|
Home > Resources
>
Leadership > The Change Process
Still at the Crossroads
Table of Contents:
Introduction
In the first week of March 1994 we made our sixth and final visit to
Crossroads High School as part of the School Change Study. The purpose
of our visit was to find out what it is like to learn and to teach at
Crossroads at this point in its process of whole-school change.
When we first visited the school in 1991, after its first three years
as an innovative school, Crossroads seemed on the verge of becoming either
an exemplary Essential school, or a school with low-performance teachers
and students; for this reason we gave it the pseudonym of Crossroads.
After observing the school over the course of the three-year study, we
believe that the school is still at that same crossroads.
This does not mean that there have not been many people working very
hard--there have been. The people at the school could easily have given
up and allowed Crossroads to become an unproductive setting. Instead,
many people have continued to strive to make Crossroads a successful high
school.
On the questions we have been examining, however, it remains unclear
what the ultimate direction of the school will be.
Located in a beautiful, culturally rich southwestern city, Crossroads
draws its approximately eleven hundred students mainly from the city's
low-income population. About 75 percent of Crossroads' students are Hispanic,
and another 3 percent come from other minority groups.
Crossroads was created in 1988 to be an innovative high school. Crossroads'
mission statement is a version of the Coalition's nine Common Principles.
(See Appendix B for a listing of the Principles.) One of its innovative
features is the Pathways program, a multi-age, interdisciplinary humanities
program with blocked periods, cooperative learning, and assessment through
Exhibitions of written, oral, and visual presentations.1 A second innovative
feature is the school's Governing Council, in which students, a parent,
teachers, and administrators participate in shared decision making. Crossroads
has also been involved with Re:Learning, a partnership between the Coalition
and the Education Commission of the States, which has provided funding
and support for Crossroads' whole-school change efforts.
As we have done each time we have visited a school as part of the School
Change Study, we produced a "snapshot" of our visit based on classroom
observations and on conversations with the people in the school community--students,
teachers, administrators, and parents.2 This snapshot consists of three
parts: (1) the staff's views on current issues related to change and the
researchers' comments about these issues; (2) classroom observations,
or "close-ups," and researchers' comments about instruction, and (3) overall
impressions developed during the three-year study of Crossroads, particularly
in relation to the major themes of our study.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Part I: Issues Facing Crossroads in Spring 1994
During our final visit in March we discussed with the staff what had
been happening at the school and what progress the school had made since
our last visit. We organized the feedback we received on these issues
into three major areas: communication and leadership, the advisory program,
and the block schedule. We begin this final snapshot with the summary
of how the school seemed to us in the spring of 1994.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Communication and Leadership
While the overall direction of the changes we have learned about is positive,
there are some concerns and suggestions we would like to share.
The recent changes began in January 1994 with the High School Summit,
a meeting of professional and community people sponsored by the school
district and the Panasonic Foundation. Shortly thereafter, at the request
of the Crossroads principal, staff members from the state's Re:Learning
initiative facilitated an "analysis" of the school. Other factors that
led to the Summit and the Re:Learning analysis included a general frustration
with the ineffectiveness of the school's Governing Council and a sense
by some affiliated with the school that there was an urgent need for improved
communication among the staff. As an outgrowth of these activities and
concerns, the faculty and administration at Crossroads appear determined
to strengthen communications and leadership in the building.
As a result of several days of schoolwide meetings, a strategic plan
was developed. This plan, the High School Action Plan, was refined by
a committee facilitated by Re:Learning staff. The High School Action Plan
was never completed in the full, detailed manner anticipated, but it includes
attention to such items as development of better communications, creation
of a "zero tolerance policy" for tighter enforcement of school rules,
curriculum (including the block schedule and advisory programs), lobbying
and other activities to get more resources, and improved accountability
for all people connected with the school.3
The most evident outcome of this planning process was the shift to decision
making through use of schoolwide faculty meetings. The faculty desired
to have these meetings at the end of the day on Friday, during time that
would be created through early dismissal. The early dismissals have not
been possible, however, because the district transportation office does
not see how it can adjust its routes this late in the year without increasing
costs or adversely affecting other programs. Consequently, the faculty
has been meeting between 3:30 and 4:30 p.m. every Thursday since January
27.
Our observation reports of the February 24 and March 3 meetings and
the minutes and participants' comments for the other meetings (including
some later in the spring, as we note below) show several elements of these
meetings to be praiseworthy.
- Knowing that there are factions within the school, the faculty has
determined to use these meetings as a vehicle for pulling people together.
- Planners have chosen the MRC (media resource center, or library),
which provides a warmer, friendlier ambiance for faculty meetings than
was provided by the auditorium that was used previously.
- An effort has been made to establish procedures to be followed, not
only for the faculty meetings, but for the entire policy-making process.
This effort responds to the concerns about process raised by a Re:Learning
facilitator during the January analysis meeting. As part of this effort,
committees have been created to study specific issues, and provisions
have been made for discussion of issues among groups of teachers sharing
common prep periods. Written agendas which include time allocations
for each topic have been available prior to meetings, written minutes
have been distributed for each meeting, and rules have been established
(if not always remembered and agreed upon) for voting.
- In the context of these meetings, and in other aspects of the school,
new leadership is emerging, and some long-time staff members appear
to be rejuvenated. Volunteers facilitate each meeting. By design, these
include some new people at each meeting. For example, on March 3, the
meeting was chaired by an intern. This intern was assisted by two teachers
who were long-time members of the faculty. Two relatively new faculty
members took the lead in reporting on the block schedule discussion,
which appeared to be the main item on the agenda.
During these meetings there were a number of problems, most of which
can be remedied with fairly simple changes in process. The following examples
are only suggestions of how improvements might be made; they are not offered
as prescriptions.
- The agenda needs to be prepared with greater specificity. That is,
policy motions to be voted on should be stated on the agenda, background
material regarding the reason for items being on the agenda should be
included, actions to be taken concerning items should be stated explicitly,
and, when known, information regarding desired follow-up on an agenda
item should be listed. The agenda should be circulated among the people
responsible for conducting prep-period discussions well in advance of
the meeting of agenda items known to all. (Distribution to all participants
on the Monday prior to a Thursday meeting would seem to be a good idea.)
- Each agenda must include fewer discussion/action items than before.
Sufficient time must be allocated for discussion or it should not be
undertaken. Two- to three-minute sound bites may be the norm for television
news, but they will not suffice for policy deliberation. The inclusion
of more items on the agenda than can be digested in a one-hour meeting
leads inevitably to deferring decisions, which in turn leaves participants
frustrated with their lack of accomplishment.
- The weekly changing of meeting facilitators contributes to the development
of new leaders and helps spread the workload. However, not every volunteer
has the same skill level for facilitating meetings, and the constant
changing of leaders makes continuity difficult. To correct these problems
we offer two suggestions. First, the principal should meet on the Friday
of each week with the facilitators for the next meeting to help plan
the agenda and see that it is printed and distributed. Second, skilled
facilitators within the faculty should be identified and used as process
observers for each meeting. As long as the faculty wishes to use parliamentary
procedure, these process observers need to be familiar with Robert's
Rules as well as good communications practices. At the conclusion
of each meeting, time should be set aside for the observer to comment.
