Home > Resources > Leadership > The Change Process

Toward a Reflective Learning Community

Table of Contents:

• Introduction
• New Issues, New Progress
  • Racial Tension: A New Issue Facing Oak Hill
  • Progress-Related Issues
    • Reflections for the Reader: New Issues, New Progress
• Conversations with Students, Faculty, and Parents
  • Talking with Students
    • Reflections for the Reader:
  • Talking with the Faculty
  • Talking with the Administrators
    • Reflections for the Reader:
  • Talking with the Parents
    • Reflections for the Reader:
• Innovation in the Classroom
  • From a Physics Teacher's Journal
  • The Technology Teacher's Perspective
  • A Parent's Perspective
  • A Student's Perspective
  • The Principal's Perspective
    • Reflections for the Reader:
    • Reflections for the Reader: The Snapshot as a Whole
• From the State Department
• Reflections for the Reader:
• Reflections from Critical Friends
  • The Principles Again: Where Does Number Seven Fit?
  • Where Does Instruction Fit?
  • What Role, Uncertainty?
  • How Does Change Wend its Way into Students' Lives?
  • Time and Money: How Might Oak Hill Find That?

Introduction

At Oak Hill High School, in the Summerville school district, the winter sped by, this year under a thick blanket of snow. Despite the illusion of quiet, suggested by the snow, the school whirled forward on its journey toward developing more productive practices for student learning. When our research team arrived in the spring for a three-day site visit, we found more than the local flora emerging from the winter grays; the school, appearing ever more serious about its commitment to examine its collective work, seemed stronger, fresher, more collaboratively engaged than before.

This visit, our fourth to Oak Hill High School, occurred near the end of the second year of the three-year School Change Study. As we do each time we visit a school as part of the study, we produced a "snapshot" based on our observations and conversations at Oak Hill. By presenting this snapshot, we hope to provide an accurate picture of the issues and the activities that are ongoing and imminent in the second half of Oak Hill's fifth year of striving to become an Essential school.

Oak Hill, like the four other schools participating in this study, elected to pursue school change by joining the Coalition of Essential Schools, a partnership between a central staff at Brown University, under the direction of Theodore Sizer, and some six hundred schools across the country. In joining the Coalition, these schools agreed to rethink common secondary school practices through the guidance of a set of ideasthe nine Common Principleswith the aim of becoming an Essential school. (See Appendix B for a list of the Principles.)

This snapshot is divided into four sections. In the first section, "New Issues, New Progress," we attempt to summarize a number of issues which surfaced in our discussions with faculty, students, parents, and administrators. The next section, "Conversations with Students, Faculty, and Parents," includes the gist of our conversations with the students, teachers, administrators, and parents and the major issues those conversations raised. In "Innovation in the Classroom," we share two teachers' reflections on their attempt to try a new approach with students. Their perceptions are accompanied by the perspectives of a student, a parent, and an administrator. The final section, "From the State Department," is our yearly update of the state's attempts to rethink its own practices to find ways of supporting changing schools.

In order to make what follows more provocative for readers both inside and outside of the school, this snapshot takes on a more interactive format than the previous ones did. At the end of each section, we ask readers to engage in reflections concerning the preceding section by jotting down notes and observations. Originally we intended these reflections for the Oak Hill faculty, to help facilitate their whole-group discussion. We encourage any reader of this snapshot to attempt to answer the questions as well. The snapshot ends rather abruptly, so that readers have time to talk with colleagues about what they have read, to share their individual reflections, and to analyze the voices and issues to determine what important information the snapshot really conveys, as well as what actions it might suggest.

Following the snapshot, in the section "Reflections from Critical Friends," the research team discusses what issues the snapshot revealed for them and what questions it raised. This section is meant both to complement and contrast with the staff's own analysis of the snapshot to help the staff determine their future direction. We hope that by engaging in the reading, the reflection, the discussion, and the comparison suggested in this text, readers will be more practiced in the collective analytical skills so necessary for enabling whole schools to put into place more powerful learning experiences for the students.

[Return to Table of Contents]

New Issues, New Progress

In our conversations with all the members of the school community, evidence emerged of new challenges and new progress at Oak Hill.

[Return to Table of Contents]

Racial Tension: A New Issue Facing Oak Hill

When something of importance occurs at the school, everyoneparents, students, teachers, and administratorsmentions it. Just such an issue surfaced immediately upon our return to Oak Hill in March of l993.

While Oak Hill is a small school, the number of minority students enrolling in this historically all-white community is steadily growing. Soon after our last visit, a couple of black students raised the issue with staff that the school's curriculum and cultural traditions slight multiculturalism. In response, the administration and staff set out to organize a Martin Luther King Day assembly. In the meantime, during the early winter months, a number of students were involved in two fights off campus, which started as alcohol-induced skirmishes with racial overtones.

Meetings among school district personnel, community forums, a parent meeting, and discussions among students were organized. While nearly everyone we talked to prefaced their comments with a denial that racism exists in the community, nearly everyone was startled by its emergence and worried about its potential reappearance. Everyone asked: Were the fights handled adequately? Was the school safe? Had the school dealt with the problem appropriately? Students believed that it was a bigger deal to the adults than to the kids. These events suggest that this historically homogeneous community is dealing with a very complicated contemporary issue.

[Return to Table of Contents]

Progress-Related Issues

The staff were working as a whole, as departments, and as individuals, on a number of issues concerning change.

The Senior Options Program

Some teachers were struggling to figure out whether the new Senior Options Program would equal or surpass the carefully crafted curriculum which it was replacing. This program was designed to curb the senior slump by propelling graduates into self-directed learning right up until their final Exhibitions, which would take place shortly before graduation. The Exhibitions, which are to be public demonstrations of the students' cumulative capabilities, constitute a new requirement for graduation. The fact that school was closed for so much inclement weather wreaked havoc on teachers' plans. Especially affected were those teachers who had already rearranged their plans for the second semester in order to accommodate the new Senior Options Program.

The seniors with whom we talked had begun their internships or their research projects and were unanimously in favor of the program; they were interested in self-directed work and perceived that it would help them in preparation for college and for jobs. Many of them were pursuing activities which allowed them to experiment with potential careers. Others selected internships outside of their intended field of study in order to broaden their life experiences.

In addition, the seniors were waiting to hear from, or were in the throes of making final decisions about, the colleges they would attend in the fall. Among them there was a sense of accomplishment. Anticipating that the school might soon be submitting applications from students without the State Board of Education Exam (SBEE) scores, the head of the counseling department reported that college admissions officers seemed undaunted that some kids would be graduating without these traditional scores.

The juniors, on the other hand, felt overloaded, stressed out over the up-and-coming SATs and the recognition that their time in public school was drawing to an end. All of a sudden, very important decisions loomed with real immediacy.

Faculty Decision-making Power

Several faculty mentioned a debate about the legitimacy of their vote to work on outcomes. When one of the teachers, John Nelson, saw that two faculty were abstaining from the second vote, he asked that they vote so that there could be no question about the decision. It was unanimous. (Students, however, continue to hear from some staff that the decision was not legitimate.)

