|
Home > Resources
>
Leadership > The Change Process
Poised for Change
Summerville is a small, quiet town, set among rolling hills along the banks of a busy, working river in a beautiful northeastern state. It is fall, and the trees toss and whirl their brightest colors in a last, gay dance, an all-out, riotous fling before the sobering winter grays and whites.
Summerville began as a resort community for those escaping the summer heat of the nearby city. Originally, folks lived in ethnic or philosophical enclaves-the Irish on the Point, the Italians in town, the "communists" on Blue Mountain. As the town developed year-round residents, it began a tradition of fine education. As if to state that loud and clear, a new high school was erected in a place of honor-a little hilltop just up from town.
Built in 1924, Oak Hill High School, a grades 9-12 high school, is of solid, enduring American Gothic architecture, red brick with white trim. It overlooks homes with wide, wooden porches and a wonderful, old hillside cemetery that rambles up and along the curve of the hill. The school seems to remind both the living and the dead of the enduring importance of a good education. At lunchtime on the open campus, students eat among the gravestones or walk the two blocks downtown to eat at the Soda Fountain (yes, the Soda Fountain!) or at one of several delicatessens. Today, Oak Hill is a safe and trusting place, a homogeneous place, a fine setting for a Norman Rockwell series.
Outside, the school looks dignified and carefully reworked. Some windows have been bricked in. An air conditioner has been added. A gym complex juts out behind. Workmen are digging a trench to the football field to install an electronic scoreboard.
Inside, the school reflects a constant process of modernization. The old auditorium has been cut into two sloping classrooms, following the addition of a newer, more serviceable auditorium. The library is small: a graceful old fireplace frames one wall while computers frame another. On the first floor are the offices, several classrooms, the music wing, the physical education wing, the cafeteria, the faculty room, the new technology center, and the learning center. The guidance center, classrooms, and lockers fill the second and third floors.
Students, teachers, parents, and administrators describe the predominant and most often mentioned characteristic of Oak Hill:
"It's a caring place," says the vice principal.
"We like each other. We support each other," say the teachers. "We're all on the same side here, trying to provide the kids with the best education possible."
The students agree: "Our teachers are our friends. We can talk to them. We know them really well. Besides teaching, they coach us in sports. We go on trips together-like to France if you make it to French 4." One student says, "There aren't cliques here. We have all grown up together since kindergarten, so we know each other pretty well."
A teacher adds: "My students baby-sit our own kids. We have the kinds of kids here that I'd like my kids to grow up to be."
"We are like a family here. When people come, they stay. Four teachers have died here!"
The superintendent has been with the district seventeen years, a phenomenon given that the average tenure of superintendents nationwide is three years. Many of the teachers have more than thirty years of service in the district. The previous principal was at the school for sixteen years. The vice principal is retiring this year with thirty years of service in the district.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Despite its stability, Oak Hill High School is no stranger to discussions about change or to study by outsiders. In 1952, a report developed by several professors from a nearby university studied the school to see if the program was meeting the needs of "its boys and girls." At that time, the goal of the school was to "produce able, alert, moral citizens who would reflect the highest possible development appropriate to their native ability." Bowling, dancing, gun club, archery, drama, and riding took place after school, while the academic program was largely similar to the program in place today. The report recommended that a full-time principal be hired, a work experience program be developed, staff work collaboratively to determine staff assignments, and the library be made more usable. All these recommendations were estimated to cost a total of
$14,000.
The late sixties was a period of change. In a clash over authority and innovation, the principal walked out. The superintendent left the next year, followed, over three years, by three different superintendents and two principals. The elementary school changed to an open-concept school. The high school did extensive work on curriculum; teachers had a significant amount of release time. With the increase in social unrest as the Vietnam war dragged on and with the infiltration of drugs, staff and students pulled back into a more conservative position, which lasted through much of the seventies.
In the 1980s, the district operated distance-learning courses for two years, using a small television studio in the high school, in conjunction with another school district and the local cable company. Students were offered additional languages and higher-level physics and math courses. The district also experienced a drop in student population. While the high school at one time had 600 students, it now has 320.
In 1985, in response to another high school accreditation report, the superintendent, several board members, and the principal were instrumental in bringing a writing project to the district. The project, run by two university consultants, cost
$120,000 for the original three years and provided significant release time for forty-five district teachers and administrators. (A group still meets, coordinated by Jane Leonard, one of the teachers at the high school.) The project helped teachers understand the role language and writing play in learning across all disciplines.
A 1990 study called Learning Change, by Onore and Lester, described the intentions and the outcomes of the Oak Hill writing project. Some teachers moved away from beliefs and practices about teaching based on the transmission of facts and evaluated by short-answer tests. Others adapted the project strategies to their existing beliefs and practices.
The book summarized a major, unresolved issue that the authors believed the district faced:
Another critical issue is to take seriously the common sense view of knowledge that is held by the educational community in the Summerville School District. This view is consistent with what has been clearly demonstrated by educational research in the last five years for the vast majority of schools in the United States. The continued use and support of, for the most part, fact-based textbooks, internal and external short answer examinations, teacher accountability based on achievement scores and the like represent merely the tangible testimony of objectivism, a belief system that supports the transmission of facts, the banking metaphor of learning, the commodity metaphor of knowledge.1
The authors suggested that until teachers and administrators examined their fundamental beliefs about teaching and learning, the daily conduct of the school would be largely untouched by innovation.
[Return to Table of Contents]
In 1988 Dr. Nancy Brenner was hired to replace the retiring principal. While the school was in good shape-
the previous principal had run a very good school, according to the superintendent-the high school was ready for change. During the 1988-89 school year, Dr. Brenner hosted after-lunch dessert sessions, at which she and the staff would explore ideas related to school reform. She studied and talked at length with teachers, students, and parents about what it might mean to join the Coalition of Essential Schools, and she invited parents in to examine the Coalition's nine Common Principles.2
During the 1989-90 school year, the staff voted to join the Coalition and to work toward translating the Common Principles into their daily practice. Over the next two years, the staff made a number of important changes, some related to the Coalition, others not:
- Special education students were mainstreamed so that they now attend classes with the rest of the students. They receive support from the special education staff in their regular classrooms and in resource rooms. Because they are a significant population, mainstreaming has had a major effect on almost everyone in the school.
- The staff implemented a six-day, nine-period, rotating schedule and added advanced placement biology to the other advanced placement courses.
- To ensure greater student participation in decisions made about the school, they established a Student- Faculty Congress and a Fairness Committee to hear student and faculty complaints about rules, procedures, and consequences.
- Two teams of interdisciplinary teachers, one in ninth and the other in tenth grade, joined forces in English and social studies.
- All ninth-grade students were enrolled in state board exam-level earth science in an effort to detrack and upgrade the level of science for all ninth graders.
- All ninth-grade English students moved forward with a portfolio of their writing; the development of progressive portfolios in English was the eventual aim.
- Staff have recently instituted and volunteered to coordinate "Seminar," a program designed to give kids a home base in the school. In Seminar, students discuss their academic progress, their personal lives, their class plans, and issues related to student government.
All of these changes required significant work, discussion, debate, experimentation, refinement, and reflection. Each required that staff and students think hard about familiar practices, imagine new possibilities, and find the courage to change. During the two years, the staff moved quickly on a number of fronts and demonstrated uncommon spirit and colleagueship in the pursuit of better schooling.
In October of 1991, Oak Hill, along with other high schools belonging to the Coalition, joined New Partners for Better Schools, a collaboration with the state department of education to develop systemic support for the kinds of changes the schools are trying to make. The governor had recently established new legislation which required that parents and students of every school be involved in the decision-making process within three years. While the legislation was vague, it was designed to involve schools in changes. Some staff and administration saw this new partnership as critical to their continued exploration of the nine Common Principles, as many of the current state requirements were in contradiction to the kinds of practices suggested by the Principles.
In the fall of 1991 a number of other projects were under way to experiment with changing practices in the school. In her annual opening speech to the faculty, Dr. Brenner expressed hope that the year might bring more connections between math, foreign languages, and the rest of the academic program; more breadth and depth in analysis of classroom practices; and exploration of portfolio assessment.
Teachers are responding; a number of them are exploring alternative methods and techniques. Mr. McDonough, the chemistry teacher, conducts mid-term interviews as an alternative to pencil-and-paper tests. Although these tests are time-consuming, he believes he can assess students' knowledge better with them than with conventional tests. Mr. Wiley, a math teacher, has his students work in groups to produce short videos to learn math concepts. Mary Shea, a science teacher, experiments with extended labs done outside the classroom. Mr. Lacer recently published an article on an integrated English-social studies unit he developed. Finally, the faculty as a group are exploring portfolio assessment.
Besides these changes in the program, there have been several changes in the building itself. The old wood and auto shops are under reconstruction to keep pace with current technological needs. The new technology center will include a lab and a student center which will have computer stations for student use.