He or she can also be called on for assistance if process problems come
up during the meeting.
- Additional attention needs to be given to creature comforts. Coffee,
juice, and snacks will help the mood of all.
Appendix C contains a sample of what an agenda might generally include,
as well as an example of an agenda which might have been prepared for
the March 3 meeting. In the sample we have tried to adhere for the most
part to the rules established by the school for decision making, but we
have also tried to address some of the concerns mentioned here. Of course,
there are other ways this agenda could have been prepared and still provide
better direction for the meeting.
In addition to concerns about process, we have some systemic concerns
about how these meetings are progressing:
- Students and parents were present during the analysis sessions facilitated
by Re:Learning and during some of the subsequent discussions. More of
them will need to be included more often if the new efforts at decision
making are going to be successful. Such policies as early dismissal
for teacher planning, zero tolerance for the enforcement of rules, changes
in daily schedules, and in-house suspension programs requiring parent
attendance at school can probably be determined by the faculty working
alone. However, these policies will not succeed when implementation
is tried without the agreement of the parents and students who will
be affected by them: we govern only by the consent of the governed.
Just as faculty participation is most likely to be obtained if faculty
share in making the policy decisions, students and parents are more
apt to cooperate if they are authentically engaged in decision making.
In a related matter, efforts should continue to get central administrators
to attend the meetings. Their attendance could go a long way toward
avoiding implementation conflicts with the central office after the
school has arrived at a decision. When one of the assistant superintendents
attended a meeting and learned of the impending zero tolerance policy,
she was able to alert her fellow administrators to this forthcoming
tightening of rules.4
- We are also concerned that there appears to be a tendency to rush
too quickly to either/or decisions. To some extent, this is a potential
danger of using parliamentary procedure, which requires the stating
of unambiguous motions that must be voted on aye or nay. If sufficient
attention is given to thoughtful committee work, to general discussions
of issues at the meetings prior to scheduling for any action, and to
structured prep-period discussions, then voting on motions should allow
the school to reach policy decisions that will be generally accepted.
If any of these steps are bypassed or cut short, key individuals will
feel disenfranchised and, perhaps more problematically, good alternatives
may be overlooked in the haste to reach closure.
- As we have noted in previous snapshots, decision making needs to
be based on better use of information. Minutes of past meetings indicate
some use of survey data as a part of the discussion of block schedules.
However, the conversations about items such as the advisory program
and block schedule generally proceed with more heat than light because
there are no evaluation plans established when the innovations are initiated,
and thus no thoughtful information about their progress when it comes
time to decide on their fate.
- During our visit the status of the Governing Council was unclear.
Some people interviewed in March stated emphatically that it had been
eliminated. On March 3 one of the teachers indicated he was the current
chair of the Council and that the next meeting would be the following
week. We noted at the time that if the Council still exists, its role
in relation to other elements of the emerging decision-making process
needs to be clarified. There was a suggestion by one person that having
the Council meet and deal with some routine matters would be a way of
pacifying students and parents who are seeking more of a role. If the
shoe had been on the other foot, and someone had suggested that teachers
could be pacified through similarly inauthentic engagement in decision
making, we suspect that many faculty would have been outraged.
- Finally, participants in the meetings (and elsewhere in the school)
need to treat each other with more respect. Individuals we interviewed
told us of efforts to improve personal interactions. We saw some signs
of faculty members being sensitive to each other's feelings as we observed
discussions. However, there are still too many situations in which one
faculty member directly attacks another. It is possible to differ with
someone without demeaning them. Besides, ad hominem arguments
rarely accomplish the ends intended by a person who attacks another
person.
The new commitment to communication offers much hope for the future of
Crossroads. This commitment will best be carried forward and kept from
becoming another short-lived initiative if the principal and teacher-leaders
work with outside assistance such as that which can be provided by Re:Learning
and which should be available through the school district's central administration.
Such assistance would enhance communication processes within the school
community and help deal with some of the systemic issues identified above.
[Return to Table of Contents]
The Advisory Program: Fragile Beginnings
In the fall of 1993, following several years of discussion, Crossroads
initiated an advisory program to which all students were assigned randomly.
The desired distribution was approximately four students from each grade
to each teacher. (Because there are many more freshmen and sophomores
than upperclassmen, the desired even distribution of classes was not obtained,
and there are more underclassmen in most advisory sections.)
Earlier, during the summer of 1993, a planning group had prepared a
package of suggested activities and procedures for teachers to follow.
Other than these materials and the understandings of advisory that had
emerged as the faculty had discussed the idea since the opening of the
school, there was no in-service provided for teachers.
We talked with students, teachers, administrators, counselors, and parents
about this new program. Many of the students were seniors with whom we
had been speaking for the past three years. Their general response is
captured in the following comment by one senior:
From a senior point of view, it is basically a waste of our time. We
are just stuck in there because there is no place else to put us. It
will probably help the freshmen because they are supposed to be in there
for four years. I am sure it will help with tests and senior portfolios
to feel you are actually known and not just a number. But it will only
be worthwhile if teachers do their job, too.
Perhaps the most telling response from students was their exodus from
the campus as the advisory period began. One staff member observed that
the scene of cars departing the parking lot resembled the start of lunch
period. From our observations and teacher comments, it appears that between
one-third and one-half of the students were absent from each advisory
room during the Friday of our spring 1994 visit.
We do not know how many of those absenting themselves at that 10:00
a.m. time returned to participate in the rest of their classes.
Teachers shared a range of opinions about the advisory program; some
were not unlike those held by the students. The lack of training was a
common complaint: "I would like some training because we got squat--we
got a little package with ideas--no focus." "It could have worked well,
but it has to be done now and there is nothing that helps."
While they acknowledged that they had been given some materials to guide
them, they were not sure that these materials express official positions,
and some teachers had obviously not read the materials carefully. Also
obvious from comments was the absence of any thoughtful discussion of
the suggestions contained in the proposed package. Nevertheless, the teachers
acknowledged the good intentions and general competency of their colleagues
who had provided these materials.
Some teachers worried that they were unprepared to provide counseling
for students with emotional problems. Others fretted that the advisory
program represented an additional load, when they already had too much
to do.
Still others said they had sought a suggested list of goals to be emphasized
during each of the advisory sessions which remained in the year because
they were unclear about what they were expected to do. This confusion
was evident during our visit when a number of the teachers used the advisory
period to discuss the proposed zero tolerance policy with students, and
other teachers said they were not supposed to discuss it--that nothing
was to be said until the principal announced it at an all-school assembly.
Some teachers said,
We need flexibility; some kids will not come because they won't come
to teachers they don't like or won't come to a class that has kids they
don't like. But the administration will not let us change student assignments.