Proposals for a New Schedule

The scheduling committee proposed a new schedule, which included two days of extended periods: two days of forty-minute periods and one day of shortened classes to accommodate Seminars and the Faculty-Student Congress. Seminars, which students attend once a week, are designed to provide each student with an adult advocate in the school as well as a place to work on class projects and to deal with issues related to the Student-Faculty Congress, in which students and faculty participate in shared decision making regarding issues that affect the school.

The Search for More Time

There was much speculation among the faculty about whether the committee would be able to respond to the faculty's plea for more time to work with one another and to work with students. Several suggested that the issue of their own planning time was not addressed by this committee, because many of the faculty on the committee believed that the issue of planning time was a contractual, not a scheduling, issue. Others believed that the scheduling committee would only be able to make modest changes this year, because the math and science departments needed more time to think through how they intend to redesign their curriculum. In either case, staff planning time did not appear to be the focus of the committee's proposals.

The amount of time spent at the school was an issue of considerable discussion by faculty at their monthly union meetings, by team members, and by faculty in department meetings. At their union meetings, teachers complained, "We have a l950s contract for what may be a l990s school." Many described these discussions as very difficult. Traditionally, this is a community of committed professionals who do what they can to help kids move forward. On the other hand, the staff believed that they were investing ever-increasing time in the school with no additional compensation. Because they could not come to consensus about how they should deal with non-contractual issues, they agreed that individuals should establish their own parameters.

In teams and in department meetings, the teachers expressed their need for more time to plan. They believe that there especially is not adequate time to plan new things. They feel concerned that they leap into programs like the Senior Options Program, rather than carefully considering all the issues connected with it, because they do not have adequate time to plan in advance.

Discussing the Nine Common Principles

Faculty continued their discussion of the nine Common Principles, but with mixed reactions. Jane Leonard and Tom Lacer conducted a meeting to discuss two of the Principles, at which time the faculty agreed to give the necessary time to focus on student outcomes.

When we interviewed faculty about the seventh principle, which concerns the tone of the school, most people focused their responses on what they perceived to be an oxymoron"unanxious expectations." Considering only that phrase, the majority maintained that anxiety was an important part of student motivation.

Some people felt that they would rather implement the Principles than talk about them. Others believed that the teachers needed even deeper discussions to move closer toward collective goals. One teacher commented, "I think that whether or not we make a difference for kids will depend upon whether or not we can get close enough on shared values so that there are certain things in the school that all teachers are teaching for."

Students' Roles in Decision Making

Three teachers talked again about the differences they recently have been seeing in studentsthey say that kids are less motivated, less responsible, less capable of powerful work than they used to be. The faculty that feel this way seemed uncomfortable with the increased voice in decision making that students have been given in Congress.

The discussion of eligibility reached a new intensity, as well. Faculty finally came to consensus about what the policy should be, only to find students disgruntled again because the kids had not been included in the decision-making process. "The teachers accused us of acting selfishly, when all we were trying to do was save the Congress. If we just let them do whatever they want with the eligibility policy, there is no point in having a Congress."

Another student pointed out that the time spent on eligibility was important, but that the whole problem needed reshaping since it did not address the issue of improved academic performance for the majority of students because they are not involved in sports or extracurricular programs at all. Still, we did hear examples from students about how the eligibility policy pushed them to maintain their work, and we did gain a sense that while shared decision making is difficult, faculty and students have moved to a deeper understanding of collaborative work.

Changes in Curriculum

The science department and the math departments were in the midst of a series of meetings to rethink the K-12 curriculum. Alta O'Malley summarized their work:

We are right at the brink now of really looking at school change rather than individual techniques in our individual classrooms, which is what a lot of us have been doing for the last year or so. We've been focusing on trying to encourage kids to do group activities, work with each other, do more writing in the curriculum, do different types of testing, not just multiple-choice testing. Now we're looking ahead to bigger changes.

The number of teachers attempting to work together continued to expand. The technical drawing teacher worked with the physics teacher. Business education staff helped to support new science projects. The science teachers were involved in a series of meetings with the middle school science teachers to rearrange the scope and sequence of their work. One of the math teachers suggested that as they were investigating how much their students were actually getting in class, he had become convinced that they did not understand basic applications. Ninth- and tenth-grade English and social studies teachers were designing culminating Exhibitions and redesigning their individual interdisciplinary courses.

Mainstreaming of students, which also involved teachers working together, was moving along better than people had originally hoped. Parents and teachers alike believed that the mainstreamed students gained important competencies and confidence as a result of negotiating the general curriculum. The college acceptance rate for those students was exciting.

The sophomores and freshmen were engaged in more Exhibitions in their interdisciplinary English and social studies classes than before, since they would not be taking the SBEE exam. Pleased about not having to take the test, they were still a little apprehensive about what their teachers would devise to replace it.

Meanwhile, faculty and students were preparing for an ambitious double-cast production of Bye, Bye Birdie. Students were thoroughly enjoying their participation, even though it meant late-night rehearsals. Twenty-four students and two teachers were packing for their two-week trip to France, after they sold soup, assisted the parents in an auction, and performed a French play (in French), among other things, to get ready to go. They were furiously drilling in conversational French so that the travelers might be conversant with the families with whom they would be staying.

Coping with Administrative Transitions

Everyone was still in the throes of the administrative transitionsa new superintendent, a new high school principal, a new vice principal, and a new elementary school principal. At the high school, many people again mentioned missing Nancy Brenner's energy and vision. The Superintendent's Conference Day which she planned was well received. At the same time, central office, middle school, and elementary administrators were all adjusting to Nancy's energy.

Dr. Brenner was working with the other administrators to create a coherent K12 experience for studentsan ambitious undertaking badly needed around the country. The elementary staff was building developmentally appropriate instruction, the middle school was focused on integrated instruction and assessment, while the high school proceeded to better integrate instruction, curriculum, and assessment.

[Return to Table of Contents]

[Return to Table of Contents]

Conversations with Students, Faculty, and Parents

During our week at Oak Hill we met with many students, faculty, administrators, and parents to discuss a wide range of ongoing and new issues at the high school.

[Return to Table of Contents]

Talking with Students

Each time we visit, we work with a group of forty-five sophomores, juniors, and seniors. We interview this group, both individually and in groups, and we shadow some in their classes. Two others write to us in a weekly journal. This spring, students were most interested in two questions we asked them which derived from issues they themselves had raised in previous visits. We asked them to define challenges in school and to give current examples. We also asked that they define fairness in school practices. Without any prompting, they raised a third issue about the changes taking place in their school. What follows is a summary of their discussion, sprinkled with quotations from the students.

How Students Define Challenges

Students define challenges as new efforts, attempts to do things they've never done before, something difficult and not easily accomplished, something that "pushes you beyond yourself, beyond what you did last time." A real challenge "forces you to reach; it's something that doesn't come to you easily, like reading somebody like Faulkner who has stylistic complexities that you have to reach for. It forces you to think, to draw on what you know, but also on your own creativity."