Underneath its dignified façade and its calm setting, staff and students at Oak Hill High School seem poised at a familiar, but nonetheless disconcerting, juncture. A number of changes have been made. These have moved the staff off some of their old, very familiar paths. The terrain is as yet uncertain and fragile, and still, a number of paths stretch out before them. Some are very familiar, well worn, easily trod; others are less so. Still others veer off into sheer uncertainty. The staff intend to go further, but where? Should they pause to reflect while most practices are still familiar? What would be best for the kids? What might be better for those who live and work in Summerville? What would be best for those who work at the high school?
[Return to Table of Contents]
It was at this point that the School Change Study entered Oak Hill. Our first task was to take a quick "snapshot" of the school to attempt to capture what was going on inside and around Oak Hill. Our snapshot, which included conversations and classroom "close-ups," was intended to provide an overview of what happens at Oak Hill on a typical day.
First, we listened to students, teachers, administrators, and parents talk about the changes the school is attempting. Then, we took close-ups by visiting classrooms to better understand what is expected of the students and to better understand what teachers actually do. Once we had the snapshot of the whole, we examined all the parts in detail to see what questions the snapshot raised for the reader, the researchers, and for the people of Oak Hill High School.
It is important to realize that this snapshot does not represent the entire school; rather it is a sampling. Many important pieces of the school as a whole are missing: music, drama, physical education, counseling, the office, the library. The reader will not see, for example, how mainstreaming works in this school. These omissions have nothing to do with their perceived importance, and everything to do with the limits of time. We hope that later snapshots will include those elements not seen here.
[Return to Table of Contents]
The following section presents a reconstruction of conversations and interviews conducted at the school by the Oak Hill research team during the course of a week in October 1991.
Forty-seven students were interviewed during the week. These students were selected by a faculty member to represent a cross section of the student population. The conversation with students was reconstructed by creating composite students to represent the most common strands of students' issues and concerns. While actual quotations have been used, no individual statement represents the opinions of all forty-seven students we talked with, unless so indicated. At the same time, no quotation was included unless it represented an issue which emerged for several students. Students' names and gender have been changed to protect their anonymity.
The adult conversations were similarly reconstructed, using actual quotations which represent the general concerns of at least a small number of those interviewed. The parent interviews were conducted with only a few people, all of whom have had some involvement with the school, although a larger conversation was held with others at a group meeting. Because of the necessity of dealing with specific disciplines, it was more difficult to mask the identity of the adults within the school.
[Return to Table of Contents]
In the lunchroom, juniors and seniors are organizing and selling makeshift lunches and snacks to raise money for class functions. Meanwhile, a group of students from ninth, tenth, and eleventh grades has agreed to meet with us to discuss how their school is changing, what makes the school a good place to be, and what is most annoying.
They spend the majority of their time talking about the extracurricular activities in drama and athletics. They have ample opportunity to participate in these activities and a great variety from which to choose. They love the actual games and the performances. For many of them, they point out, it is the most absorbing part of their school experience. They appreciate getting to know their teachers outside the classroom as well as inside.
In addition, they talk a great deal about the advantages of a small school. While some believe it is too limiting, most of them agree that they have smaller classes than they would in a large school, their teachers know them well, and they can get help when they need it.
In their classes they like variety, choice, and the opportunity to do "real" things. They are willing to put forward more effort when the work seems meaningful to them. They prefer to study deeply rather than to skim the surface; at the same time, they are torn about the value of the state board exams. To some, the work they are given in school appears superficial and disconnected from their concerns, yet everyone also mentions assignments that they really enjoy.
Their relationships with their teachers are important to them. They agree that teachers in the school are dedicated and willing to help them. Clearly, the new Student-Faculty Congress is also important to them. They debate their role in it frequently. Told that they can make decisions, it seems to them more often than not that the adults are not totally honest in this regard. The students demonstrate that they are articulate about their experiences in school and willing to talk about them with seriousness.
We are interested in their thoughts on what actually happens while they are in classes. Their discussion weaves back and forth across a range of topics: Student-Faculty Congress, Seminar, changes in instruction, math, biology, English, and the effects of the state board exams.
Jeremy (a junior):
Not much has changed here, I don't think. At least, it doesn't seem much different to me. Kids go to class, they take notes, they listen, then they go to their next class, and then they get tested.
Tracy:
I don't agree with that. We did group work sometimes in ninth and tenth grade in English and social studies, and our teachers in ninth grade were working on integrated stuff . . . and the writing process-we had to get peer response on our work. What about Student-Faculty Congress and the Fairness Committee?
Jeremy:
You're right. All those things have happened, but we don't see much of it in eleventh grade, and I'm not sure that Congress is any different than regular Student Council. Dr. Brenner controls it pretty tight.
Lyle (a sophomore):
Some students really feel that the Congress is a farce. It hasn't clicked for everybody. Until that happens, you're not really going to get student support for the Congress, and you're not going to get the changes. So, you know, it's kinda a circle . . . until you get student interest, you aren't going to get the changes.
Sean (a sophomore):
When I came into the Congress, I thought there was a majority of kids on the Congress so that we could do stuff that we really wanted to do. But then we came up against the board of education and the state law, so we couldn't actually deal with curriculum, we could only deal with a few other things in the school.
Tracy:
Everybody has the opportunity to participate. If kids would only pay attention in Seminar, tell their representatives what they want, and then come to Congress, we could make changes.
Jeremy:
Seminar is doughnut time. What a waste! Everyone sits around talking. Nobody listens.
Tanis:
Our representatives don't represent us! They go to Congress and say what they want.
Tanya:
I've noticed that the sophomore Seminar teachers are really trying to make sure we accomplish something this year in Seminar. They don't really seem to be sure of what it is they want to accomplish, but they know there must be something there of importance for us to learn. Every six days we have a sophomore Seminar agenda meeting. They try to rotate kids into the meeting, and we make suggestions about what will be discussed in Seminar.
We need to do two things-we need to raise money, and we need to select a theme. In both cases, the teachers have vetoed our ideas, even though students disagreed with them. In the beginning, they made it seem as though the students would be basically in control. We mistakenly thought we would have some responsibilities. I suppose the support of the teachers is definitely a plus, but I think it would have been good for us to have been able to make our own decisions.
Tracy:
What about the smoking area? We won that.
Another student:
Yeah, but what about eligibility?
[Eligibility, new through the Congress last year, requires that students be in good standing in their classes to participate in extracurricular activities.]
Jerry:
Yeah. Teachers decide independently if a student is ineligible. On the surface, it sounds great. But teachers are going hog-
wild and using eligibility in all kinds of ways. In health you are ineligible if you don't have a pen. In Spanish you are ineligible if you have a failing test average. You are ineligible in gym if you take two zeros. Eligibility was invented to help students to get their work done. Some teachers are now using it whenever a student messes up.
The conversation turns to their personal lives. Many of the kids feel that Dr. Brenner is over-involved in their lives outside of school. She seems to know where parties are and hauls students into her office for what they do on the weekends. Disgruntled and in agreement, they share a number of examples.
The conversation then returns to whether instruction is changing in the school.
Sean:
About change . . . I've heard that the Coalition is working to make changes in the school in the way things are taught. Instead of the teacher standing up and lecturing, it's more the student-as-worker, teacher-as-coach type thing. All through elementary school and middle school, you're sitting there and listening to this person talk and talk and talk through the entire class, and sometimes it's boring as hell.
If the changes come through, you're going to have to work a little harder to learn the things yourself, with help from the teacher. It's most likely a better way of learning because you probably remember it better if you sit there and actually learn it yourself instead of just writing it down and studying it the night before the test.
It's not happening in all classes. It's hard to do in math. I think a lot of change is up to the teacher, since it's really up to them what we do in class. In science she told us to go and summarize a chapter and teach it to the class, and we did it; in math you have to sit there and listen, so we listen and take notes. It's really up to the teachers how much it changes.
Tim:
I don't think the Coalition is working in every subject. You can't really do student-as-worker in math. I think you have to lecture in math. The book is confusing. If you have questions, the book won't answer them.
Tanya:
Everybody says that math is a class you can't use Coalition methods in-you have to teach it the traditional way. I don't agree. I feel that it is important that we look for new methods of teaching math, because it seems to be a class that the majority of students have problems with, and it is also the class in which people seem to blame their teacher for their troubles. Math seems to be a class that you have to understand your teacher's train of thought, otherwise you can get lost even on simple things. I like the idea of time being allocated to work with another person in the class, one-on-one.
The discussion about math is lengthy. Many of the students admit that they have problems. In some classes, students are assigned homework they cannot do. They feel trapped by having to do work for which they are unprepared.
"I can't do the homework from dittos when I don't understand what the words mean."
"The worst part about math is that it is the same almost every day. There is no variety, and that can be so boring."
Some kids report a similar situation in one of their language classes: the same every day. On that issue, the kids agree-doing the same thing every day is hard on them.
The conversation returns to the kinds of changes students are seeing in other classes, and from one grade to the next.
Mark:
It's become more [of a] student-helping-student kind of thing. In science, our teacher gives us assignments. Every couple of weeks we do a report; he doesn't teach anything. In English, we don't get a lot of response from the teacher; we've really been doing it ourselves. In social studies, every time we have a draft we give it to a friend and he proofreads it.