Finally, teachers were worried about the future direction of the advisory
program. One proposal apparently called for fifteen-minute advisory periods
every day during 1994-95. Under these conditions several teachers said,
"We will not have time to do anything." They were also concerned about
who would be involved as advisory teachers, since they had originally
understood that every professional staff member would have an advisory
class.
Counselors shared anecdotes of how the advisory program has helped them
assist students with their program planning and identify students who
need help. Like the teachers, they worried about the high absenteeism
among students during advisory, and they acknowledged that the staff need
added training.
Parents were supportive of the concept of the advisory program. For
example, one commented, "One thing I think this school is doing a great
job on is the advisory program--this is terrific, but each teacher needs
to have some training."
While they frequently expressed reservations similar to those shared
by the children, parents were supportive of the school's effort to increase
personal attention to students and recognized that there are too few counselors
at the school for each of them to know every student well.
Because the advisory program meets only on those Fridays designated
as "flex days" and does not meet during any week that includes a holiday,
there have not been very many advisory sessions. The debate about the
continuation of the advisory program is tangled up in the debate about
the block schedule. Since there was no formal evaluation plan for the
advisory program, the decision on its continuation and the form it will
take if it is continued may be made based on considerations other than
either its long-range promise or success to date.
[Return to Table of Contents]
The Block Schedule: What Will Its Future Be?
As the future of the program is debated, Crossroads would do well to
remember that there are several ingredients to successful advisory programs
elsewhere in the country.
First, such programs involve all professional staff in order to keep
the size of each advisory group as small as possible. From among the teachers
and administrators at the school, the only people not assigned an advisory
session are usually those who have explicit responsibility for assisting
in the implementation of the program.
Second, a definite curriculum is prepared and scheduled for teachers.
In addition to assistance with program planning and career and college
assistance, such curriculum often includes violence-reduction activities,
anti-drug information, conflict resolution training, and general study-skills
development. Third, teachers are given early and continuing training on
the implementation of the curriculum for the advisory program.
Finally, as decisions are made, the people of Crossroads should keep
in mind, as the current seniors have stated, that the values of such programs
are likely to be recognized only after teachers have had a chance to work
with a group of students over three or four years. In short, with regard
to the advisory program, we hope that the faculty will continue it--working
as necessary to refine its value to the students.
The newly implemented block schedule was the main topic of conversation
during our previous visit in fall 1993.5 Since that time, the faculty
decided to continue the schedule for the remainder of 1993-94. In March
the faculty was in the midst of trying to determine what the schedule
should be for 1994-95.
The responses to the schedule that we obtained in our interviews this
time, with the exception of responses from one teacher and one student,
were positive. However, many of the people responding positively to the
schedule, as it was implemented this year, qualified their support. Some
expressed the belief that all periods should be blocked, not just those
in the middle of the day, as is the case now. Others wanted the blocks
to be shorter--perhaps an hour and a half, rather than two hours.
Several teachers expressed concerns that the blocks seemed to work better
for some things they taught than for others, but they did not specify
matches between specific courses and particular schedules.
As in past years' debate on the block schedule, one of the major conflicts
during current discussion has been the effect of block schedules on the
sports and PE classes, which meet first period for girls and seventh period
for boys.6 Teachers in these programs are particularly concerned because
they believe they need to meet their students daily, and blocked classes
do not meet every day.
While we heard a few references to the issue from some professional
staff and several students at Crossroads, there were fewer concerns this
spring about the competency of teachers to manage an extended block than
there had been prior to and at the beginning of its implementation. Still,
as with the advisory program, this is clearly a case in which additional
in-service is needed for the teachers.
As the debate on the schedule moves forward, several concerns are apparent.
Trying to find a solution that will satisfy everyone equally will be very
difficult.
The school needs to be careful not to substitute the rigidity of one
schedule for the equal rigidity of another. The goal needs to continue
to be to find the best way to arrange time so that it fits classroom instruction,
rather than the other way around.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Events Following the March Visit
After our visit, student and faculty journal writers and others reporting
on continuing progress at Crossroads gave us glimpses of how the issues
we discussed in March played out during the remainder of the year.
Discussions about the Schedule
In March and April, discussions concerning the 1994-95 schedule continued
in many forums.
At an in-service meeting on the afternoon of April 27, marred by the
late arrival of several key staff members, considerable debate about the
subject took place under ground rules laid down by the principal:
- The elimination of advisory is not debatable.
- People are not to attack programs or individuals.
- Compromise is the key; listen to each other.
- The bottom line is what is best for the students, not for you or
your program.
Ten alternatives were considered during this extended discussion. As
discussions continued in prep-period meetings and among various groups
in the building, a proposal drafted by one of the interns at the school
emerged as the favored solution.7
At the full faculty meeting on May 11, decisions were made on the advisory
and block programs for 1994-95. Forty-six people voted for the new plan,
while twelve opposed it.
The principal's ground rules for that meeting, which had changed since
the last meeting, reflect the ongoing dialogue within the building:
- Block days (if any) are Tuesday and Wednesday.
- Blocking periods 1 and 7 MAY be discussed.
- No Blocking MAY be discussed (traditional).
- Do not attack programs or individuals.
- REMEMBER what is best for a majority of the students.
- One mind, one heart (CHS Staff?).
The approved proposal called for block classes two days a week, and for
seven-period days three days a week. Two advisory sessions of twenty-five
minutes would meet each week--one on each of the days when blocked classes
meet.
One of the more ingenious aspects of the final compromise was the solution
to the debate over first and seventh periods. Athletics advocates got
their way and were able to continue meeting every day. Those who desired
an extended period for their first- or seventh-period classes also prevailed.
The approved schedule permits first and seventh periods each to meet for
eighty minutes once a week.
Other classes meet four times a week, once for ninety-five minutes.
Details concerning implemen-tation were referred to the Governing Council
for fine tuning.
According to some of the reports we have received, the success of the
faculty in reaching general agreement on the schedule reflects a continuation
of the general improvement in communication we noted earlier in the spring.
A Pathways teacher who led the meeting, who had expertise in parliamentary
procedure, was assisted by one of the newer faculty members, who concentrated
on assuring everyone that they would all have a chance to participate.
The ground rules laid down by the principal (while not greeted enthusiastically
by all) spoke to some of the problems that had been impeding progress
by clarifying the issues under discussion and setting standards for group
behavior.
The Governing Council, which at one point had been declared dead, has
reappeared as a legitimate part of a whole system of communications. Other
important ingredients in this revised system have been the committees
working on specific tasks and renewed roles for department heads.
However, all is not ideal. Although the May 11 meeting was well attended,
conflict persists concerning faculty attendance at the meetings. Many
continue to insist that it is the principal's responsibility to see that
all faculty attend. Just as they cannot see that students must develop
responsibility for their own behavior, and thus insist on establishing
various controls for students, these professionals believe that the only
way their peers can be expected to be accountable is if the principal
forces them to be so. Also, unfortunately, parent and student roles in
the decision making remain ambiguous.