Challenging work involves project work, critical thinking, or thoughtful discussion, rather than passive listening. Examples of challenges from recent classes reflect students' wide interests: debating in history, comparing The Invisible Man with "The Man with a Hoe," analyzing five poems of one poet, learning new aspects of chemistry, having discussions in humanities, reading Faulkner, working on their Senior Options project, and dealing with the issue of eligibility for the Congress. Intellectual engagement is one of the important criteria for determining what constitutes challenges in school.

If a teacher came up to you and said, "Tell me everything that happened," that would be easy. If they said, "Tell me everything that happened and why it happened," then you have a challenge. You have to look at it differently, you have to go into more depth. You have to think on it more.

They debated whether it has to be something that they are interested in. Some said that personal interest supplies motivation. Others suggested that personal interest is not always available, but that perseverance is important for gaining a sense of accomplishment. Feeling that one has achieved something of significance is important.

Despite being able to provide fine examples of meaningful challenges, students said that challenges at school are the exception rather than the rule.

I am challenged by workload rather than by the actual ideas. Most of my classes would be challenging if they weren't so task-oriented and mundane. I get home late and spend more time thinking about prioritizing the load than thinking or doing things that require creativity.

They suggested that they spend a good deal of their time engaged in work that requires no real thought on their part.

How Students View Fairness

Students shared with us what is fair and unfair in school.

Fairness means that you get an equal chance to succeed. If you do good work, you should be rewarded for it and if you don't, you get punished. Here, people, after a while, get graded on their reputations more than on what they hand in. I see it in kids' papers sometimes. I read their work, think it is good, maybe even better than mine, but they didn't get a good grade because they had their reputation as not being as smart or as talented. They are pigeonholed as average students. That happens to some extent in all classes. People get placed. Once they're there, it's very hard to get out.

A number of students said they feel that the fact that they are labeled early on is unfair. They also suggested that it is difficult to advance; others noted that it is equally as difficult to fall from favor. Kids would like to feel that they have greater mobility within the system and that as their performance increases, so do their grades and their opportunities to take more challenging classes.

Fairness is grading you on your performance, something that can changesomething that is not indelible. Fairness is being able to talk and explaining to a teacher and not having it pre-decided. Fairness would make changing possible if your performance changed.

Regarding fairness, placement in advanced courses was one of their concerns.

I think fairness is that everybody gets the opportunity to do what they want. Because you weren't in an advanced subject before doesn't mean you couldn't get into it the next time. I think that this is one thing that is unfair in our school.

I think that our AP classes are kind of elitist. Kids in other classes get teachers who use more movies and read newspapers in class. That doesn't challenge those kids. In AP, we get difficult books while other classes don't. I almost think that AP courses should be open to whoever wants to come do it. Because a lot of it is just your motivation to do it.

Students debated whether jokes at the expense of others are fair. Generally, they liked the injection of humor into teaching, but feel that it is inappropriate if the recipients are bothered by it.

Several students told us they feel quite angry in some classes at being asked to do work which is below their capability and being treated like elementary school children.

The thing that makes me feel the most cheated and unfair is not being treated like an adult: being given work that is a joke; teachers who stick to textbook answers. Give Brady Bunch answers from the text and you'll do fine. Give an opinion and you are in trouble. That is not learning and that is not challenge.

While several of the boys suggested that girls are more coddled than they are and get better grades consistently in some classes, several girls thought that they are discriminated against in a variety of areas, from athletics to academics. One girl said that girls should be given extracurricular credit for cheerleading and that they haven't been taken seriously. Another noted,

I think in math, guys are totally being pushed more. You can tell just from the numbers in my class. There are hardly any girls. The teachers, too, make jokes: "Oh well, girls aren't supposed to be good in math." It just gets really discouraging. You have to laugh at it, but you're really kind of mad because it's discouraging to hear somebody say something like that, whether they're joking or not. Our school's pretty fair. But there are some things like that.

Another student noted that in one class, her teacher works with the kids who really do well, but ignores the kids who don't do very well. Another student mentioned that some kids are allowed easier work and that teachers do not interact with them as much as they do in the more advanced classes. Students feel that encouragement to do one's best is part of fairness. Students want to feel that the staff has high expectations for all of them and that they are encouraging them to do the best that they can.

For seniors, the way counselors approach their college applications is a keen example of how they are treated unfairly in this respect:

It's like applying for college admissions. Shouldn't our counselors try to encourage us to try our very best? That's what Mr. Field does. He tells us to reach, because if we don't we'll never get anywhere. I felt put down because my counselor discouraged me from applying to the places I wanted to apply to. I applied anyway and I didn't get in, but I'd rather have them tell me it's a stretch than have them tell me it's beyond me.

How Students Feel about Change

The students are well aware that their school has joined the Coalition of Essential Schools and that the adults in their school are in the midst of a self-directed project to create better schooling for them. Depending on their grade level and their teachers, students are exposed to varying degrees of change and innovation. Almost all students are affected by the interdisciplinary coordination of English and social studies in ninth and tenth grade. Nearly every student has had to teach a chapter in a science class. Whether in economics, calculus, physics, or technical drawing, many have had to do Exhibitions. A number have participated in Socratic seminars.

All the eight seniors we spoke with, the first group to do final Exhibitions as part of their Senior Options requirement, were in favor of the changes they have seen in the school, even though it has meant more work for them.

I am working as a teacher's aide because I'm thinking that I want to teach. It's interesting. I'd never realized how difficult it is to be a teacher. It's a lot of work. Especially [with] eighth-graders. They don't seem to pay attention to whatever you say.

All of these eight seniors are pleased about pursuing work connected with their own intereststhough not all of them found the actual work as interesting as they had hoped.

While it seems to us that support for change grows as students get older, the younger students expressed three distinct perspectives toward change.

The largest group contained students who said they want school to be more meaningful, who like the things teachers are trying and want more changes sooner: "I like doing Exhibitions because it is different from a normal essay. You have to get up in front of a bunch of people and keep their interest, and not put them to sleep." "I like the fact that we get to do an independent exploration. It's what we've been preparing for, and it will help us get ready for college." They feel a sense of pride that outsiders frequently visit their school; they also feel that their teachers and administrators really work for them. Another student described a meaningful experience she had in school: a poetry assignment she liked in which they had to analyze several poems by one author.

I think the point was that for writers there is some sort of imagination. Maybe it's not always so straightforward, but to some extent imagination goes back to inspiration and to the little things that set them off. It's interesting to see what kind of stuff makes writers want to write.

A second voice came from a number of students who do not see much change at the schoolonly pockets of changeand frequently see only cosmetic changes in the works: "Changing the names of essays to think pieces' or Exhibitions' is not what I call the cutting edge of educational reform."

We put on an Exhibition in English and did thesis papers. [In] all the other classes we keep coming to school and doing the same stuff. Teachers talk to us, we do the assignment, go to school the next day.

They feel unsure about whether they'd like the school better if the nine Common Principles were fully implemented, but doubt that they'll be around to see it.

I don't even know if the Coalition is the better way because I haven't been taught that way. In the eleventh and twelfth grade there is not a lot of Coalition; most of that stuff goes on in the ninth and tenth grade. Who knows what the better way is?