But there are some classes that really haven't changed and I don't think they will. Most of my classes are not interesting. We don't do anything that means anything. I can't see any connection between what we do and my life. It's so hard to get interested in it.
Students in the ninth grade believe that high school is harder than middle school and that their teachers expect a lot more from them. One says:
In English, we have to write a lot and do a lot of drafts. When we write, our teacher writes too, so she is not watching over us. She can really teach. Sometimes she does activities which don't make sense at first, but we have learned to bear with it because in the end we find out.
Sam (a ninth-grader):
What's good in social studies is we used to skim the surface; now we go into depth and learn more. You are a native of a particular country you have adopted. The point is to find out who the people are and what their culture is like.
Sarah (a ninth-grader):
Yeah. The way we're writing this is really good. You have to write as if you're living it. You learn from other people. You have to pay attention.
Karen, a sophomore, says school has made her a mediocre student because it is so boring. But she continues:
The adopt-a-country project was my favorite. I worked on Tiananmen Square with Sally. Sally is really smart, and so I had to do a lot to keep up. I didn't want her thinking that I was just hanging onto her work. We worked on the weekends and after school and did a newscast. We spliced films together, wrote our papers, and everything. I still know a lot about Tiananmen Square.
The juniors note that they can see the differences in teaching in the ninth- and tenth-grade years but can no longer see them in eleventh grade. They debate about which way is better. Their English teacher this year does not have them write drafts in the way their ninth- and tenth-grade teachers did. Their teacher this year is more critical of their writing, and it is harder to know how to do what he wants and how to revise a piece of work. They debate whether he is hard on them to better prepare them for college.
The topic turns to the state board exams and the tension between coverage of the curriculum and depth of understanding. All of the students wonder how much the state board exam has to do with the kind of instruction they get. The kids agree that they cannot delve into things too deeply because they have too much to cover.
Cheri:
Doesn't feel like we get enough opportunity to learn.
Jeremy:
The state board exam is idiotic. It doesn't measure your intelligence. It's whether you can memorize or not.
Tim:
I think it is better to focus on something than to cover it superficially. I think this is good, but we're falling behind. For instance, we have global studies and we have been studying the Armenian massacre. The state board exam doesn't cover it. We spent a week on it. You learn a lot from that-you learn that it's not just the Armenians, it's the Jews in World War II. It happens to a lot of people. I think it is better that we do it the Coalition way, but for the test we are now a week behind and we have to do everything more quickly.
Howard (a junior):
I always wanted to learn more about the Incas, but we didn't have time.
The kids agree that they like to go into more depth than they do now when they are studying a topic.
They debate whether one of their tenth-grade teachers, who was very annoying but got them through the state board exam, was a good teacher or not. Clearly, those who had taken the state board exam were grateful because they did well. They described him as hard-working, difficult to understand, hard to access, and very caring. The current sophomores agree with the analysis, but the group does not come to consensus about the value of the exam or its relationship to good teaching.
The discussion moves to the instructional changes the kids experience in biology:
"In biology, we do reports and then we have to, like, teach the rest of the class, and it's hard for some kids to learn that way."
"And it's just as boring as when the teacher teaches. We are still sitting there taking notes."
"It's really hard for me as a student to teach myself, to just go read a book."
"I'm really bad about teaching, especially when I don't understand what I'm talking about."
Tim:
Yeah, that's a problem. I did my report on specieization
[sic]. I worked really hard so that I knew it. I could explain it. I read and read and read until I got it. I liked doing this. But not all the kids understood what they were explaining, so I am not sure that this approach is working all that well.
Tanya:
Last week we learned about mitosis. It was one of the first times this year that we learned about something from our teacher first. Usually someone in the class has to teach an idea, and then if everyone is confused, she tries to get it all cleared up for us. I'm glad she taught us this because it is an important idea that could get confusing if taught wrong.
On Friday we did a lab on genetics-dominant and recessive genes. Depending on your genes, some people can taste certain chemicals and others can't. It was fun. Some students were running out in the hall to get a drink of water because the paper tasted so disgusting to them, while others were sitting there, frustrated but laughing because they couldn't taste anything. I could only taste one of the chemicals very lightly.
I think this lab worked well because I know the information I learned from it will stick in my mind. I think that's one of the main problems a lot of us have with learning: it's not that we don't understand it, it's just that we have problems remembering what we've learned; and simple memorization of facts does not work, though many teachers don't seem to agree with that.
The talk moves to how they like to learn, what they enjoy, and what they find frustrating.
"We need to study stuff so that it means something to us."
"Yeah, we like to discuss, to argue, to hear different points of view."
"At least we want to hear about things that are interesting, things you are involved in in your life. You can get into things if you care about them."
It is very annoying, they say, to study things they cannot relate to. The sophomores who are taking French debate whether studying pronunciation and the history of France is really helping them to learn more French. They all agree, though, that the trip to France is a big "carrot" and that their class is too big-twenty-
seven students.
Continuing, they describe those assignments or classes in which they have expended the greatest energy.
"If whatever we are doing is interesting, then we really are willing to put time into it. A lot of what we do is superficial."
"We like to work together, in a more relaxed atmosphere."
"We like variety."
"I like to choose what I get to do, but we hardly ever get to. I wanted to start my community service requirement a year early but couldn't."
"Sometimes it seems to me like we could choose how we want to do something."
"A lot of our teachers are our friends. Some of them, like Ms. Stewart, develop real relationships with us. We can go to them when we need help."
"Our classes are small so our teachers have time to help us."
"I don't dislike any of my teachers as people. I just get angry sometimes with their teaching methods. One of my teachers argues a lot with the class. I hate that!"
"I know that our teachers are out there trying the best they can all the time. So you may credit them with really trying to help us."
"To be a teacher, you must be intelligent and educated. To be a great teacher, you must be able to make children understand."
As they pack up to go back to class, we scan the littered lunchroom. As they go, the students debate whose responsibility the cleanup is:
"The janitors get paid to do it."
"Shouldn't kids pick up after themselves?"
"What are the janitors there for?"
"There aren't enough garbage cans and the few there are are already full. . . ."
These are students who are used to discussing rights and responsibilities.
[Return to Table of Contents]
The faculty room is a lively place-bright and cheery. Many teachers and administrators gather before school, during planning periods, and after school to talk, eat, catch up, and check their mailboxes. There are frequent outbursts of laughter, deeply personal conversations in quiet corners, and rousing professional exchanges.
While they may not see each other with regularity outside of school, the faculty describe themselves as good professional colleagues. They respect each other and have learned over the years to accept differences in opinion about how things should be done. There is a marked lack of the divisiveness between those who want to change and those who don't that is a major stumbling block in so many schools across the country. It dis- tinguishes this group and makes them most unusual. As a group, they seem willing to consider better practices while allowing different points of entry and differences in beliefs about how things should be done.
Today, the faculty's conversation is focused on their school, their students, and the changing context of their work place. As the conversation moves back and forth, the faculty illuminate several topics of importance to them: whether the change they are engaged in is real and pervasive enough; Nancy Brenner, their principal; the state board exams; the nine Common Principles; and finally, what they want and where they are going.
Jane Leonard, who has been at Oak Hill for six years and teaches on one of the interdisciplinary teams, starts the conversation.
While some things have changed, we have to look to see if they've really changed. We have adopted a rotating schedule, but other than the fact that it rotates, I don't think we use the time any differently. We are still basically forty minutes a block. Kids stop and start every forty minutes just like they do all over the country.
Several of her colleagues disagree; they think that the schedule is rejuvenating. Abby Steiner, a social studies teacher, believes that change is more pervasive:
When Nancy brought the Seminar idea to us two years ago, she wanted kids to have some place to go with their problems. A close relationship with the students takes time, but it has been much more gratifying than time-consuming. I see kids in a different light. One of my student's father is on chemotherapy. Another student is a dancer and spends six hours a night dancing. The Seminar has taught me that school is only one part of their lives.
[Also,] I'm working with Margaret Michaels to integrate English and social studies this year. We are teaching the Middle Ages now. She is reading Chaucer while we discuss feudalism. We try to line up periods of history. Everyone is involved. Everybody's doing an Exhibition.3 Everybody is working in groups. Many are doing portfolios. It's rejuvenating.
Tom Lacer (who works closely with Abby):
Everybody? I don't think that's true. I think everyone likes being part of a changing place, but not many people want to change themselves. I think we have a long way to go before everybody is involved.
Alta O'Malley (who has been teaching for more than thirty years and has seen her own teaching change significantly):
When I first started teaching, I would go home and read the whole chapter; [in class I would] lecture and put notes up on the board. Kids would copy them down, and then at the end of each chapter we would have a test.
Right now in our state board exam science class, we're finishing up a chapter on evolution, and I had kids pick a role of someone representing a particular theory. For instance, one would be Darwin, another LeMarc or Devries, and they would have to explain their theory, and the other kids in the class would ask questions. I would chip in if I noticed a particular question or point they had missed. In AP, they do the same thing on their own. Instead of me outlining the chapter, they are responsible for reading and outlining the chapter and formulating their own questions. They use the text as their primary source, but I also ask them to consult one other source.