The school is attempting to deal with still more problems. In an attempt
to help with concerns about teacher loads, the school has been experimenting
this spring with computer-assisted scheduling that it hopes will lead
to a better balance in class size.8 Thus far, there are mixed reports
concerning the success of this initiative.
In an event which may have an effect on the school, the superintendent
announced his retirement, and the school board indicated it will seek
outside candidates. A new superintendent may lead to different roles for
the central administration in relation to Crossroads.
One action taken by the district school board on April 6 may be much
more significant than the faculty at Crossroads seems to realize. Four
months after the Summit, the board issued a draft resolution concerning
high school education in the city. The resolution reported that a survey
by the Public Agenda Foundation revealed considerable dissatisfaction
by the community about its high schools.
Among other things, the resolution announced that the board would be
encouraging the creation of smaller learning communities within the existing
high schools. It specified that such communities within the schools were
to be accorded considerable fiscal and programmatic autonomy. In what
seems like a contradictory action, the board also emphasized its intention
to establish "high content standards" that reflect either state or national
standards by 1996.
For schools that have not been able to figure out what school-based
management means on a schoolwide basis, the implementation of it for "subschools"
could be a significant challenge. Also, for teachers and administrators
who invariably testified to us that individual classroom teachers had
almost complete independence concerning course content and teaching materials,
the imposition of external standards in any kind of substantive manner
could be quite a shock.
On April 14, in the only record of Crossroads' consideration of this
resolution we have, the principal reported that the board's resolution
was mostly about policy that "Crossroads has already formulated."
The creation of small communities within the school does seem consistent
with some of the directions we have seen Crossroads take during the three
years of our observations. However, the notion that these communities
would, as the board resolution suggests, be "autonomous or semi-autonomous,"
is a departure from the current approaches.
One of the most promising late-spring events has been a state act waiving
grade-level meeting time. This will permit the faculty of Crossroads to
use several days at the end of the school year for much needed in-service.
At the same April 27 in-service which discussed the 1994-95 schedule in
depth, an hour was spent on portfolios, with in-house "experts" taking
the lead.
Following up on the renewed interest in portfolios, one-and-a-half days
in June will be used for the entire faculty to engage in "planning backwards"9
seminars that will allow them to accelerate their efforts to develop student
Exhibitions. Topics slated for this end-of-the-year in-service include
"bodies of knowledge," "diploma by Exhibition," "authentic assessment,"
and a curriculum update.
Next, we turn from these schoolwide matters to what is happening in
classrooms.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Part II: Classroom Close-ups
In this final snapshot of Crossroads we include some classroom scenes,
or "close-ups," as promising examples of the direction which the school
may take in terms of instruction. They should not be construed to reflect
common practices.
Join us first in a classroom where students are learning how to use
animation software on computers. Throughout the classroom, students are
working sometimes in pairs, sometimes in threes or fours. Eavesdrop with
us on a series of interactions between students, Jeff and Maria.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Computer Class
Jeff:
Did you want white?
Maria:
I haven't set it yet.
Jeff:
I can figure this out. I always can. I don't know what to tell you.
[Turns computer off and on.]
Jeff:
If you want to do that, try this. [Demonstrates] I can show
you how to do that later. You might want to make it a little bigger.
[Maria tries] Uh oh.
Jeff:
Ah, try again.
Maria:
I am trying to have him say, "It's delicious."
Jeff:
You can make another box.
Maria:
Another box, right?
Jeff:
Or you could try . . .
Maria:
Yeah!
Jeff:
Now go all the way to here. OK. Did you press the left one? Go to
"optics." Go to "all." You want it to stay there. You want it half full?
See how it makes a segment? Go to "wire frame" to see what it will do.
When another student asks Jeff a question, Maria keeps working on her
animation. After a few minutes, Jeff continues his conversation with Maria.
Jeff:
Did you get it?
Maria:
Yeah.
Jeff:
Go to "35."
Maria:
Oh, I see.
Jeff:
You can make it bigger if you want.
Maria:
Ah, you do this.
Jeff:
No, you can do it.
Maria:
Do I go to "optics," Jeff?
Jeff:
Yeah, but don't forget to change your segment.
Maria:
See . . .
Jeff:
I just showed you. You've got all the optics. Now what are you going
to do to get it to stay? You want to use it.
Maria:
Ah . . . [She giggles.]
Jeff:
Yeah! That's it!
Elsewhere in the room, Carrie, the teacher who is the model for Jeff's
patient, positive helping of Maria, is assisting other students and eventually
interacts with a couple of macho young men.
Mike:
It drips.
Paul:
Watch it turn over.
Mike:
That's bad! [Meaning, of course, that it was good.]
Paul:
It's all perfect, dude. Doesn't have sound, though. It's messed up
a little.
Mike and Paul continue to watch the animation in a new program which
had just been opened by Carrie.
Carrie says,
This is a demo? We need a bunch of sound cards now. Jeff, they have
this program running. This thing is huge! Twelve megabytes. I think
we can use this to help Pathways students put their portfolios on disks.
For many of the students at work in this class, their products are directly
useful to the school. Some are helping create the next course description
booklet. Others have created summaries of teacher discussions of how to
use portfolios. Earlier in the year, they created a program for calculating
the results of balloting at Crossroads on choices of a school flag.
Similar ties between instruction in the use of computers and learning
in other classes is evident in Jerry Johnson's classroom. Telling us about
his students, he says,
[They] are now applying the technology that they have learned in the
first part of the year to work on projects for other classes. So, for
example, several of my seniors in here are working on English projects
focused on, how does it work? One is doing fuel injection, another is
writing about the Volkswagen Beetle. They have decided their own topics
and have had to research the working, both the mechanical and conceptual,
of their projects. Now, here, they are working on pulling them together
into written research reports, with graphs and charts that they have
learned to create in this class.
We see a student in Jerry's room working diligently at the task of creating
a sign, which is a project for his marketing class. He explains, "It's
learning how to use the graphics and to calculate the size of the letters.
Stuff like that. It's fun here compared to other stuff in this school."
We cannot help but noting that "fun" as used by students in relation
to this work means much more than that they enjoy the activity. Students
seem to use fun to describe work which is meaningful, work at which
they have a sense of accomplishment and of having contributed something
useful, work which requires them to use their imagination and to thoughtfully
seek solutions to problems. Certainly they use it to refer to classes
in which they are working, and not to classes where the teacher
is doing all the work.
[Return to Table of Contents]
A Visit to Pathways
For our next look at classroom instruction, we turn to Martha Watson's
Pathways class, which we visit on two different days.
Our First Visit to Martha's Class
Martha begins the two-hour block by asking the student leader for the
day to lead some physical warm-up activities.
Then Martha asks the students to pull out their journals and take ten
minutes to write about a Mark Twain quotation on the board. As the students
write, she circulates throughout the room, sometimes commenting on what
they are writing, sometimes offering a suggestion for how they might overcome
a block. After ten minutes, there is a soft ting from the timer
and students put their writing away.