They suggested that there are inconsistencies between what the school says it is trying to do and what it actually does. They said they are troubled about some of the strategies teachers are using, and wonder whether they are more beneficial or less.

In Exhibitions you really learn so much about your own topic, but not about anyone else's. I listened to three Exhibitions on the Black Death and I learned something, but I couldn't go home and write an essay about it.

I have to work hard to understand the stuff in my chapter to teach it, but I don't learn so much from the presentations.

One of my science teachers has just given up helping us; he just leaves us to flail through the rest of it.

Some kids also noted that some teachers try new things only when we come.

A third, minority voice came from students who don't want change. They are worried that they won't be able to get into college, or that they won't be able to compete when they get there. They don't like group grading, nor do they prefer essays over short answers, and they wonder if their individual capabilities are suffering as a result of new techniques.

I know of none of my teachers who are working for my benefit. Some of the things they are trying are so unorganized. Maybe the teachers are having a hard time adjusting to it because they are used to teaching traditionally. I see no benefit to me.

Another student said, "We've spent all these years adjusting to the traditional way of educationyou can't just take it now and switch it." These students believe there are inconsistencies between the rhetoric in the school and the reality in the outside world.

Some students from each of these vantage points at Oak Hill are engaged in a lively, ongoing debate about what an Essential teacher is. A couple, analyzing what their teachers actually do in class, are unconvinced by individual teachers' claims to be a Coalition or a non-Coalition teacher.

Some teachers who are trying to do "Coalition stuff" sometimes use techniques that students do not believe help them learn to use their minds well. Several students are adamant that some teachers use the Principles to abdicate their responsibility to studentsturning it all over to the kidswhen the students feel quite unprepared to undertake complex work without some guidance.

Students cited a couple of teachers who, although claiming not to be interested in the Coalition, use techniques that students believe embody the nine Common Principles.

Students also debated whether the activities given are really Coalition ones or whether a teacher's responses to students' work are in keeping with the nine Common Principles.

They noted that good discussion techniques are part of the Coalition philosophy, even though the technique of discussion has been around for a long time.

They debated whether new techniques which teachers are usinglike Socratic seminars, project work, students-teaching-students, or Exhibitionsforce them to use their minds better than they would if they were listening to the teacher and taking notes.

From these conversations, we learned that students are interested in dialogue about their school, their learning, and their education.

[Return to Table of Contents]

[Return to Table of Contents]

Talking with the Faculty

The faculty gathered in focus groups and met individually with us for formal interviews. Additional conversations in the faculty room before and after school with other faculty also added to our understanding of the major issues for faculty.

The Role of the Principal

Not surprisingly, a major issue for the faculty this time was whether the new principal could support change in this school. In the midst of a year when there was progress on a variety of projects and when a number of individuals and teams were working on new strategies, administrative support seemed even more important.

Since the fall, faculty have had experience working with the new principal. Naturally, the contrast between his style and Nancy Brenner's was the topic of much discussion. There was a sense of relief among faculty as they acknowledged that they were able to proceed with plans for change. Many noted that the new principal was hired to maintain their efforts rather than to take them in new directions.

However, most of the people with whom we talked were now eager for the principal to exert some leadership of his own, to clarify his own vision for change. One teacher noted that administrators are always in a no-win situationthat Jim Goodman is criticized for not doing precisely what Nancy Brenner was criticized for doing.

It is ironic to me that Nancy was criticized for being manipulative, and he is criticized for not being able to make a decision, or by having to get input on every decision he makes. Part of me says, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

While staff appreciated his positive energy, they also hoped for a stronger, more thorough "critical friend."

Feelings about Seminar

For the last four years, staff have been volunteering to work with a small number of students once a week in order to greater personalize the school for students. Staff talked a good deal about whether the Seminar program was working, whether they understood its purposes, whether it simply added to their workload, and whether it provided much for kids. To date, during Seminars, students discuss whatever their Congress representatives need to discuss, they share snacks, and they discuss individual class activities.

Our observations suggest wide variation among Seminars. In some Seminars, students talk to each other and ignore any organized agenda. In some, students rotate leadership responsibility and follow an agenda. In some, teachers work with kids; in others, staff remain aloof. And in still others, staff conduct Seminars as an extension of regular courses. With the advent of the Senior Options Program, which the senior class Seminar teachers had an integral role in planning, teachers could see the full range of Seminar responsibilities over students' four years in the school.

The staff noted that students claim to have very different experiences in Seminar. With some teachers, students discussed their school work, progress toward graduation, topical issues, and debated their classes' activities. In others, teachers lectured, treated Seminars as free time, or expected students to run them with little support from the staff member.

Staff seem to divide into two camps on Seminars. While some believed that Seminars were designed to strengthen the support for students in the school, others believed that teachers are responsible for kids' academic development and are ill-equipped to do more. Other staff felt that Seminar teachers should broaden the base of class advisors by helping students to organize the junior prom or the sophomore fund raiser. Faculty agreed that a thoughtful review of Seminar, with careful attention to how it might proceed, is in order.

Changing Instruction

The majority of faculty indicated that, with a few exceptions, instruction has not been a topic of regular discussion among faculty. People who are teaming or engaged in some kind of collaborative work do discuss various teaching techniques. Some in the science department suggested that they are swapping more techniques than previously. Other faculty said they believe that each teacher develops his or her own style and that the discussion of what they teach is far more important than how they teach. Many noted that the lack of discussion about instruction is more a result of limited time than of interest. Time for teachers to work together, to plan, to compare instructional methods, and to watch each other teach is still limited.

Still others noted that changing instructional practices and curriculum is perhaps more difficult for them and certainly more difficult for students than they had anticipated. New lessons and fresh approaches are not always positive experiences. Ken Field tried a physics project which he felt bombed (see "Innovations in the Classroom"). Emily Francis tried replacing exams with essays, but wondered in the long run whether her students retained the information they got by writing essays any longer than they did by listening to teachers or by preparing for an exam. She expressed her concern that while the old way didn't work particularly well and needed changing, the new way may not be making any significant gains.

Mary Shea tried giving the kids a chapter to teach in earth science. She had them work in teams. Some of the kids did great work; others, however, did not. Two boys dealt with the question about how unequal heating creates convection currents and winds. They decided they could show this through water. They needed a heat source, and after trial and error, they ended up with a three-candle heat source. Then they had to figure out how they could show currents. They tried food coloring, but that didn't work. They decided the containers were wrong, so they changed containers. Then they tried dried watercolor paint. That worked. Their demonstration was the bestnearly all of the kids mentioned itbut the two students-as-teachers didn't cover everything they were assigned, which left Mary feeling that the project had been less than successful.

Abby Steiner explained that while she and Marge Michaels are working to narrow their curriculum so that kids can do deeper work, she finds herself reverting to coverage behaviors: "I find I tell them about something, knowing that they're not going to remember it, but I still feel better. I say, I'm going to tell you about this' and I see them glaze over, but I still go right ahead." She feels that it is hard for her since she was raised with the SBEE and has always taught the SBEE curriculum. She also notes that she has had several students apply to take the SBEE because, she says,

They are sure that the SBEE will be much easier than any test we devise. What we are coming up with will require sustained effort over three weeks rather than a one shot deal. Some don't like the sustained effort, and they'd just as soon have one test that takes care of all of that.