I am working with Abby on some interdisciplinary work. What's very exciting about the Coalition is the idea that there might still be a better way of doing things, that we can help kids to learn better by trying something new.
Donna Martin (a health teacher):
Some of the changes are not for the best. I worked for months on a unit to help kids quit smoking and then Congress passed a smoking area.
The conversation turns to the principal, Nancy Brenner, and some of the ideas she has brought to the school, like the Student-Faculty Congress.
Tom:
Nancy started the Student-Faculty Congress so that the kids have some means by which to get involved-to understand democracy. We can talk about the system of checks and balances as they work here. The kids can really see how it works.
Steve:
Last year Nancy vetoed the kids' request to have a wine glass as a memento of the prom. The kids took her to Fairness Committee.
Alta:
I think Congress gives the kids a real voice.
Mary:
Nancy just vetoed the sophomore waiver of PE. The sophomores were hoping that, like the juniors and the seniors, they might be exempted from PE if they were involved in after-school sports programs. I feel as if adults always dominate in schools, no matter how hard we try to do otherwise.
Emily:
Nancy has created a strong academic focus here. She has lots of energy, she is bright and has great intellectual curiosity. Schools and how kids learn is of high intellectual interest to her. It's a happy conjunction of talents and interests.
The staff move back and forth between celebrating the principal's energy, acknowledging that the school is a more exciting place to work than ever before, and airing their feelings about issues she has raised related to change. Some staff suggest that they are curious to know whether change is an option in the school anymore. Someone else raises the issue of absenteeism and tardiness, problems that are unresolved between the faculty and the administration.
Nearly everyone agrees that Nancy encourages and supports experimentation and makes a wide range of experiences available to the faculty. Ken Fried remarks wryly that "what people want here is a visionary leader who cleans the cafeteria."
Mary Shea says that Nancy encouraged her when it was difficult for her to try new things, since she had already experienced a great deal of success. "I can tell you it has been painful to get me to move off the beaten track. And I would never have done it if it hadn't been for Nancy." Mary designed two new kinds of labs for her science classes and moved all ninth-grade students into state board exam-level earth science. She says,
I had tremendous success on the state board exam. I thought I was doing things right. I didn't want to change. I thought I was using the nine Common Principles in labs. Students worked with other students and I coached. I only helped them when they needed to move on to the next step. I wanted them to figure it out themselves. I thought that I was an engaging teacher. I don't give volumes of notes. I thought they were doing hands-on things and that they were involved. It's hard to understand that what you think you've been doing is not what you think you've been doing.
Anyway, I was confused because Nancy wants the kids to do well on the state board exam but wants me to experiment with new things. So, I backed off and tried to let go. Letting go for the kids is the hardest. I developed a lab where kids had to record cycles of the moon. I had no idea if it was going to work. The kids came in and started talking science to me. I was shocked. They became more curious about what was going on. They learned about "frame of reference" when they needed it. Didn't matter whether they were the smart kids, the bright kids; they all enjoyed it. They were using terms like analysis, angles of declination, ascension, tide markers, compasses.
They enjoyed it. But we lost time. It was wonderful and it was a good experience, but I was two weeks behind at the end of the year. The excitement is seeing the kids involved in science. Refreshing. Kind of got me out of the [rut of]
"start at the beginning of the year and run the race without looking left or right."
The conversation turns to focus on the state board exams, which are given in a variety of academic subjects. This is not an exam in the basic requirements, but one which indicates accomplishment in more rigorous course work. Those who teach state board exam subjects are much more constrained in what they teach than those who do not.
Abby:
From September to May, I try to do essential questions.4 In May I finish the curriculum and spend an entire month studying for the state board exam. I feel that as long as we have the state board exam, we can't do any more.
Bill:
And the requirements are growing. I see it both as a help and a hindrance. I think that they are standards that can be used with thousands of kids. Covering a little bit of everything has a positive side to it. We don't have depth in any one place, which may be the lesser of two evils. But it is a hindrance to substantial experimentation.
John Nelson (a math teacher):
It works for public relations-makes for a degree that means something. It is a syllabus that has only been around for thirteen years. It is just getting wide acceptance around the state. Overall, in math it covers the things you need to know if you want to go on in mathematics.
Ken:
Well, we have the new partnership with the state department of education, which suggests that we be given consideration if we want to challenge the state board exam. I am confused about our agreement with the state, the Coalition, and the governor's New Partnership for Better Schools. I don't understand the relationship between the three.
Emily:
Me, too. [Several people nod agreement.]
After a moment's lull in the conversation while everyone thinks about the various components of change in their state and school, the discussion turns to the nine Common Principles. When someone says, "I struggle with the nine Common Principles," many agree.
For instance, some believe that the brief aphorism "less is more" is illogical and out of sync with the program they have carefully constructed over the years. It is also out of step with the state board exams, which demand that teachers cover a broad range of topics quickly, and with the advanced placement courses, which come with a full curriculum that cannot be reduced if the students are to do well. Some of the faculty do not want to reduce to less; some of the teachers believe that the Principles require unstructured learning and a curriculum that revolves around student interest.
One teacher brings up another area the faculty find confusing: essential questions.
What are essential questions? Who should think them up? What makes them "essential"? Essential for whom? Biology teachers can go into raptures about all the things they think are essential, because they happen to really like biology. Do kids need to know all the things biology teachers would call essential, or should the general public let us know what is essential?
Nina Giambello:
I have a hard time figuring out the interdisciplinary stuff-teacher-as-
generalist. With computers it's easy because computers can be used anywhere, but it's harder with math and with languages.
Jane:
I wonder what would happen if Tom and I just grouped our classes and said the kids get one credit in social studies and one in English. Things are still very teacher-centered here. I'd like to push some of the Principles further.
Bill:
I wonder about "student-as-worker" and "using their minds well" and "student engagement." Some subjects just have to be learned. Unless you know some chemistry, you're going to have a hard time discussing the role that chemistry plays in our society.
Mike Torno:
About "student-as-worker" and being a "generalist" . . . I like to give the kids information and let them take that and apply it. For instance, the students have to design a beam, and I give them a certain amount of wood and tell them they have to span so much space. The things that they come up with are totally amazing.
Then the kids come to reducing a fraction. Some of them don't have the skill to do that. So I have to jump into math and do a lesson on that. The kids can see why they need to do that; but, again, the basic skill is not something anyone wants to have a party about doing. You've got to knock heads, and you have to put it in there and drill it and drill it and give an exam on it.
Bill (who worries whether changing the way he teaches chemistry will be detrimental to the kids):
I'm concerned that we as a nation are slipping behind so many other countries in the world. If I graduate a bunch of very happy people who have learned some chemistry, but can't go on and take a decent chemistry course in college and can't go on and work in industry because of that, then I haven't really done my job.
Amy:
I think we need to prepare kids to do things.
Trisha:
I think we need to teach kids to plug through things.
Sarah:
I would really like to come out of this with a better understanding of the balance between rigor and the disciplines. If you read a newspaper article on acid rain, you ought to have some knowledge of what acid rain is and what causes it. You can't get on your crusading white horse unless you've got some knowledge of what is causing the problem and how to solve it. You need that background.
Several teachers raises some broad concerns about the Common Principles.
Initially my feeling was that the Principles sounded very sensible. As time has gone on, I am concerned that they have become a new orthodoxy. The longer this goes on the more vague the Principles become. "Less is more," "authentic," "essential" . . . what do these words mean? Some days, I feel an orthodoxy closing in on me.
Robert:
I don't believe in all nine. Some of them are excellent. Others I can't bring myself to accept. I don't believe that less is more in math.
Ken:
I think that we are moving, and Oak Hill is now a much more vibrant place to work. It was never a bad place to work, but I needed the intellectual ferment that has come with the investigation of the nine Principles. I needed the discussion of educational issues.
Thoughtful, the staff falls to silence. John acknowledges that change is hard to accept:
You know, as a parent and as a citizen, I want the best for kids. At the same time, we are traditionalists. We want the same things for the kids as we had, but the world is changing. I want mom, apple pie, Chevrolet, and baseball for this school.
Amy:
I want the freedom and the good atmosphere we have here to do things better.
Alta:
Still, it is a bit foggy out there. There is still a big question about what it should look like. I've been to a few schools and conferences, and the people I talk with don't seem to know much more about what an Essential school should look like. So, I can't see what we're headed towards. I know you do things like essential questions and Exhibitions and portfolios, that aren't totally new ideas, although the idea of using these as the requirements for graduation is an extreme idea. I'm not quite sure where we are going and how different it will be from what we have now!
Warren:
I think that this is a problem. I think the school is grasping at all kinds of straws. We don't have a focus. We are doing too many things, going in too many directions without really looking to see if the things we have done have merit.
Again, there is a lull. Jane, sensing that it is time to stop, sums up:
Truth is, we have just begun the conversation, done some initial first steps. We have hit the crunch point. Now the stuff gets really, really difficult. We are now talking about teachers functioning in other ways and collaborating in changing the way they look at time and what they ask of kids. The driving force of the course may no longer be the test that we are giving in two weeks or at the end of the year. I see that as a huge jump. I'm not sure what needs to happen for that, for people to feel that the leap is worth taking. And that is where we are.
