ) ________________ Institution: ___________________________________________ Address: _____________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ City: ____________________ State: _____ Zip: ___________ You may place an order by sending a check or money order, mailing or faxing a purchase order, or calling with a Visa or MasterCard number. Add 10% for S&H (minimum $4.00). Make payment to University of Oregon/ERIC and mail to ERIC/ CEM, 5207 University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403-5207. Shipping is by UPS ground or equivalent. You can also order online at http://eric.uoregon.edu Telephone (800) 438-8841 Fax (541) 346-2334 ?Someone needed to make sense out of important but misunderstood, diverse restructuring activity. David Conley has done this and provided a great service to the education profession. ?...At the end of this ?roadmap? the reader knows where he has been and where to go. The contents are also a one-stop shopping location for systemic restructuring. The book serves multiple audiences of practitioners, policymakers, and scholars. Once you start down this road, you will want to continue.? From the Foreword by Michael W. Kirst, Professor of Education, Stanford University ?David Conley?s Roadmap to Restructuring is the most useful, readable, and provocative book I have seen on this wriggling, hard-to-pin-down subject. His excellent distinc- tions between ?reform,? ?renewal,? and ?restructuring? challenge readers early on to decide whether they really want fundamental change leading to improved student outcomes?and are willing to pay the price in personal and institutional anguish?or whether they just need to do a better job at what they are already doing.... An altogether fine piece of work.? Samuel G. Sava, Executive Director National Association of Elementary School Principals ?Professor Conley has provided us with an immensely helpful volume on the substance and process of school restructuring?a much needed roadmap for educators thinking seriously about the voyage known as transformational change.? Joseph Murphy, Professor of Educational Leadership Peabody College, Vanderbilt University ?This book is an unusually comprehensive synthesis of the current thought and practice on restructuring. It is both scholarly and practical, and makes a much needed contribution to our understanding of the wide array of issues embedded in educational restructuring. This volume is an essential resource for anyone contemplating such change in schools and districts.? Shirley M. Hord, Senior Research Associate Southwest Educational Development Laboratory ?Roadmap to Restructuring offers a comprehensive look at school restructuring from rationale to recommended processes. As a practitioner involved in school restructuring for several years, I found this guide to be accurate, insightful, and very helpful.? Tim Westerberg, Principal Littleton High School, Littleton, Colorado ? ERIC CLEARINGHOUSE ON EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY OF OREGON, EUGENE, OREGON ESTRUCTURING CHARTING THE COURSE OF CHANGE IN AMERICAN EDUCATION R R O A D M A P T O D A V I D T. C O N L E Y ISBN 0-86552-137-9