[Return to Table of Contents]

Talking with the Administrators

Jim Goodman, the principal, and Esther Young, the vice principal, are in their seventh month at Oak Hill. Both felt that they had learned a good deal and that they had something to contribute.

Jim, an administrator with experience in several other schools, suggested that the role of a principal in a changing school is new to him and takes some adjusting. He said he feels the advantage of being selected by the staff, and believes that the whole school has managed to move forward in important ways during the year. His own observations have led him to believe that the faculty is working exceptionally hard and that they are in the midst of vibrant and serious debate about the school's goals, best practices, curriculum, and assessment. He thinks that they are certainly using their minds better than many of the faculty with whom he has worked.

He also believes that kids' experiences do not yet match the vibrancy of the faculty's. He is anxious to review the whole Seminar program and the Senior Options Program for next year, and to engage the faculty in an all-out effort to ensure that students are using their minds well, too.

Jim suggested that much of the difficulty or dissatisfaction teachers encounter when trying new practices is to be expected. The scaffolding, the carefully sequenced directions and supports, are not yet in place for students, so kids spend more time floundering and generate less-than-polished work. Jim suggested that teachers need to reflect on what worked and what didn't, and then build a more carefully articulated structure in which kids can work more successfully, rather than concluding that the technique is flawed. He said he feels encouraged by the new things teachers are trying and hopes that many of the rough spots will smooth out as teachers become more practiced.

Esther agreed that her responsibilities in a changing school are quite different from those in her last school. She has worked hard to respond to faculty concerns about attendance issues, and spends the first part of each day talking with students who were reported absent the day before. In addition, she has been helping teachers consider instructional techniques.

She took a major role in getting the Senior Options Program under way, too. To get that program up and running, she worked with Mark Thomas and helped to organize the community advisory board, set up the mentor training, establish placements for students, and figure out assessment techniques. She already has a list of things that she thinks they should do differently.

When she first arrived, she was so concerned about getting her work done that she ate at her desk, until she realized that the work would not be successful if she never established any relationships. Now she has lunch with the faculty. She feels very much a part of the staff and greatly appreciates the opportunity to work with Nancy Brenner, whom she admires.

[Return to Table of Contents]

[Return to Table of Contents]

Talking with the Parents

As we gathered in a room without heat, the parent group was much diminished because of a schedule change, but hardy. Most were satisfied with their children's progress during the year. One registered a complaint that she didn't believe that children were always treated with as much respect as the nine Common Principles might suggest. They expressed their interest in their kids' gaining more access to AP courses.

Ever supportive of more active engagement for their kids, they debated again whether change was moving as fast as they'd like for their children. Two heard more about change than they actually saw in their students' experiences. One parent who has both a senior and a freshman said that progress was evident in the more finely tuned nature of the activities her younger son was getting. She reminded the group that change was not like buying a new car: "You don't learn the traditional way one day, and then switch the next. It just isn't going to be like that." Another parent worried again that changing assessment practices will lead to more subjective grading.Two parents of seniors were enthusiastic about their kids' projectsand a bit nostalgic, watching their youngsters go off to do independent work. They were quite satisfied with the new high school administrators, believing that Dr. Goodman and Ms. Young were managing to protect the gains made at the high school, and, as evidenced by the Senior Options Program, were in fact taking the school forward.

[Return to Table of Contents]

[Return to Table of Contents]

Innovation in the Classroom

Many of the teachers at Oak Hill are trying new techniques to see if they can engage students more thoroughly than before and to see if they can help kids to understand applications for the concepts they are learning about. As Mary Shea suggested earlier in this snapshot, trying something new is often disconcerting because it involves uncertainty.

The following is a description of a fresh approach to learning planned and implemented by the applied physics teacher and the technology teacher. Their hope was that the kids engaged in this project would understand the laws of momentum and kinetic energy better than they would through traditional learning activities.

We heard about the project from multiple perspectives. The first description comes from Ken Field's journal; the rest are from interviews conducted while we were at the school.

[Return to Table of Contents]

From a Physics Teacher's Journal

Two weeks ago, Mike Torno and I decided to try having my applied physics class and one of his technology classes do a project that I encountered from the Star Schools project. The goal was to design any apparatus out of paper, white glue, and masking tape, which would allow a marble to roll down it. The marble could not get stuck and stop before reaching the table level. The object was to design the apparatus which would take the longest time to reach the end. I introduced the project. I created random groups of four students each. I gave them the bulk of the first day to plan and brainstorm. We used class time for eight days to construct the things. I intended to use only four days, but they were nowhere near done. The deadline was today. We were going to have the great roll-off.

I have to comment here. It is obvious that our present educational program is not preparing students to tackle a problem like this. I was inspired to try this as an ill-defined problem like we heard about in another school. Well, my class just floundered. I was trying real hard not to make suggestions on how to do the project. After two days it was obvious that they had no idea what they were doing. Nobody assumed leadership. Some worked hard at rolling paper (for supports, they told me). Others watched their teammates roll paper. I tried to get them to draw me a picture of what they were going to construct. No idea. But, they kept rolling paper.

In the middle of this Jim G. was doing his obligatory observations. Well, in my enthusiasm, I told him about the project and suggested that he might want to see it. He did. He came in and saw students rolling paper. Then, today, he came in for the Exhibition. What a disaster.

One group from my class and two from Mike's even met the requirement of keeping the marble rolling. So I tried to salvage the catastrophe by saying that anyone whose project failed had to do a project over the vacation which could beat the longest time of the day. Twenty-two seconds. It sounded reasonable to me. Then, one of the students blew up. Said he was not going to do it. It was unfair. He was going to cut class and did. I don't know how Jim took it but it was the worst class that I have ever had. Boy, if I was not convinced that we need to do something different in science than we have been doing, I would retreat to the security of what I know that I do well, whether it was working for students or not.

So, what have I learned? The students used up four years of masking tape in two weeks. Next time, limit the materials. With unlimited materials, they could waste as much as they wanted. Next time they will have to be forced to plan. I would require that they submit an acceptable plandrawing before starting to build. I would make them assign roles and responsibilities to all members of the group. I would also make the actual building of the apparatus an all-day, in-house field trip. Trying to do it in forty-minute blocks of time is wasteful. You lose momentum and have to reignite the initial excitement over the project every day."

[Eight days later . . . ]

I set the date for the project roll-off for two weeks from today. I spent today processing what I saw happening with the project. One student was a big help. He had the only project that worked before the vacation. Over the vacation he built a bigger and better project for extra credit. He volunteered that in class. It makes the project seem workable to those who still have to do it. The kid who walked out earlier even showed up for class today, so maybe he'll do the project. Meanwhile we return to the study of heat. There are a lot of relatively straightforward experiments in this topic. The applied physics class usually enjoys this section.

[Two weeks later . . . ]

We had the roll-off today. Projects came in. All but three students have now successfully completed the project. What a difference in attitude. They felt good about the whole thing. I videotaped it. Some of the projects showed good work. I am glad I was hard-nosed about making them persevere.