[Return to Table of Contents]
One evening we meet with a group of thirty-six parents to talk about the school, the study, and the changes the school is making. Summerville is a small place; the parents know each other from various school functions over the years. The atmosphere is comfortable, easy; clearly, the parent community is interested in and supports the children, the teachers, and the school.
The parents ask informed questions: What are the nine Common Principles? Where did they come from? Isn't parent involvement the critical factor in a good educational program? How is parental involvement changing across the country? What should our role be? Once their questions are asked and answered, most of the parents leave to return home.
After the formal meeting, a few parents settle in around a table in the library for a more focused conversation. The talk shifts to their personal experiences with the school. Rita Shore, who has a special- needs ninth-grader, tells how recent changes have affected her son.
School has been tough for him. He spent years in self-contained classrooms in a basement with one teacher. Now he is mainstreamed. The fact that he is mainstreamed is such a boost to his ego. He feels good about himself at the time when most adolescents don't. And he's not out there on his own; he has a network of support. We are thrilled about it.
Susan Parker has been involved in the school for a number of years. One son just graduated. Her second son, who is in tenth grade, has had difficulties in school because of a learning disability. He has always had resource room help for some part of his day. Originally she opposed mainstreaming because she thought it would penalize the students. She explains how she feels:
I became indoctrinated at a meeting where Nancy and the special education teachers presented their plan to the parents. Even though my son isn't in a self-contained classroom, I began to see how kids' self-esteem is diminished when they cannot interact with everyone else. Nancy changed my mind a second time.
I used to teach, and so I feel that I know a lot about schools. I was not in favor of the Coalition because I felt that it was probably another experimental program which would leave our kids with fewer skills.
Nancy brought thirty to forty parents together to begin to explore the Coalition. She asked people to talk about what they actually remembered from their high school careers. We went around the room. It came down to when they had been in a play or a sporting event. All of the examples were Exhibitions-demonstra-
tions of what they could do. It drove the message home to parents that when kids have to show what they know, they work harder.
Then we had a more general conversation about the Coalition Principles. I got it very clearly in that meeting. I understood and I'm very supportive. I also think Dr. Brenner is an excellent role model for young women, and she is very impressive with a crowd.
Rita:
Several years ago, we talked about deadwood in the high school. Now friends who sent their kids to private or parochial schools want to come to the high school. Things have turned around since Dr. Brenner arrived. Teachers are more involved, parents are more involved. You get the feeling that the teachers have a voice.
Moira Christian:
I am very excited about the changes in the school and I see it in three ways: the kind of language that I hear teachers using as they talk about teaching and kids; the element of respect, kids to kids and teacher to teacher; and the leadership in the building-change has taken place in a relatively short period of time.
I am excited about the Seminar program doing things like teaching kids about their learning styles and providing kids with a mentor to interact with other teachers on behalf of the students. I'm enthusiastic about the interdisciplinary teaming and the topics -the Holocaust and the Renaissance that are scheduled for this year. I think the Congress is great-to give kids a voice. I think all these things are great! I'm all for them.
The trouble is that I don't hear what I'm hearing from the principal and the teachers from my daughter. I guess I'm not seeing it reflected in my child or at least not hearing her say some of the things that I see. Sometimes I think we see two different worlds. I walk through the school, and I'm excited and I hear the teachers talking. I mean, it has to be going on, and yet I don't necessarily see it reflecting back with Neta. There is a real level of frustration in that. Where's the love of learning for her?
Susan:
Both of my kids have had a math teacher who is very rigid. I have argued with him several times. He uses the same stuff year after year after year. But he is using peer tutoring sometimes. Another teacher is having the kids make presentations. The social studies and English teachers are integrating. Tommy has done a film with a couple of friends on a myth. They worked hours and hours on it-
after school, a whole weekend. I couldn't believe the amount of energy they poured into that assignment. While it may be a small change in some cases, at least I am seeing it.
Moira:
Last year was better. We could see more then. The kids had to do something with the moon or the tides and the phases of the moon. They had to keep a journal and they had to keep some kind of a data record and they had to draw some conclusions. That was very engaging. Neta did the tides of the Summerville River, and she went out to measure it at eight o'clock every night and had to keep track of when the moon came out. She was religious about doing this!
This year, though, she's in biology. It all seems to be coming from the textbook. Although I think the teacher has a real interest and love for ecology and the environment, the class seems to be a lot of textbook lecture. And she says in Seminar they just get together and sit around.
Marv Freeman:
You know, I had a lot of kids come through this school. Seven, I think. Yeah, seven. My daughter Kitty had to adopt a country two years ago. I'm telling you, she and her friends were on the phone talking about it every night. I know; the phone is in the living room! They worked on it on the weekend. I called Tom Lacer and said, "Whatever you're doing, do more of it. With all my kids, I have never seen anybody work so hard!" To be honest with you, Kitty isn't the star pupil in the family either.
Moira:
Don't get me wrong. I'm hopeful. I have a lot of confidence in Nancy Brenner. She is a real reader-up on these things. If something isn't working or looking right, she's checking it out, asking questions.
Susan:
I'm waiting for them to throw out the state board exam. Wouldn't that be great?
The group considers the implications. What would that mean? More Exhibitions? They were all for that. How would the kids get into college? What would the state say? Would the teachers want that?
It is getting late. As the parents move out to their cars, they mull over the possibilities. The group is open to them but they need more information.
The parents reveal interesting perspectives. While we have visited with too few to draw any general conclusions, those with whom we talked seem supportive of change and supportive of the school. Three see evidence of the changes under way in their children's work; one sees the evidence in the school but does not see it through her child. They all agree that the school is more academically focused and energetic than in previous years. Given adequate information, they appear willing to entertain more changes.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Nancy's door opens as she concludes a discussion with the student-body president about whether Congress has the right to discuss Nancy's involvement in their personal lives. She switches gears as we come in and begins by describing her respect for the faculty and students of Oak Hill.
I came here from two previous school districts-both were exciting places to be. I wondered whether I'd like it here; at first it seems like a sleepy kind of place. Fortunately for me, everyone I have worked with has been just great. I feel lucky to be here. The superintendent has taught me a great deal and has been very supportive. The faculty is willing to tackle new challenges. The kids are, too. So are the parents.
She pauses for a minute and then describes what it is she and the faculty are working on.
Every year, I give a speech at the beginning of the year. I track whether we actually do the things I hope we'll do. So far, our record is good. We hope to establish shared goals for all kids. I think that mainstreaming and state board exam science for all ninth-graders is a step in that direction. We hope for rigor for all, shared decision making, parental involvement. We hope to create a caring environment for kids and to prepare kids to participate in a democracy.
One of her speeches, she says, draws on ideas from Joseph Featherstone:
At both universities and schools, there is a relationship between the means-how education is taught- and the ends-citizens capable of taking part for a lifetime in communities of free thought and action. Students can't learn to be active citizens in a democratic community if they are treated as passive ciphers. Similarly, school teachers who are treated as cogs in the great school machine will scarcely look the equals of kings in front of their students. Active learning and active teaching are essen-
tials for democratic education, and passivity at all levels is its enemy.5
Nancy values good scholarship and is always reading and passing good things along to the staff. She still likes Featherstone's point.
I believe that, and I believe we're trying to do that with the Congress and with the Fairness Committee. We've developed a Seminar program to help support the kids. This is moving along slowly; the role is foreign to many of the staff. It's hard to figure out how to spend the time and to ensure that it is meaningful for the kids.
A small, lean, attractive woman, Nancy looks to be the human embodiment of professional energy, not dither nor bounce, but purposeful energy. She articulates her thoughts clearly and with precision. She doesn't waste words, nor does she over-simplify or aggrandize what the school is trying to do. She always sees it as a work-in-progress.
This year, we're exploring portfolio assessment. I hope to link math, the foreign languages, the other electives, with other classes so that kids can see the connections. We have to go deeper in our analysis of classroom practices. I think we've made important structural changes here. It is now time to make the personal/professional changes in daily practice.
Change is, needless to say, difficult. We take it one step at a time. Everybody has to grapple with this on their own. It is not something that can be mandated. I am appreciative of the fact that the faculty is willing to pursue better schooling. They have voted on everything that we are doing; we are very collaborative here. Without their support, their agreement to try new things, we would be conducting school as usual, no question. I spend my time removing the barriers for people when they figure out what they want to do. People have started at different places-one person starts with a lesson plan. Another starts by experimenting with alter- native assessment. We didn't move from one grade level to another here; the staff had their own ideas about what they wanted to do.
When I really let myself dream, sometimes I think about a school day where math and foreign language were at the ends of the day and staff worked on interdisciplinary teams and took responsibility for the middle. Wouldn't that be exciting? Other days, I see different possible configurations. The faculty will shape their vision as we move along.
Her energy level rises as she dreams. She turns from dreaming to her frustrations and worries.