Martha then introduces the writing work for the day. She tells the students
that, while they have done very good work, she feels that they need to
work more on descriptive writing. She reminds them of other times they
have done a similar exercise and explains that the numbered pictures on
the wall are of different things related to their essential question:
"How have immigrants helped shape and form this country?"
She asks the students for examples of what makes good descriptive writing.
Several students raise their hands and offer explanations. After each
comment, she acknowledges the student by saying "Good," or by highlighting
how what the student has said would work for today's exercise.
Students then go to the board, look at the pictures, and make their
selections. As they do this, they comment to each other about the pictures
and occasionally ask what a picture is about. Then they return to their
desks and begin writing. Occasionally a student gets up and looks at a
picture again.
After about twenty minutes, having circled the room and made a few suggestions
and comments, Martha calls the class back together. She asks them to take
time in their groups to read each other's papers and to make suggestions
to one another. She reminds them that the papers should be rich with description.
The students immediately turn to a sharing of their work.
Next, students are asked to share some of what they have written and
to comment on what they hear as others read. When several have read, Martha
instructs the class to consider the feedback they have received in their
groups and use it to refine and rewrite their papers, which will be due
tomorrow.
Martha then challenges students to ponder what she is about to read.
She asks them,
If you were the characters in this story about Ellis Island, would
you have the same reaction? Why? What does it mean to these people to
have come as far as they have and then have to go to this island? Are
there any parallels in what is happening with these people and other
groups we have studied or that you are aware of?
Following the story there is a lively discussion. An hour has passed
and it is time for a break. When they continue during the second hour,
they will work in groups to prepare for their presentation on immigrant
groups they have been researching.
There are several differences between this class and a number of others
we have observed at Crossroads, and in other settings where the student
population is similar to that at Crossroads. The student activities were
varied and designed to have students think--to manipulate ideas and symbols.
In one hour, the students in this classroom engaged in five separate but
related learning activities. For much of the discussion there was no "right"
answer. Students were asked to share ideas in small groups and in the
larger group. The teacher responded with encouragement as the students
ventured opinions.
From the very beginning activity until the end of the first hour, students
were expected to take a role in managing and leading the class. When questions
were posed about Ellis Island, they were not recall questions, but questions
designed to help students evaluate what they were hearing and base their
evaluations on their experiences--experiences from their reading or their
own life.
A Second Visit to Martha's Class
In another visit to Martha's classroom, we observe a culminating activity
by a group of students who had been studying prison reform. The students
begin the class by displaying posters they had created and explaining
some of their general conclusions. Next, they introduce a prison guard
who tells the class about life in a prison and shares with them a video
from a recent riot in a nearby penitentiary. He had been seriously injured
during the riot. The students then help facilitate a discussion between
the speaker and the class by asking questions and offering comments.
"What is a shank? [A weapon made out of available objects by
prisoners.]
"How many gangs are there in the prison?"
"Are you still working at the prison even though you were stabbed?"
"Do you still talk to the guard who made the mistakes that led to you
being stabbed?"
"What disciplinary action was taken against the prisoner?"
"What is your background?"
"Where were the guard dogs the day you were stabbed?"
"How will the "three strikes" bill affect things?"
"I hear that prison is like a Holiday Inn for inmates."
"What have we learned since the riots?"
"Are the conditions of prison so bad that we need new ones?"
"How would you get gangs out of prison?"
"I think I read in a research paper that prisoners get paid twenty-five
cents a job?"
"Do you know how the riot started?"
"Are there murders in prison?"
"It's a place where we don't want to go!"
As the students continue with their questions and comments, the contrast
is evident between their honest inquiry and the desultory conversation
between adult and students that often serves as discussion in a classroom:
the posing of recall questions by the teacher and the recitation of correct
answers by the students. In this class, students are trying to learn.
Another teacher tells us about the ways in which students become involved
in his Pathways classes:
We just finished the war between Sparta and Athens. We spent two days
simply gathering data for our own city and then had a civil debate about
education. We discussed the views of the world held by these two places.
In each class we had formal arguments. We designed a war and Sparta
won. Also, we've done a mock trial. We bring in another class and they
are the jury. This spring I hope to have an archaeological site outside
and dig it. We will work on inventory and records. When I'm having a
good day, the students take over the conversation.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Biology Class
In Harold Swift's biology class we listen as students engage in fairly
sophisticated, reflective conversations at the concluding stages of a
study of genetics. They had participated during the previous week in an
experiment which drew their parents into trying to determine what might
be genetic contributions to a possible disease. Consider the following
dialogue:
Harold:
I've thought about doing this for a year, a problem-based way of learning
genetics. And then I graded the tests. I tried to give you questions
that help you learn genetics. So, what do you think about the process?
[The students had been writing self-evaluations of the assignment for
the first ten minutes or so of the class].
Cindy:
I think it was good, very good, but we probably needed more class
learning time.
Juan:
Frankly, I don't think that we thought it was that important to look
through the book. Next year, tell them to really study the book too.
Sam:
We found a lot of the same information in the articles. Maybe we could
find a lot more to supplement it. We learned a lot about the treatments
and maybe not enough about genetics.
Andy:
I don't know if I want to be a doctor anymore!
The conversation continues with Harold's reminding the students of the
importance of the developments in genetic engineering during the 1980s.
Then the conversation turns to some implications of what they had been
studying.
Andy:
Do you think ethnic groups should only marry each other?
Several:
No! Not necessarily! No way!
Andy:
But maybe it would help keep the diseases down.
Cindy:
But we've learned that each race can develop its own diseases, like
the Jews.
Helen:
No, I don't think so, because then I wouldn't be here! Hispanic means
a whole lot of different things.
Harold:
A white snow goose, if it has a choice, will mate with a white snow
goose, not a blue one. But they also will interbreed. If there are options
then both will stay within their subspecies.
Juan:
My step-mom married her fifth cousin and she didn't even know it.
She's Native American. She was supposed to stay within her pueblo.
Harold:
Usually they will identify their clan as soon as they are introduced.
They do try to prevent inbreeding. They are taught that in their culture.
Turning the discussion to the general examination of the value of the
recently completed project, Harold asks the students to draw on specific
examples of their work during the project. The students, who had not performed
as well on the test at the end of the project as they had wanted to, for
the most part take the responsibility for their poor performance. As Andy
puts it, "We didn't study the book enough, and we can see how you emphasized
a lot of these things, now that we can look back on the whole thing."
Certainly, in this class Harold is helping students develop habits of
thoughtfulness.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Physics Class
On another day we watched the physics teacher engage students in a thoughtful
examination of sound waves by getting them to consider the problems with
using the PA system in the school gym. Students speculated about different
changes that could be made in the structure of the gym to improve the
acoustics, and then related their discussion to some of the explanation
of sound waves and nodes in their texts.