[Return to Table of Contents]

The Technology Teacher's Perspective

In order to work with Mr. Field on an applied physics class, I volunteered for an extra period of duty. I did it just to see how the project works out. The new schedule should help us to do more of this in a more fruitful way. The parameters of the experiment were that they had to build something only using paper, tape, and glue. They had to make a steel ball go from some height to the bottom. The group wins that takes the longest time to do it. So you had to think of ways to make the ball slow down. In tech class, the kids came up with these funnels that would spiral and drop into another spiral funnel so that the ball would take a long time. Others created a maze on an angle that would take a long time. The important thing was that they are seeing that the momentum of the ball almost knocks down what's in its way, so they had to develop these flap doors to absorb the kinetic energy as it was rolling. There were some bugs to hammer out, but the project worked pretty well.

[Return to Table of Contents]

A Parent's Perspective

Our son just had to do this thing for Mr. Field. He spent so much time on it. He had to create a maze only using paper and tape and a marble. It was supposed to run for twenty-two seconds. He tried and tried. It was supposed to be with a group, but he felt that his group wasn't doing anything so he decided to do it himself. It was interesting to see him approach it. He was doing it on a table in the basement. He was determined to get it, but the most he could get up to was thirteen seconds.

Then his father got into it, and I went by and gave advice, and then his brother came home and had a few recommendations. "Cutting the paper, your angles are too sharp. Put more in." "Add another piece here." "Reduce the slant." We thought, if it runs thirteen seconds this way, well, what if you turn it around and let it roll back up. He said he couldn't do that. Really it was all of us brainstorming and all of us using our minds well. Finally, he said it would just have to do. Twenty-two seconds is a long time when you're using paper and masking tape and a marble. We found that out.

[Return to Table of Contents]

A Student's Perspective

We made this weird contraption, kind of like a giant curve that went all around. It was an applied physics problem to learn about kinetic motion and momentum. It didn't work the first time we made it because it would only go to a certain point and then stop. So we redesigned it to zigzag toward the bottom. We made pillars to support the run by rolling big tubes of paper and wrapping them in tape to make them more sturdy. We taped these pillars to a piece of board. It was about a foot-and-a-half tall. We rolled paper tubes and attached them together for the ball to roll through. At first, I didn't like physics because it wasn't about mechanics and motors, but now it is more interesting.

[Return to Table of Contents]

The Principal's Perspective

A lot of the teachers are experiencing some discomfort when they try new things that offer kids the opportunities to be constructivistsyou know, construct their own knowledge. They are working on giving them more real problems to solve, like Ken Field and Mike Torno did in their physics experiment. Ken was upset on the day the kids were to present their projects because the projects didn't work as well as he would have liked. From my perspective, it was just a matter of building stronger structures, prompts, and benchmarks that will enable the kids to improve their performance. I was glad he kept at it. Some teachers just stop there and blame the kids. The next time he does it, he'll have more of these kinds of guides for students from teachers that lead to higher performance.

[Return to Table of Contents]

[Return to Table of Contents]

[Return to Table of Contents]

From the State Department

All of Oak Hill's work takes place in the context of the larger state system. Previously quite prescriptive in terms of curriculum and assessment, the State Department of Education (SDE) is in the process of redesigning its own practices. Two years ago, the SDE undertook the implementation of new legislation which calls for the reformation of the state department and the redesign of the state's regulatory system. Entitled the New Partners for Better Schools (NPBS), the new policy implies that the state department must change itself in order to better support schools that are trying to better their students' education. In order to facilitate these changes, the SDE staff entered into a partnership with eleven exemplary schools currently engaged in change, one of which is Oak Hill.

In the last year, the state department itself has been in the throes of interpreting and adjusting to NPBS. Some eighteen staff were let go in an attempt to reduce budget deficits. The rest of the department of education staff has been reorganized into a small central staff and a series of regional field teams. The regional teams consist of an interdisciplinary groupsomeone from special education, someone from mathematics, and someone from budgeting, for instance. Each team will spend the majority of its time in schools helping local practitioners to build site-based decision-making structures and develop better practices.

Since last spring, the SDE has established three thrusts of activity as a means by which to translate the NPBS into action and support change in schools. The Curriculum and Assessment Council sponsored a report written by a prominent educational policy designer entitled "Building a Learner-Centered Curriculum for Learner-Centered Schools," which recommends the radical redesign of both the structure of curriculum and of the SBEE. The second thrust is to establish a new kind of accountability system. To do that, staff at the SDE are working with experts from England and from the partnership schools to establish a review process involving peer visitation and feedback. Those working on this activity hope to make it more powerful than current accreditation reviews. The third thrust is designed to deal with issues of equity, and a study group has been formed to that end.

Various staff at the SDE described a number of barriers they are encountering as they attempt to change: (1) resistance to change, (2) ambiguity, (3) lack of trust between the schools and the SDE, (4) lack of expertise among SDE staff in redesigning their roles, and (5) no staff development to help SDE staff better understand their new roles. These barriers are not unlike those the staff at Oak Hill mention in their own efforts to change their school.

The key issues the state department is dealing with at the moment include defining the desired outcomes, moving from a focus on input to a focus on outcomes, establishing the quality review, establishing alternative assessments which match the desired outcomes, and getting the SDE people focused on learning rather than on goals and procedures. Another major challenge is to ensure that the field teams move from a regulatory stance to a helping role.

These changes, which constitute major shifts for the SDE, make them more likelyand better ableto support the changes staff at Oak Hill are pursuing. Much of the language of the Coalition of Essential Schools infuses the policies and reports emerging from the SDEwhich is promising for Oak Hill. At the same time, staff in the eleven partnership schools appear to have more expertise in managing change than do those in the SDE and are perhaps better equipped to support SDE staff for the next few years, than vice versa.

[Return to Table of Contents]

[Return to Table of Contents]

Reflections from Critical Friends

Oak Hill seems a stronger place to us at the end of our second year, more committed to analyzing current practices and to investigating fresh possibilities to improve student learning. Collectively, the faculty made major strides forward. They tackled tough issues like the schedule and organized and carried out the first Senior Options Program. Oak Hill is one of the handful of schools with a long history of bureaucratic decision making that is progressing as a result of staff discussion and staff decision making. The faculty seemed better able to make and follow through on collective decisions; they came to agreement on the eligibility policy, and they called for a second vote to confirm their interest in pursuing their work with the Coalition. The transitions in leadership, which have enormous potential to stall or derail a faculty's efforts, occurred with expected difficulties; yet these transitions did not stalemate, and in some cases, actually supported, the faculty's ability to tackle new challenges. Individual teachers made a number of curricular sacrifices in order to accommodate the whole faculty's agreement to try the Senior Options Program. Oak Hill is a school which continues to demonstrate that it is very serious about its efforts to change.