Sometimes it is frustrating for me. I am a cheerleader, and that's what I need to be. People need encouragement when they try new things. Often the changes I see are beginning steps. I understand that people must move at their own pace, and so I cheer away. I worry sometimes that I mislead people. As I cheer, do I lead them to believe that the changes we've made are enough? I try to be honest, to be supportive, to recognize differences, and remain true to my own values and hopes. I also struggle with the budget. Going to conferences and visiting other schools helps us all to consider what we're doing. Like everybody else, we face limited resources. Complicated business!
The phone rings. It's the local media. Nancy had called the reporter earlier to let her know about the letter the school has just received from the state, promising support for change. They make an appointment so Nancy can explain it further.
I am also aware that this will be a tough year all by itself. We negotiate the contract every three years. This is a contract year, in the midst of diminishing resources. The superintendent is retiring and Karl, the vice principal, is too. Both have been terrific to work with; I will miss them both. So we have many decisions to make, more hurdles. . .
Karl pokes his head in. Nancy is needed in the back. A water main has broken as a result of the digging in the football field. She grins and says, "Did I mention that we have an old building?" and races off. Karl walks out with us to survey the damage. He says:
Frankly, I am sorry I am retiring. I am having a better time here than I have in years. I call her "The White Tornado." She has good ideas and the energy of a tornado. There is no petty crap with Nancy. No sign-in. She pushes. The faculty respect her as a true leader. With the dicky-do stuff, she stinks. She's been a quick study here, read what the village wanted-quick to praise, quick to point out what could be better. And the staff knows that they're not going to be at the end of a branch and get sawn off!
The current school situation is like a great cloudy day. We are seeing more sun than ever before-it comes in patches. What is exciting about seeing more sun through the clouds is seeing combinations of teachers working together. That helps everybody get stronger.
Without staff development, nothing would have happened. It was not twisting arms, but expanding minds, opening the eyes, clearing out the ears, and pushing people out to go visit other places. Teachers here are less reluctant to share. Their self-esteem and self-confidence are continually going up, the way she treats them. They're varsity players. They feel like they're on the starting team. . . . Yeah, I never thought of that before. They feel confident that they're doing a good job. This has always been a caring school. But it's more in focus now, more confident and more academic.
As we round a corner, we can see water spilling out across the parking lot. Karl acknowledges the mess and hurries forward, still talking.
"Less is more" is my favorite. I'd like to teach about a just war. Gimme a war, any war. We could get into the causes of all wars by looking at one, then letting kids pick a different one they'd like to know more about-a lot better than the chronological approach.
The administrators are enthusiastic and energetic, yet they are thoughtful, too. They acknowledge that the school community supports change, but that change is complicated. Administrators have to re-create their roles just as teachers do; they, like the teachers, feel their way as they go. Nancy recognizes that there are a number of paradoxical tensions as she recasts her role: cheerleading, giving staff accurate feedback on progress, allowing staff to establish their own pace while working to move the school forward, encouraging them to establish their own agenda, and providing leadership. She worries about the appropriate balance between these tensions, while at the same time caring a great deal for the school community.
[Return to Table of Contents]
We look in classrooms for two reasons: to better understand what students' experiences are like in this school and to see evidence of the kinds of changes teachers, parents, and students describe-changes they believe provide students with more engaging and rigorous work than they had before.
During our week-long visit, the study team visited twenty-two classrooms, from which we have selected nineteen to describe. The ones we chose represent a sample of the kinds of instruction we saw. These nineteen "close-ups" are presented as we saw them, without analysis. They do not reflect the full range of activities a student might encounter during the course of a given unit; they represent a single day taken out of context, and should be considered in light of this and other limitations.
You as the reader do not know what instruction has come before or what comes next, nor do you know the students-which ones have special needs or who is in the midst of a personal dilemma that affects classroom behavior. You don't know what day it is-a Friday, sixth period before a big game; or a Tuesday, first period on a rainy day. Furthermore, all disciplines are not represented. Still, brief as they are, these close-ups do reflect what students report to be activities they experience frequently.
Classrooms are private places where common practices have endured for many years. For the last century, teachers have worked behind classroom doors, conducting and scrutinizing lessons alone, without the benefit of collaborative examination. Teachers who are currently practicing were taught to teach by teachers who used these same practices. We believe that the examination of classroom practices is not common in most schools; we believe that the staff at Oak Hill demonstrate great professional courage as they open their class-
room doors to reveal long-private domains.
Selecting from these nineteen close-ups, one can picture a day in which students experience a range of activities. Each classroom has its own pace and places its own set of demands on students. Old but important questions aid us in the examination of classroom work: What are kids doing in the classroom? What are the teachers doing? How many kids are involved? Do the kids have to think? Is the thinking they are doing rigorous? Are they gaining experience that will help them meet the school's goals, that will help them parti-
cipate in a democracy?
[Return to Table of Contents]
Mr. Nelson works at the board while students are seated in rows at their desks. Writing an equation, he asks the students to determine the laws at play in it. Some students call out suggestions, and he works out their suggestions on the board. When students spot errors, they call them out. He gives explanations as he goes and connects their questions to things they know. The pace is brisk. Students take notes. A couple of the kids get it; others don't. Some of those ask questions; others sit quietly. Students and teacher exchange comments easily. He reminds them that calculus emerged after years of mathematical study-it is a complex subject. He assigns problems 23 through 40 for homework, as many as they need to do to make sure that they understand what they are doing.
[Return to Table of Contents]
The students are reviewing for a quiz by themselves. Mr. Macon paces back and forth, clarifying frequently what will and what will not be on the quiz, even though the students are not asking (e.g., postulates, definitions, logic, proof, reflexive, symmetric, transitive, addition, subtraction). "There won't be any theorems-and no geometry." The kids seem nervous. They ruffle pages of notes. The teacher seems ill at ease, too. He demonstrates the first problem on the board and acknowledges that everyone will at least get the first question right. He hands out the quiz. Students stuff notes away and go to work. Someone asks, "How much will this quiz count for?" Mr. Macon replies, "Well, it's a double-edged sword, isn't it? The kids who are prepared want it to be worth their while, and those who are failing won't want it to be worth anything. I'll see how you do."
[Return to Table of Contents]
Working in groups, students are reviewing their homework on irrational and real numbers. They review for ten minutes while Mr. Wiley moves from group to group. Then, he moves to the front of the room and announces, "Section Five: Roots and Radicals." He writes a square root sign on the blackboard. "You want to know what turns me on? The square of a number is one of two equal factors."
"Oh my God," says a student. "That turns you on?" Another student, who is keeping track of Mr. Wiley's bon mots, marks another tick on his sheet.
The square root of nine is positive three or negative three. I claim that this is one of two equal factors. Everyone gets turned on by something different. This is one Dr. Brenner would like: in the principal square root of nine, the principal is positive. The square root symbol has to be bigger than or equal to zero.
He introduces the topic of cube roots, amidst moans and groans, and discusses its relationship with what they studied last year. He mentions the state board exam frequently in the course of his lecture. Some of the kids look lost; others appear confident in their understanding.
[Return to Table of Contents]
The students are baking cakes. Some groups are making theirs from a mix, and others make theirs from scratch. Students are analyzing the differences in terms of cost, quality, flavor, and time. Ms. Stewart moves between the groups, visiting with the students. Students are busy, attentive to her. As the cakes go in the oven, the kids move to clean up. Two boys who are kicking a small leather ball back and forth with their feet, playing hacky sack, are not responsible for any additional tasks. Ms. Stewart hugs some students, talks with others, and notes that they will decorate their cakes tomorrow. The atmosphere in the room is friendly, cheerful, and fun. As the students leave, the cakes are still in the oven. Ms. Stewart rolls her eyes: "I need more time."
[Return to Table of Contents]
Twenty-seven students are crammed into the room. Speaking French, Ms. Lahton begins the class by introducing the day's activities. Students, working in pairs, then recite conversations in French. They move on to a new activity: all together, the students recite a poem which they have in their folders. The teacher moves around the room, listens to individuals, and corrects them quietly by giving the proper pronunciation. As a transition, she signals the students to take turns reading the poem with feeling.
Ms. Lahton flicks the lights to signal the end of that activity and sets a timer which she also uses to signal transition. Students review their notes for two minutes. Buzz. Then a quiz. Buzz. Two minutes to compare the quiz to their notes. Buzz. Activity with les mots clef ("key words")
on the blackboard. The students yell out which ones to erase. Buzz. Students turn to their texts for a discussion about the Romans, the barbarians, and Julius Caesar. A five-minute quiz. Buzz - the bell rings. Ms. Lahton stands at the door. Students rattle off some bit of the conversation to her in French as they leave. With the variety of activities, the time has flown.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Students sit in a semicircle. Ms. Giambello moves from student to student, asking them questions in Spanish to which they must respond in Spanish. With the recitation over, the students pair up and work on creating a conversación in Spanish. They develop the scripts and memorize them for presentation to the class. Two students are writing a script about surfing that sends them into gales of laughter. Ms. Giambello checks with them: one surfer is drowning the other. She helps with vocabulary but allows the crime. One of the students grins: "A sort of a fantasy." The student pairs perform, some stumbling and halting, others with verve. Ms. Giambello corrects pronunciation and vocabulary as they go. They sing a spirited rendition of "La Bamba" at the end of class.