They talked about why the football coach and the principal could be
understood more easily than most student speakers. From this discussion
they continued their examination of sound waves by looking into ways in
which music from heavy metal bands has a physical effect on listeners.
As the discussion progressed, a student became excited with having grasped
the idea and volunteered a drawing on the chalkboard to represent the
concept being considered. The teacher and another student refined the
drawing, and the discussion moved on.
While the class continued, there was some good-natured bantering between
students as one of them identified the correct Newton law of motion but
assigned it the wrong number. This issue arose as they moved to a consideration
of some of the experiences with sound and motion that astronauts have
that are related to inner-ear functioning.
The class was not a lecture or a typical teacher-led question-and-answer
session. It was a conversation in the best sense of the word--one in which
students and teachers took turns using anecdotes and drawings, working
with equations, and building on each other's ideas.
As the class ended, students were reminded to complete their practice
problems (a conventional assignment) and to bring their favorite CD and
tape players so that during their next class meeting, which was to be
a two-hour block, they could use sound detectors to learn more about sound
quality (a less conventional assignment).
[Return to Table of Contents]
Reflections on Classroom Visits
These pockets of exciting instruction have become more evident with each
visit. Prior to the recent interest expressed by the school board in a
proposed policy about subschools, small, essential learning communities
within the school have been expanding. For example, during this visit
we learned that grant funding has enabled two teachers to combine in an
interdisciplinary effort known as "Spanglish." One objective of this combination
is to strengthen the learning of grammar in both Spanish and English.
But the connections go beyond that as the grant uses older, successful
students as cross-age tutors to help students study myths in English and
family stories in Spanish. Spanglish students will also be able to add
studies of drama and dance as part of their cultural lessons. These classes
will be taught with help from grant-funded resource people. Eventually,
as the English class studies Cervantes, it hopes to do so by reading the
text in Spanish.
This Spanglish effort joins Pathways and the new Creative and Performing
Arts Program as an intentional small learning community within the larger
framework of the whole school.10 Another initiative by a computer education
teacher and an English teacher seeks to develop collaborative courses
involving English and technical and business education classes, using
computer facilities to advance writing and other communication skills.
The school is also initiating a year-round program for "at risk" students
called YES. Such efforts, grounded somewhat in similar approaches to student
learning, may prove to be the means by which Crossroads eventually is
able to spread its professed vision schoolwide.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Part III
Major Lessons Learned from Three Years at Crossroads
As we look back over the three years of our visits to Crossroads, the
following five themes emerge:
- Communication requires continuing attention.
- < Leadership is a significant concern.
- There is an evident need for extensive and continuing staff development.
- Time is also needed: time to teach, time to plan, time to reflect.
- The context surrounding Crossroads influences much of what is accomplished.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Communication Requires Continuing Attention
We have commented on communications at Crossroads in most of the snapshots.
Throughout our study, the school has struggled with its formal systems,
which were designed to enhance communications.
Crossroads has identified for itself many concerns related to communication
during the recent analysis exercise with the state Re:Learning staff.
Meetings of the parent group, Voice, have been sparsely attended. The
Governing Council has found it hard to determine its own role. It has
had procedural difficulties, and it is the object of much criticism by
faculty members. Until recently, faculty meetings did not produce clear
understanding about direction.
Only the most recent reports offer hope that the work of Re:Learning,
Panasonic, and committed members of the school faculty and administration
are beginning to pay off in the development of constructive systems. Even
then, parent and student involvement in school improvement discussions
is lacking. In its draft resolution the school board has made it clear
that it expects greater engagement of parents in decision making at the
school level. How this will affect the emerging patterns at Crossroads
is not clear at this point.
At Crossroads, as in a number of schools, a core of people learn new
ideas or develop proposals, and there is either little interest by other
faculty members or there is no way to share these ideas. As a result,
the whole school does not become supportive and engaged. This lack of
engagement appears to be related to the problems with the communications
systems mentioned above. As multiple layers of communications develop,
involving committees, the Governing Council, and whole-faculty meetings,
the level of engagement and support may change for the better.
Teachers get information from various sources and frequently construct
different interpretations of that information. Consequently, rumors, innuendos,
and misinterpretation about what they hear are common. Students hear conflicting
stories about what is happening from different teachers. One recent example
of this was a conversation about the pending implementation of zero tolerance
for deviation from established standards for student behavior. Another
incident, involving a math teacher's views of easy grading for classes
taught by teachers from the athletic department, erupted this spring.
This incident was discussed with considerable factual variation by teachers
and students.
How Pervasive Is Caring at the School?
A matter closely related to a discussion of communication is the way in
which caring is demonstrated at the school. Students provided us with
numerous examples of teachers who have gone out of their way to help them.
They generally stated that the teachers at Crossroads care about them
and are willing to provide extra help as needed. For the most part, parents
hold a similar view.
However, there is evidence that caring is not pervasive. We note that
in spite of the general concerns which teachers have for students, there
are no organized responses for helping students caught in personal tragedies.
Faculty pointed to the student center as ready to help in such situations.
It may be. What we did not see was a general response to widespread problems
among students. Whether the problem is a serious accident, the death of
another student, or a crisis in a student's family, we have not seen an
organized effort to help comfort students.
Teachers take potshots at each other--sometimes in the hallways or in
classrooms in front of students. Students told us of teachers who talk
at length in a critical fashion about other teachers. Such behavior seems
to us to be unprofessional and unproductive. We are pleased to see that
it is receiving attention at the same time that a focus has been placed
on improving the formal communication systems.
The social relationships that can bind a faculty together do not seem
to exist at Crossroads. There are several contributing causes to this
problem, one of which may be the high faculty turnover at the school.
Also, in order to make ends meet, numerous members of the faculty have
second jobs.
Another reason for this problem may be the absence of social gatherings
that would help the faculty get to know each other and care for each other
better.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Leadership: of Crucial Concern
Throughout the entire School Change study, a number of leadership issues
have arisen. This topic has been receiving attention by the Crossroads
school community as a follow-up to the Re:Learning team's analysis.
There is a tendency for too many people to equate leadership in a school
with the position of the principal. As is beginning to happen now at Crossroads,
leadership must be spread throughout the school.
The principal has leadership functions to perform, but so do many others.
The recent committee leadership and meetings facilitation by new faculty
will help build a broader leadership base. Ultimately, the school should
become a community of leaders in which everyone takes responsibility for
accomplishing the mission, rather than assuming that some positional leader
has that responsibility.
This need for broad-based leadership does not excuse the principal from
responsibilities for assessing progress, helping to define the vision,
supporting and coordinating groups as they work, asking hard questions,
or stimulating the thinking of the school community. All of these, and
more, continue to be direct responsibilities that come with the position.
[Return to Table of Contents]
The Need for Extensive and Continuing Staff Development
The staff at Crossroads have been willing to try many new approaches
to educating students, but too often teachers (and administrators) are
left trying innovations without the systematic and continuing support
which is needed for proper implementation.