It is remarkable, too, that Oak Hill is a place that acknowledges that there is much left to be done. Staff are looking forward to next year: a new schedule, continued work in math and science, a revised Seminar and Senior Options Program, a more ccordinated, coherent English and social studies curriculum. Oak Hill is also one of the few places where staff seem to value feedback and critical friendship. At the end of this visit, staff again asked us to share our reflections on their progress with no holds barred. "Give it to us the way you see it," they said again. "We'll agree or disagree, but in any case, we want to know what you think!" In no way does our feedback mean to suggest that we think we have uncovered "right answers"; it is merely our observations after stepping back ourselves, far away from daily life in the school. We hope it will contribute to the reader's own observations.

At the end of each of the previous snapshots, we raised a series of issues which we believed were important for faculty consideration as they moved forward in their work to strengthen their school. We have asked questions about the faculty's understandings of the nine Common Principles, about how kids' voices are included in discussions about change, about transitions in leadership, and about the role of classroom observation in changing schools. We have asked questions about why math instruction is so problematic, about how teachers' basic beliefs and assumptions about student capabilities and the nature of learning undergird the staff's ability to engage in real change. We have raised issues dealing with the interrelationship of instruction, curriculum, and assessment. We have asked whether being a teacher requires continuous professional growth and an ever-expanding repertoire of teaching techniques. Here again, we offer our reflections as provocations, while acknowledging that building better, stronger schools is tough, takes time, involves conflict, and requires energythen, more energy. We think we've asked some tough questions. We hope that staff will turn these over, compare them with their own reflective analysis, and use the combination to strengthen their efforts and ours.

This time we revisit three issues and ask about two more. Obviously, the discussion about the nine Common Principles is of interest to us (though we suspect we hear faint groaning from our colleagues at Oak Hill). We wonder, too, about the interrelationship between curriculum, instruction, and assessment and about the nature of innovation. We ask how change might more rapidly wend its way into students' experience, and how teachers might gain more time to work together.

[Return to Table of Contents]

The Principles Again: Where Does Number Seven Fit?

The nine Common Principles are a set of ideas designed to provoke consideration of very different kinds of schoolsschools which serve kids better. They provide the common blueprint all Essential schools use for change. In the first year of this study, we determined that staff had varying interpretations of the Principles. The staff, in turn, elected to consider them more carefully in a series of staff meetings.

When we analyzed the responses faculty gave us to the first Common Principle, concerning what, in respect to the students, it meant to use one's mind well, we found that teachers' responses fell into two basic categories: engaging in work which required recall of information or engaging in higher-level thinking. When we asked staff again which they thought more appropriate, the majority of faculty suggested that they were more interested in having kids engage in critical thinking. One teacher reminded us that to prefer one over the other is to oversimplify what good learning really isthat both are necessary. We agree; we also believe that reaching closer agreement about what these Principles mean for the staff at Oak Hill suggests that the Principles will be more useful to the school.

Throughout the school we see growing evidence that many teachers are working to interpret the Principles in their own classrooms and departments; they are finding out what "teacher-as-coach, student-as-worker" means, and what it means to generalize, by assuming a variety of rolesmentors, seminar leaders, staff meeting coordinators, interdisciplinary team members, special ed/regular ed team members. A growing number of teachers are experimenting with more authentic forms of assessment in their classes, and the senior class is about to deliver their culminating Exhibitions for the first time. Teachers are beginning to struggle to better understand what "less is more" means for their curriculum.

We'd like this time to consider the

The tone of the school should explicitly and self-consciously stress values of unanxious expectation ("I won't threaten you but I expect much of you"), of trust (until abused), and of decency (the values of fairness, generosity, and tolerance). Incentives appropriate to the school's particular students and teachers should be emphasized, and parents should be treated as essential collaborators.

During our fall visit, we asked staff how they interpreted this Principle. Most staff commented only on the phrase "unanxious expectations," and suggested that they found the phrase untenable, because they felt anxiety helps to motivate kids. Several teachers mentioned that the school had already dealt with this principle in mainstreaming its students. A couple of staff suggested that they had not begun to deal with this Principlethat they had not yet had conversations about what makes a school decent or about how they might have higher expectations for all kids without causing some students to feel defeated.

I think we often misread the friendliness, the congeniality, and the affability around here as some signal that we really are connecting with kids. I think some people assume that this is a school where we are friendly and that means we have that Principle under control from day one. I would argue that we don't. The kids have told us that they are put down by some teachers. Then, I think we disagree as a staff about how much responsibility adolescents can really handle. I am not saying that children should have the ability to decide everything. But, we are going to have trouble creating an authentic Congress if we don't agree that we should say to the kids that we do believe that they can learn and that we are going to hold them responsible for it.

No one mentioned the aspect of the Principle which defines parents' roles as "essential collaborators."

It seems to us that there is evidence that the tone of the school is sometimes harsh rather than decent, that high expectations do not apply to all students, and that parents are thought of with the friendly distrust so common across the country. While students talk regularly about issues related to the positive tone and qualities of decency in the school, while they tell us that their school is a good place and that their teachers care about them, that they benefit from the small size, that the administration seems to hear them and to respond to their concerns, they also tell us fairly often that many students feel unfairly treated.

During each visit, students have talked about feeling labeled or pigeonholed. They believe that they are stereotyped by gender, by family affiliation, or by previous performance. They provided examples which illustrate that they feel intimidated by adult jokes or comments. While we are aware that students seem to have a highly developed sense of fairness and that they are often unable to consider complex issues from teachers' perspectives, we also believe that issues raised again and again from a range of students warrant some careful consideration on the part of staff regarding the tone of the school.

Parents and students both talked about honors courses as another indicator that the school holds different expectations for some students. They are aware that some teachers do not have high expectations for all students, that some teachers believe that faculty should use academic performance as the basis for selecting students for honors courses. Students and parents both want more access for students to honors courses; they believe that if kids are motivated to try, that faculty should be willing to work with them. Parents also suggested that they are very interested to find ways to better support the school and to get information from teachers about what they are doing. They loved being involved in the Senior Options Program and would like more opportunity to interact with the students and staff.

We think the staff would benefit from a more thorough discussion of this Principle. The following questions might prove provocative: What does it mean to this staff to create a culture of unanxious expectations for all students? How might teachers create a stronger tone of decency in the school? What are the characteristics of decency? What policies and/or practices might teachers develop to communicate that they have high expectations for all students? How might parents be involved as essential collaborators in a way that is productive for staff?

[Return to Table of Contents]

Where Does Instruction Fit?

During our previous visit to Oak Hill, we asked the faculty whether discussing instruction has a central role in their efforts to change. Most said no. The exceptions were when people work on interdisciplinary teams, or when faculty work with the special education staff. One person noted that people within their department were swapping more instructional techniques than they had before. We asked the question because we have made two observations: (1) staff seem far more concerned with curriculum and assessment than with teaching strategies; and (2) in classrooms where teachers consider all threecurriculum, instruction, and assessmentas an interconnected whole, the changes the teachers are making seem much more powerful to both parents and students than when teachers consider only one or two components.

When teachers change the instructional strategy but do not think about the complementary nature of the other two components, the effects are less powerful for kids. When teachers change the curriculum, but proceed with standard teaching practices and assessment measures, kids are less powerfully engaged.