[Return to Table of Contents]
"Antigone, Creon, Ismene, Jocasta, Oedipus are the acceptable characters for this assignment." From a reading of Antigone, Ms. Michaels is teaching how to write a thesis statement. Twelve students sit in a horseshoe. Some students appear otherwise engaged, while the rest attend to Ms. Michaels; she directs her comments to the latter. She describes what a thesis statement is and where it is located. She outlines what supporting material is. "If you have extra stuff in there, I'll write `Fluff.' You don't need filler." She reviews the content of each paragraph and writes again on the board. "Remember, you're trying to persuade. This is like a debate. You want to restate the thesis. I know you have an idea of who to write about. In my opinion, the first four are most important." Describing how each goes from happiness to sadness, Ms. Michaels talks her way through each of the characters in the story. Students spend the remaining few minutes finishing their reading of the book or filling in the diagram of the five-paragraph theme she has given them.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Ninth-graders are working on short stories and are at various stages in the writing process. The whole class is critiquing a piece of Ms. Leonard's own writing. They evaluate and suggest revisions based on the writing skills they are using themselves. Class continues as students work on their own drafts. Some twosomes do peer reviews; others ask for Ms. Leonard's personal reaction. Some students, ready to move to a more formal editing step, submit their work with an attached editing-request form. Some students have finished their short stories. Those handed in reflect multiple revisions and student choice in selection of subject.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Ms. Francis returns essays that were practice for the state board exam, in which students wrote about how the separation of power both protects and grants power. She critiques their work and clarifies what will strengthen the pieces they wrote. She is thorough, quick, and gives examples. A couple of students argue a bit. She tells them that they must find an angle that they care about. The pace is very fast.
Ms. Francis shows a video in which contemporary journalists report as if they were covering the Constitutional Convention. Even the advertisements are in character: "Pony Express Mail-Only Takes Two Months!" The film is engaging and demonstrates the myriad viewpoints and interests that competed in the Constitution's creation. The film is not over when the period ends.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Ms. Steiner shushes the lively group of sophomores every few minutes throughout the class period. First they talk about big papers which were due. Some kids are arranging their papers furiously, calling for scissors, stapler, paper clips. Others are writing. Several are talking. She tells them how the few papers she has read came out and makes some suggestions. Then they move on. "You have a current events article due on Friday. You must do a summary. It can be radio, print, film, TV. It needs to have the who-what-when-where-why stuff."
She introduces a video of a CBS special: "Has the Middle East changed in the wake of the Persian Gulf War?" The film deals with Baghdad first, then Kuwait, then Saudi Arabia. While they are viewing the tape, Ms. Steiner indicates important points on which the students need to take notes. One of the questions the interviewer asks is whether the war changed women's roles in the Middle East. He implies that that was one of the purposes of the war and suggests that no progress was made. As the period ends, the film is put on hold- to be finished tomorrow.
[Return to Table of Contents]
The students in this other class of Ms. Steiner's are working on Exhibitions or performances. In her classroom, Exhibitions appear to be defined as end-of-unit skits or reports. Students are given a little class time to prepare. (Requirements and terms of evaluation for the skits were handed out with the assignment.)
"Presentations can be either a presentation or a skit. Use this time to brainstorm for creativity. Use it for whatever you want."
Tom and Joe are sitting side by side at a table for six. They want to do an interview of a Kuwaiti during the Gulf War. On their right, two boys drill each other for a forthcoming English vocabulary test and alternately discuss the Bengals-Bills game the night before. On their left, two girls talk about the tennis team and their project. The girls have sheets and puppets for props.
As Ms. Steiner moves around the room, snatches of conversation rise above the hum of voices. Tom says, "We wanna do this like how it felt to be there."
"Yeah."
"We'll need two desks, a tape recorder, music from CNN-like a `Larry King Live' introduction."
Joe: "I'll write up my part."
Tom: "Think up the questions now so I can write the answers tonight."
"It's August 2, 1990. Were you aware of the Iraqi build-up?"
(On their right: "`Biogenetics' . . . `creationism' . . . `covenant' . . . `consecrate' . . .")
"How did you find out? Did the Kuwaitis fight back? Why or why not? Did you ever venture out onto the street?"
(On their left: "We can meet at your house to work on this.")
"What about the air campaign?"
"It didn't affect me. I was inside."
Ms. Steiner continues to move from group to group.
[Return to Table of Contents]
The ninth-graders are handing in their first draft of their adopt-a-country paper. They research their selected country, write about it, and do a series of revisions. Then they do an Exhibition for the rest of the class. Mr. Lacer asks them how they feel about their papers. The kids are quiet, reserved. One girl mentions that it was easy once she got going. He shows an overhead of the writing process and talks about where they are now. Several students take notes.
They move on to discuss the film Gandhi. "Why does the film start with his funeral?" one student asks. Another answers, "So you can see how important he became."
A question from a third student: "Who started the wars they were having in India?" Mr. Lacer explains. He gives them four questions to help them understand the film, and they work in groups of four. He moves from group to group.
One group asks, "What was the maharani supposed to do?" Mr. Lacer explains the difference between the maharani and the concubines, making an analogy to Henry VIII's wives.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Students' desks and chairs form a double semicircle. Mr. Sagor moves to the center front and says, "Tell me about command economics." Students respond, building on each other's answers. "Now, bartering economy." Rapid-fire questions and answers follow. Mr. Sagor acknowledges right answers and asks for amplifications, examples, clarifications. He seeks reactions from other kids: "Agree? Disagree?" Then, "What were the goals of the Five-Year Plan?" Answer. "What did Stalin concentrate on first? What were the difficulties in the Five-Year Plan?" Answer. "You satisfied with that? Not bad!" They move on to new material: a market economy. They discuss a mythical grandmother's apartment in New York City. "Why aren't more apartments being built?" Answers: "No more room." "To keep prices high." Back and forth it goes. Questions, speculative answers, more answers, clarifications . . . and then the bell.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Students are working on self-esteem. A student goes up to the chart paper pad, writes his name on the pad with a marking pen, and numbers from one to eleven. Each student in the class must contribute something positive about the scribe. The students, seeming lethargic, move slowly. "Excellent sailor" (pause) "Friendly"
(pause) "Good student" . . . and so on, until ten qualities almost complete the list. The scribe assumes responsibility for the eleventh item. He looks down and his eyes study the floor. Then he concludes, "Survivor." Once finished, the paper is torn off and presented to the student. By the end of the period, nine students have their sheets.
[Return to Table of Contents]
The teacher begins by handing out an assignment, but changes course and tells the students they will do some kind of a lottery. Two students argue momentarily, then acquiesce. Students dig coupons out of their wallets. These are put into a shopping bag. Three are drawn out. Prizes are awarded: a bag of chips, a pencil.
[Return to Table of Contents]
A student goes to the teacher's desk at the front of the room and starts teaching about evolution. She poses a question: "How is macro-evolution different from micro-evolution?" The student then dissects the etymology of the word paleobiologist.
Paleo- means ancient, -bio- is life,
-ology is study. Paleobiology is the study of ancient life. Paleobiologists reconstruct ancient life forms from fossils, footprints, frozen mammoths, teeth of fish. Fossils are mainly found in sedimentary rock such as shale and limestone.
Ms. O'Malley passes out fossils and says, "You have your hands on millions of years." The teacher- student peppers her presentation with analogies: the fossil process is "like plaster casts." She moves to carbon dating and relative dating- "like peeling paint." Ms. O'Malley intervenes conversationally and asks some probing questions about fossils, including, "What happened to make fossils die?"
A student: "The sea disappeared."
"Well, how do we know that is an adequate theory for the disappearance of fossils?" She prods them: "Look at the soil." They speculate, correcting each other's theories while she prompts them along with additional questions.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Class begins with a review of the homework which has just been handed back. Mr. Fried has spotted a common misconception about the relationship between force and mass. He clarifies and demonstrates the relationship again. They move into their lab, where they are graphing on computers the length of time it took to move a spring with various weights. They work in teams and, when stuck, wait for Mr. Fried to come around to help them.
[Return to Table of Contents]
The students are experimenting with burning combined salts. Mr. McDonough has three or four combined salts laid out. Students work in teams of two. With the Bunsen burners on, pre-dipped sticks are flamed in the burner. Brilliant colors flare amidst "oooh"s and "ahhh"s. Students record their observations. There is one deliberately unidentified combination which they must investigate.
[Return to Table of Contents]
Ms. Shea passes out maps of the room which have only the outline of the furniture. She assigns students to a post in the room, from which they will measure temperature variations. The students count off. She has them write their number on the map in the space which corresponds to their location. She hands out thermometers, reminding them not to touch the mercury bulbs. She tells students to place the thermometer on the floor. Standing in the front of the room, she counts out loud slowly, to twenty, to give the thermometer time to register the temperature, then asks each student to call out his or her reading. The pace is slow. There is very little temperature variation in the room. Everyone is to record all of the temperatures in the appropriate slot on their own sheet. Next, they measure the temperature on their desks, repeating the counting and recording; then they stand on their desks with their thermometers in the air, again repeating the counting and recording.