Some of the most effective staff development that can happen in a school
grows out of careful examination of information about the students and
how they are performing. We have not seen evidence that this kind of examination
is occurring. With one or two notable exceptions, such as an examination
of writing results in the Pathways program, decisions about program changes
do not seem to be based on concrete information about student performance.
The professional staff at Crossroads have considerable talent. Faculty
members demonstrate that they are adept at a variety of teaching modalities,
but little use is made of their expertise to help the school. Too often
school faculty leave the school and work with others rather than assisting
their peers. Rewards for working at the school need to be established
that equal the rewards of working elsewhere.
The school has demonstrated commendable commitments to such changes
as integrated curriculum, modified schedules, advisory programs, and the
use of portfolios to help assess student learning, but more, sustained
training is needed. This is particularly the case at Crossroads because
of the high turnover of faculty. The plans to spend one-and-a-half days
in June 1994 on subjects such as "planning backwards" are encouraging,
but the school needs to establish a long-range plan for professional development.
In these plans topics will need to be returned to again and again. Those
seeking to develop new skills will need opportunities for repeated, guided
practice. Those seeking to implement innovative programs will need support
from school administrators and peers as they run into the inevitable difficulties
faced by all pioneers.
[Return to Table of Contents]
The Need for Time to Teach, to Plan, to Reflect
The debate over alternative student schedules, which has occasionally
become quite heated, has been fueled by frustrations about the incompatibility
between the normal student-teacher schedules and what it takes for someone
to learn. There is no evidence that learning occurs best and most often
in fifty-minute bites. Faculty members must continue to seek a way of
organizing their days that will support the constantly shifting demands
for time needed for different kinds of learning.
As promising as the compromises are, in the adopted schedule for 1994-95,
the schedule still has class meeting times of fixed lengths. Those teachers
whose activities include extended field trips or lab assignments will
still end up in conflict with those teachers who desire their students
to be present for each class. Those seeking ways to deal with the struggle
for time may find the small learning communities that are evolving, such
as the Creative and Performing Arts Program, good places to watch for
possible solutions.
Teachers also struggle for the time that is needed to acquire in-service
training, analyze their progress, and plan new approaches. To some extent
the schedule is the culprit here also. Until the faculty (and parents
and students) derive an approach to using time that allows large chunks
for reflection, there will continue to be confusion concerning what decision
has been made, and there will be decisions made without sufficient thoughtfulness.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Context as a Determining Factor
Crossroads teachers have done an amazing job of seeking grants for fine-arts
experiences, programs for at-risk students, science opportunities, work
integrating English and Spanish studies, and support for outside speakers.
The experts within the greater community who have been invited into classrooms
enrich the resources of the school with their presentations. Assistance
has been secured from the state university, and other higher education
connections have been used by teachers to help with such diverse learning
activities as learning about the stock market to developing skills in
drama. (Fundraising activities are so constant that the band teacher from
Funky Winkerbean could learn lessons from Crossroads High School.)
At times the scramble for resources seems almost frenetic, and one begins
to wonder whether it distracts as well as adds to the school. Certainly
if there were adequate support in the first place, such pursuits of external
funding could be approached with less urgency.
The lack of financial and other external support makes progress at Crossroads
difficult. In the midst of a community which is wealthy in many ways,
the school (indeed the school system) is impoverished. Teachers tend to
look at administrators as overpaid, and administrators tend to look at
higher-up administrators as overpaid. Truthfully, pay for all educators
appears to us to be indefensibly low.
But lack of support is not limited to finances. A school should expect
and receive assistance to help it solve the problems of which it is aware.
From what we can see, little outside assistance has been forthcoming for
Crossroads during the past three years, except that generated by entrepreneurial
teachers and administrators. One exception which we note is the apparent
increase in support from Re:Learning this year. Some hope that the selection
of a new superintendent for the school district will reestablish the visionary
leadership and support which came from that office when the school was
first built.
The surrounding context of Crossroads also contributes to there being
important issues of race, class, and gender associated with the school.
The changing nature of the community described in the fifth snapshot and
the uncertainty among staff about how to deal with these changes are parts
of this context. During the March 1994 visit, one of the teachers of non-academic
classes complained that his classes tended to be dumping grounds for non-performing
students. He told us,
It's just a place they put the kids who don't do well or who make problems.
I can keep them busy in here, and sometimes I can get them really interested.
But nobody really cares what I do here. I think that I need to start
looking for another job.
Believing that this difficulty relates directly to racial issues at the
school, the teacher said, "We have two classes of Hispanics here." He
was concerned that the heritages of these groups are not being honored.
This notion of "two classes" of Hispanics plays out particularly in the
expectations teachers have for student performance and in the support
available to help the "lower class"--the recent immigrants--pursue education
beyond high school. As one teacher put it,
I do think there are different expectations. The ones who stick out
are the kids from Mexico. I was grading papers last night and gave some
extra credit for some of these students, because I knew it was a tremendous
effort for them.
Tendencies to stereotype students by ethnicity (and by subgroups within
ethnic groups) and to make assumptions about how students from different
social classes will perform have been evident during each visit. Ongoing
efforts at reform will need to be made, with careful sensitivity to the
needs of different populations. Having high expectations for all students
will need to replace the tendency to treat some as people with less potential.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Through the Lens of the Study Themes
We are interested in viewing the three years at Crossroads in terms of
the major themes of the School Change Study: (1) examining the extent
to which change is "idea-driven"--more specifically, the extent to which
the nine Common Principles are instrumental in guiding change efforts;
(2) finding out what factors determine whether momentum is maintained
over time; and (3) finding out what factors influence schoolwide change.
Is Change at Crossroads Idea-Driven?
Crossroads has adopted a statement of philosophy which closely parallels
the nine Common Principles. However, there is little evidence this statement
or any other set of ideas has been used explicitly to stimulate thinking
about what the direction of the school should be.
While the nine Common Principles seem to receive little attention, their
indirect influence can be seen in various parts of the school. Various
individuals talk about individual Principles, and we find examples of
them being implemented.
For example, there are numerous examples of the "student as worker"
in our files, as well as in the classroom scenes reported in this final
snapshot. In spite of an apparently general desire for the school to be
a "shopping mall," teachers persist in efforts to focus on essential questions
and to seek an understanding of the Coalition's notion of "planning backwards"
as a means of designing an education that culminates in student exhibiting
what was learned.
If we are going to understand the influence of a set of ideas such as
the Coalition's nine Common Principles, we are going to have to look beyond
the questions of whether or not they have been discussed in meetings and
in-service sessions and concentrate our examination on whether they are
intentionally reflected in practice.
Factors Affecting the Momentum for Change
Turnover of faculty, the lack of staff availability for meetings due to
second jobs and coaching assignments, and the absence of extended staff
development efforts are clearly major factors in limiting momentum for
change. Leadership and communication issues have also affected the momentum.