Consider Mary Shea's moon-tracking activity. In the past, she had kids read the chapter on the moon, do the vocabulary exercises and the lab activities as suggested in the book, and then she gave them a test, reminding them that all of this would be on the SBEE. When she decided to try a different approach, she developed sheets for tracking progress, she explained the assignment, got the kids collecting data, and then began during class to help them learn terms they needed and helped them to adjust and make sense of their data. When they finished the unit, they handed in a database as well as a report which analyzed the data and showed their conclusions. This particular assignment seemed more worthwhile to both kids and parentsmore authentic, more engagingthan the usual assignments. This is not to suggest, by any means, that new strategies in any one of these three essential components alone are ineffectual, but it is to say that the power of the experience seems to us to increase in direct relationship to complementary shifts in all three dimensions.

We have learned from previous work with teachers in Essential schools that considering all three aspects of the learning experience simultaneously becomes necessary when they get involved in serious change. Teachers tell us that deciding to change the curriculum goals from coverage to depth eventually forces them to shift teaching strategies, and that shift causes them to reexamine their usual assessments. We have also learned from these teachers that considering all three at once runs counter to their previous experience.

For many years, they used quite linear processes. First, they considered the curriculumwhat to teach. Once that was decided, they considered instructionhow they would teach the curriculum. Finally, teachers thought about how to assess student learning. Teachers also indicate that most of them drew from a terribly limited bag of strategies for both instructional and assessment techniques. When analyzing current practices for heightened student engagement and for evidence that students are using their minds well, teachers tell us that they begin to recognize that in order to achieve these ends, all threecurriculum, instruction, and assessmentmust change.

The following questions are suggested to help staff think about the interrelation of these three dimensions of teaching: What kinds of changes are you making? Which dimensionscurriculum, pedagogy, and assessmentdo you usually think about changing? What happens to the other two? How often do you consider all three?

[Return to Table of Contents]

What Role, Uncertainty?

This leads us to consider the relationship of uncertainty to the redesign of schools. In his book, Teaching: Making Sense of an Uncertain Craft (Teachers College Press, 1992), Joe McDonald makes the point that, for years, researchers and teachers alike have been trying to make teaching a certain craft when it is, in fact, fraught with uncertainty. Joe suggests that embracing the inherent uncertainty in teaching is as necessary as understanding that uncertainty is an integral part of any learning experience.

At Oak Hill, we see that teachers are disconcerted by uncertainty, and we see that uncertainty is part of learning new techniques. Whenever any of us tries something new, the inevitable uncertainty produces discomfort. In fact, to learn to do something in a new way, everyone must pass through some measure of uncertainty in order to gain new understandings. Teachers at Oak Hill who are attempting change suggest to us that when experimenting with new techniques, they frequently feel disappointed with students whose work did not appear as promising as teachers had hoped. Teachers also express a kind of skepticism toward suggestions that enduring the agony of changing practices will pay off in improved student performance.

We agree, however, with Dr. Goodman that the discomfort teachers feel often results from their own uncertainty about how actually to do something new. We agree with him, too, when he suggested that new practices often seem unproductive because teachers have not yet built the kinds of support structures which kids need in order to complete new activities well.

Dr. Goodman acknowledged that those strategies are built over time, as teachers analyze the relationship between kids' performance, the daily activities taking place in classrooms, and the hoped-for outcome, and then refine the information and the support they give to kids to help them accomplish the task. We are reminded of early teaching experiences, and heartened by our observation that most teachers do accomplish more each time they refine a new unit or an instructional strategy.

The majority of kids at Oak Hill talked most about those lessons which involve them in fresh approaches and which are challenging to themdebates in history, reading and analyzing rather than recalling in English, Exhibitions in economics, Mr. Walters' end-of-the-year grading conference, and the marble-rolling activity in the physics and technology classes. We would ask staff to consider the following questions: When trying something new, what kind of support were students given in order to help them understand how to do the task? How might stronger supports be built so that students are able to do what teachers hope for?

[Return to Table of Contents]

How does Change Wend its Way into Students' Lives?

Again, we acknowledge with pleasure how much is going on in the school, what a vibrant place it is. More faculty are thinking, talking, experimenting, refining their common practices, working to better support students. Every time we come, we see progress. Still, despite a good deal of innovation by a number of faculty, students' experiences at Oak Hill High School are more often than not very much like those of kids in high schools everywhere. "School stays pretty much the same," they tell us. "Our job here is to listen, to sit and listen, sometimes to fill in the blanks." Another student expresses a cynical, resigned attitude toward the school's change efforts:

I'm really beginning to think that the administration is trying to take the Coalition and twist it to their own game, and not make the school better. I think they are just making a few cosmetic changes and that the nine Common Principles are not being fully implemented. Unfortunately, we're never going to know if they would be good or not because we'll never see them fully implemented.

Parents debated whether they see evidence in their children's experiences of the kinds of things the school says it is doing. They wondered how long it will take before their kids are more than sporadically involved in engaging work; they wondered whether engaging learning will spread beyond the classrooms of a few dynamic teachers. The parents with whom we talked acknowledged that it takes time, but they wonder whether their kids will miss out.

We agree with Dr. Goodman, who observed in the spring that change was more evident for the adults than for the students. Many of the changes under way affect teachers' lives, but do not yet touch students' experiences. Teachers go to visit other schools, or talk with visitors who come to Oak Hill, or make presentations for the SDE. They spend release days with department colleagues talking about what might be possible, and time in faculty meetings deciding what the faculty's goals will be for the next year. Most of the faculty talked with enthusiasm about having a more vigorous work life than they had before, about feelings of renewed energy. In contrast, many students continued to indicate that they spend much of their time engaged in very familiar, routinized activities.

We sense that the faculty is growing ever stronger in their agreement to rethink their practices in order to benefit kids. We also believe that both students and parents are enthusiastic about the fresh and challenging approaches which do reach students. Kids would like more of these, and so would their parents. The questions are: How long does it take for better practices to reach the students' experience? How might the faculty ensure that the changes they are making have more direct effects for students?

[Return to Table of Contents]

Time and Money: How Might Oak Hill Find That?

Of course, related to the staff's ability to push ever harder and deeper for change is the issue of time. Staff continue to say that they need more time to work collaboratively, to be thoughtful, to plan together, to watch each other, to reflect, to rethink, to explore. As evidence of their sincere hope for more time, they have continued over the last five years to revise their schedule. Our sense, however, is, that the issue of staff planning time is not actually under consideration when the schedule is revised. Our guess is that faculty look at planning time as a management/labor issue, as it was in the early seventies. Our hunch is that staff are suggesting that the issue of planning time is a responsibility of the administration, and that they are hoping that the administration will provide them with more planning time. We do not know if the administration has the capacity to do this, nor do we know, really, whether we are reading this accurately. The questions that come to mind here are about the faculty's capacity: What prevents staff from organizing more regular planning time for their work? What difficult decisions might staff have to tackle in order to deal with the issue of planning time for themselves?

[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: OH4
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 10, 2002

Database Information:

About CES | CES Network | Fall Forum | Small Schools Project | Resources
My Homebase | Jobs | Search | Site Map | Contact Us | Home