When they are finished, Ms. Shea asks them what else they could measure in the room. Slowly, they list a number of things: air quality, chemicals in the paint, energy. She has them tear their lab sheets out of their books and says that they will measure these the next day. The bell rings.
[Return to Table of Contents]
For years, I have had a photograph of my mother's family on the wall in my home. She, her four sisters, and her mother are all clustered together. At first glance, they look lovely, quite happy-a cheery group. Every now and then I look more closely to see if I can know them better. I notice that my Aunt Gerry's grin looks a little strained, as if my mom were pinching her. My mother looks like the perfectly posed image of wistfulness. Aunt Helen looks as if she is just barely controlling a mad fit of laughter. My grandmother, serene from a distance, seems exhausted around the eyes and a little sad. Aunt Pauline looks haughty, as if she knew she was lovelier by far than the rest. And Aunt Bernice looks deeply sad and somewhat withdrawn. She is just a tiny bit removed from the rest of the group.
What is missing from the picture is equally revealing. Where is my grandfather? Why did they choose to leave him out? Was this a picture for his office desk?
This photograph, which captures one moment in my family's history, raises questions for me as a viewer and as a family member. The photograph provides an overview of the whole, for it shows several members of the family together. Yet it also offers individual close-ups that, when examined thoughtfully, suggest many questions about the family as well as the individuals themselves.
Examining our snapshot of Oak Hill is a little like looking at my mother's family portrait. The school also displays a generally caring tone, a happy cast. And on closer scrutiny, one can see more, can find the same kind of beauty, quiet discomfort, energy, and flashes of emotion seen in my family picture. Oak Hill, too, reveals questions, suggests little mysteries, contradicts and clarifies all at once.
The first task in examining the snapshot is to determine which of the circumstances, situations, and acts it reveals are worth preserving. We saw any number of things worth preserving at Oak Hill High School: the caring atmosphere, the easy relationships between students and staff, the relationship among staff and the parent community. The faculty is more open, better able to discuss disagreements, less divided than many we have seen in other places. The community is supportive. The principal is at once respected and a provoca- teur. Teachers are honest with one another and with the administration.
We sat through classes, read students' work, saw and listened as students described times when they were using their minds well. We heard about the advantages of a small school that far outweigh the negatives. We listened as students described their meaningful involvement in extracurricular activities and their schoolwork with candor and thoughtfulness. They demonstrated the same ability to entertain differences of opinion as the faculty did. These parts of the picture should be preserved.
A second task is to see what aspects of the snapshot bear further scrutiny. Because it captures only a moment of isolated activity, such a snapshot leaves the viewer with many questions:
Does the school use the nine Common Principles in its efforts to change? How and when do staff discuss them in order to forge common understandings or to clarify differences in interpretation? How do individual teachers' interpretations of student-as-worker and Exhibitions square up? Does the faculty, like the planning committee in Ted Sizer's Horace's School, discuss the meaning of "less is more" as it pertains to their goals, disciplines, and students?6 When does the staff grapple with their shared concerns about "less is more"? Can a set of ideas generated outside the school support its work?
To change or not to change? For some faculty and for the administration this is a very real question. Given the new agreement with the state department of education-the New Partnership for Better Schools-
and continued involvement with the Coalition, is change optional? Can individual teachers decide to ignore it? Can people decide to change their curriculum but not their teaching, or change assessment practices without changing the curriculum?
What is the principal's role in assisting change? How do we know which changes are the most productive for student learning? And since learning occurs in different ways and at different rates for everyone, how do the faculty and the community respect the individual's pace, progress, and right to choose, while moving forward toward ever-improving schooling? What kind of time do people have to work on these issues?
Another question emerges from the predominant characteristic of the school: caring. Students and faculty at Oak Hill are rightly proud of the caring atmosphere they have created throughout the school. The importance of caring cannot be underestimated; all of us want caring schools for our students. Still, one wonders whether other characteristics are sacrificed for comfort and good relationships, or whether other characteristics coexist with caring. What are the other primary characteristics of the school?
Kids are seldom asked to describe what school is like for them. It is true that they, like everyone else, are bounded by their own limited experiences. Still, one hopes that, in a caring place which encourages critical thinking and thoughtfulness, the kids would be able to provide some valuable insights. What do the kids say about their schooling? What valid points do they make? Where do they provide guidance about what changes might be most successful?
The state board exam raises more questions. Everyone in the school mentions these exams. Some see them as limiting the possibilities for change; others see them as appropriate measures of student accomplishment. It appears that, given the New Partnership agreement with the state department of education, the faculty and the community have the right to "examine the exam." Do the state board exams provide students and teachers at Oak Hill with the kind of target that supports excellent learning opportunities? Do students retain what they learn for these exams? Can they apply the knowledge gained in fresh and new contexts? Given the opportunity, what might the staff construct in place of these exams?
Finally, one wonders about the charge given by the authors of Learning Change. Onore and Lester suggested that teachers and administrators must confront their basic assumptions about teaching and learning, because these undergird the degree and the seriousness with which change is undertaken. We heard important debate about whether kids should know things or do things, or both. What does the staff at Oak Hill believe? How are these assumptions examined?
So, with the snapshot taken and briefly examined, several things become clearer. The road to more challenging and rigorous schools is a long one, a seemingly endless one. Just when it seems that so much has been done, so much new ground has been turned, new challenges emerge and new vistas appear: the Student-Faculty Congress suggests previously unconsidered possibilities; a new approach like interdisciplinary instruction suggests new techniques and new materials, and then suggests that changes previously made need to be remade-another new schedule is needed!
For Oak Hill High School and the Summerville community, some of the paths that stretch out are predictable: a new superintendent and a new vice principal need to be hired before next fall. Other, less predictable paths offer choices. The state has suggested that the faculty has the right to reconsider both classroom practices and accountability measures. The staff is already in the midst of substantial exploration and experimentation. They agree that they are at a turning point: while the changes made thus far have been hard won, difficult in their own right, perhaps they were the easiest. Most serious change begins that way.
But the staff wants to continue the change process. They acknowledge that the next steps will be difficult ones: they will involve examination of long-held, common practices and recent changes; they will require personal courage and create vulnerability. They will require more time, more discussion, more thoughtfulness, and, yes, more energy. The choices weigh heavily-the right paths are important because they will affect the vigor, the raw potential, the enthusiasm, the persistence, and the confidence with which their students leave Oak Hill High School to enter an ever-changing, very complicated world.
[Return to Table of Contents]
- This belief system, in which teachers are obliged to pour facts into students, is sometimes called the empty vessel theory of learning. See Nancy Lester and Cynthia Onore, Learning Change: One School District Meets Language Across the Curriculum
(Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook, 1990).
- The Coalition of Essential Schools is a partnership between Brown University and member schools across the country engaged in rethinking secondary schooling. The Coalition was formed in 1984 to explore the results of A Study of High Schools, a five-year research project on the state of the American high school. In his report on the findings of that study, Theodore R. Sizer outlined nine Common Principles which might motivate the redesigning of American secondary education.
(The full text of the Principles is given in Appendix B.) See Sizer's Horaces Compromise
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1985); see also Arthur G. Powell, Eleanor Farrar, and David K. Cohen, The Shopping Mall High School (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1985) and Robert L. Hampel, The Last Little Citadel (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1986).
- The term Exhibition, which is discussed in the sixth Common Principle, refers to a performance-based assessment that requires students to engage in authentic activities and inquiries, to rehearse and practice, and to defend and explicate their work. Whereas in the sixth Common Principle,
Exhibition refers explicitly to an assessment required for graduation, at Oak Hill the term often refers to a measure of performance at the end of a unit of study.
- Essential questions are broad-based questions which guide students and staff through a course by inquiry. Essential questions do not have obvious correct answers and can be investigated and interpreted by students from a variety of angles. For more information about essential questions, see Grant Wiggins, Creating a Thought-Provoking Curriculum, American Educator, Winter 1987.
- Joseph Featherstone, A Note on Liberal Learning, Colloquy, Fall 1988.
- Theodore R. Sizer, Horace's School: Redesigning the American High School (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992).
[Return to Table of Contents]
The Oak Hill research team was headed by CES senior researcher Patricia A. Wasley, author of Teachers Who Lead: The Rhetoric of Reform and the Realities of Practice (l991)
and Stirring the Chalkdust: Tales of Teachers Changing Classroom Practice
(l994). The other members of the Oak Hill team were Donna Hughes, a former teacher, principal, and assistant superintendent, currently an educational consultant and author living in Arizona; and Barbara Powell, Ed.D., a former teacher and principal, currently an educational researcher and consultant living in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Price: $6
Code: OH1
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: 1992
Publisher: CES National
School Level: High
Focus Area: Leadership
STRAND: Leadership: the change process
|
|