Still, in spite of obstacles presented by the context around the school,
the faculty have persisted in efforts to improve their program.
Why do people persist in the face of the many obstacles found at a school
like Crossroads? Why do they keep going when salaries are atrocious and
rewards for their efforts lacking? Why don't they take the easier approach
and retreat to purely didactic teaching, give up on experimentation with
schedules and courses, forget about different ways of assessing student
learning, and retreat to their individual classrooms and avoid team-teaching
and interdisciplinary studies?
When the external support systems of the district and state seem to
send the message that what they really want is a place where there is
no controversy, why do administrators and teachers at Crossroads persist
in generating new structures and thinking about initiatives that are bound
to be criticized by influential people in the community?
One of the reasons for this persistence is surely in the commitment
of teachers to the individual students with whom they work. Perhaps the
answer to some of these questions lies also in the powerful vision of
the man who was superintendent when Crossroads opened. He is frequently
referred to as their inspiration by teachers who were present at the school's
beginnings. It is also possible that the ideas which lie behind the change
efforts are sufficiently compelling that the school continues to try them
just because they make sense. We will continue our search for other answers
as we study the boxes of interview and observation records, journals,
and documents from the school, district, and state. There must be some
clues to the resiliency of this school community which we still have not
recognized.
Factors Influencing Schoolwide Changes
As mentioned previously, the emerging communication system, with its promising
use of a mixture of whole-school meetings, committee sessions, and Governing
Council meetings, may contribute to the change efforts becoming more schoolwide.
At Crossroads, as at other schools, starting with a small unit of the
school has proved problematic when it comes to spreading changes schoolwide.
Communication and leadership pose problems in extending the reform effort
from its initial beachhead to other parts of a school.
At Crossroads one starting point was with the Pathways program. Turnover
has made maintenance of this effort difficult, while perceptions that
Pathways teachers were favored contributed to dissonance in the staff.
As innovations have developed in other departments--and some have in
all areas--it has been difficult to see what schoolwide vision they relate
to. Here, again, the emerging communication system may help the evolution
of additional new programs such as the Creative and Performing Arts program,
Spanglish, and the technology/business/
English initiatives. The district emphasis on creating these new programs
should also help them evolve.
Our visits to Crossroads have helped us develop greater understandings
of problems associated with each of the major themes of our investigation.
As we continue our analysis of the information we have gathered from all
the schools, we expect to see more clearly the actions which are needed
to produce whole-school change.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Concluding remarks
We depart from Crossroads, sad that we are leaving young people we have
come to know and admire for their resiliency and the articulate ways in
which they have shared their understandings of their school. We leave
with admiration for the teachers and administrators who persevere in the
face of unconscionable limitations in the resources they are provided
and the remuneration they are awarded for the work they do.
We remember many good people who have left, seeking employment where
they will be better paid. We share the depth of concerns for those who
have remained and continue the battle. We take hope from the professionals
newly arrived at Crossroads who are demonstrating their determination
to serve the students of the school. We know that we are struggling to
find the answers to what can lead to schools becoming Essential schools,
just as Crossroads has been struggling to find its own answers for its
students.
We thank all connected at the school for the opportunities they have
given us to look closely at their work. We hope that the information we
have shared with them has been helpful as they seek to perform their difficult
tasks. To all who have permitted us to share in their lives we say, thank
you--muchas gracias!
[Return to Table of Contents]
Notes
- The term Exhibition is described in the Coalition's nine Common
Principles. It is a culminating, public demonstration of what a high
school student knows and can do.
- Our team has made six visits to Crossroads as part of this study.
The visits have been three to four days long, and the study team has
included three or four people. During each visit we have interviewed
twenty-five to thirty teachers, individually or in groups. We have also
talked with about the same number of students and shadowed three to
five students as we observed various classes. We also spoke with ten
to twenty parents during each visit, and four to six school and district
administrators. In addition, we have collected many documents from the
school and school district, another team member has interviewed state
officials, another researcher studied newspaper clippings, and two teachers
and two students provided monthly journals, often enclosing documents
such as committee minutes. This effort has left us with much information
to digest. Preliminary findings have been reported to the school in
five previous "snapshots," each of which has been critiqued by about
ten Crossroads staff before it was put into final draft form.
- Consistent with planning problems facing the school throughout the
study, the document provided us still had not stated the outputs expected
from the planning, nor had it clearly assigned responsibilities for
various tasks.
- At first glance it may seem strange that central office review would
be needed for a decision to enforce existing rules more stringently.
However, the reality is that central administrators will be bombarded
by distraught parents if such a practice is initiated and, if they are
not forewarned, may not provide the support the school needs.
- See Richard W. Clark, "Some Things Change, Some Things Don't," Studies
on School Change (Crossroads No. 5), Coalition of Essential Schools,
Brown University, Providence, February 1994.
- Because of concerns raised in the media by one teacher about grading
practices in the sports/PE classes and about the appropriateness of
using school time for extracurricular activities, these classes were
the subject of considerable conversation during the spring of 1994.
Because of the large number of legal and ethical issues as well as educational
questions which have been raised in these discussions, we have chosen
not to treat these matters at length.
- One faculty member who reviewed an earlier draft of this snapshot
suggested that the version prepared by the intern and eventually adopted
appeared only at the last minute and was not well understood by those
who voted for it. This reviewer said that future discussions of it in
the Governing Council revealed flaws, and left many disenchanted with
their decision. If such is the case, it serves as one more example of
the inability of the faculty to make a decision and stick with it once
it had been made.
- For a discussion of problems of imbalance in class size and total
student loads at Crossroads, see Richard W. Clark, "Some Things Change,
Some Things Don't," note 5.
- "Planning backwards" refers to envisioning the goals of a school's
program and then planning the program accordingly, in order to attain
them. See Joseph McDonald, "Steps in Planning Backwards: Early Lessons
from the Schools," Studies on Exhibitions (No. 5), Coalition of Essential
Schools, Brown University, Providence, April 1993.
- A fuller description of the Creative Performing Arts Program (CAPA)
appears in Richard W. Clark, "Some Things Change, Some Things Don't,"
note 5.
[Return to Table of Contents]
The Crossroads research team was headed by Richard W. Clark, senior associate
at the University of Washington Center for Educational Renewal and the
former deputy superintendent of the Bellevue (WA) School District. The
other members of the Crossroads team were Janet Miller, professor at National-Louis
University (formerly National Teachers College) at the Beloit (WI) Academic
Center and author of Creating Spaces and Finding Voices: Teachers Collaborating
for Empowerment (1990); and Vicky Murray, who has worked as a teacher
and administrator in Seattle and has done extensive work across the country
on school renewal for the Panasonic Foundation.
Price: $6
Code: CR6
To order a hard copy of this resource you will need the title, price, and code to fill out your order form.
This resource last updated: June 11, 2002
Database Information:
|
Publication Year: 1994
Publisher: CES National
School Level: All
Focus Area: Leadership
STRAND: Leadership: the change process
|
|
