|
Home > Resources
>
Leadership > The Change Process
Looking Back, Looking Ahead
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Somehow, three years have zoomed by
since we first came to Oak Hill
High School to document how its
faculty, students, and the surrounding
community go about changing to improve
student learning. Each time we visited,
we produced a "snapshot" capturing
what we observed in classrooms and
what we heard in conversations with
people in the school. While three
years was long enough to capture
a great deal, it was not long enough
to leave with a finished portrait,
showing the analysis done, the changes
made, the students more skillful
and more competent. That portrait,
we learned, will never be truly
complete; developing a better school
is, after all, an ongoing, creative
endeavor.
Now, in the spring of 1994, we look
back. Three years was long enough
to follow one cohort of students,
who started with us as juniors,
into their freshman year in college.
Long enough for sophomores to become
seniors, busily preparing their
final Exhibitions,1 checking the
mail for college acceptances, making
plans for after graduation. Long
enough for our freshman group to
become juniors who acknowledge that
their writing has improved, that
they are more confident speaking
in front of others than they were
before. Long enough for a teacher
to reconsider what she said on our
first visit:
I think the work the Coalition
suggests is all interesting
and fine for people in the
humanities, but it doesn't
have much to do with me in
math. I have too much to cover.
Math is restricted by tests
and requires steady, daily
attention, and a set sequence!
Now this teacher is working with colleagues
to redesign the math curriculum
and to rethink her own examinations
in calculus.
These three years were long enough
for principals to come and go, for
two teachers and two administrators
to retire, and for newcomers to
replace them. Long enough for this
year's sophomores to consider their
concluding humanities Exhibition
a tradition instead of an experiment
in which they are the "guinea pigs." Long enough for us to grow fond
of parents, kids, and staff, and
to wish we could stay much longer.
For our final snapshot, we would
like to look back across the previous
snapshots to measure the distance
come and then to describe where
the school is now. We would like
to summarize what we think we have
learned about the three themes that
guided the study: the translation
of the nine Common Principles into
practice, the factors sustaining
the momentum of change, and the
factors that bring about whole-school
change. Finally, we have been requested
by the faculty to outline the near
horizon as it appears to us.
[Return to Table
of Contents]
Part 1: Looking Back Across the Snapshots
Oak Hill High School joined the Coalition
of Essential Schools during the
1989-90 school year. It joined because
a new principal arrived with a vision
of Oak Hill's becoming an Essential
school. The faculty expressed a
collective willingness to explore
the nine Common Principles, the
ideas which undergird Coalition
reform, and to determine what changes
the ideas might foster if taken
seriously in their school.
[Return to Table
of Contents]
In 1991
By the fall of 1991, a writing-across-the-curriculum
project was firmly in place. The
faculty had changed its schedule
for greater flexibility and had
instituted a Student-Faculty Congress
to deal with issues of mutual concern
to faculty and students. They had
begun to have Seminar once a week,
in which small groups of students
met with a teacher to discuss issues
related to the Student-Faculty Congress.
Special-needs students had been
mainstreamed into regular classrooms,
with support from resource rooms.
Special education staff attended
classes with their students whenever
possible and consulted with the
regular classroom teacher. A new,
combination student center and technology
center was being completed-albeit
without computers. The earth science
course that prepared for a State
Board of Education Exam (SBEE) was
heterogeneously grouped for the
first time, and all freshmen students
were required to take the course.
Interdisciplinary work was under
way in ninth- and tenth-grade social
studies and English.
When We Talked with Faculty
Many of the faculty were engaged
in the discussion about whether
o change, as opposed to how
they might change. Outside
of freshman and sophomore English
and social studies, staff members
were unsure that their involvement
in the redesign of the school was
important or wise. Many believed
that they were constrained by college
admissions, by advanced placement
requirements, and by the SBEE. Others
determined that changing would undermine
the very good program they had developed
over time. While nearly everyone
complained that the SBEE demanded
that they cover too much curriculum
too quickly, many still felt that
the exam itself was a good measure
of student performance, and that
their community relied on it as
a measure of their success. Accustomed
to external, norm-referenced measures,
they questioned their authority
to determine what kids should know
and how students should demonstrate
that knowledge. While faculty liked
the nine Common Principles, they
admitted that they had not really
discussed the ideas or considered
what the Principles might mean.
Faculty, students, and parents characterized
the school as a caring place, a
place staff would like to stay until
retirement, a comfortable, small,
safe place. There was some debate
among faculty about the legitimacy
of the vote to join the Coalition,
and some debate over whether the
principal, Dr. Brenner, was a true
leader, enabling them to transform
the school or, rather, very skillful
at manipulating staff to her own
ends. For the most part, though,
the staff suggested that she breathed
new life into the school. Several
of the staff complained about lowered
standards and rowdier, less respectful
kids, and pushed for policies which
would return them to the kind of
respectful, civil culture they remembered
from earlier years.
While staff acknowledged that Dr.
Brenner provided them with more
time to go to conferences and to
visit other schools, as well as
release time to work with colleagues,
it was somehow never frequent or
regular enough. Time to work together
either as a whole staff or in smaller
groups, to think through their direction
and their strategies, always seemed
in short supply, and teachers believed
this shortage confounded their ability
to accomplish as much as they would
have liked.
When We Talked with Students
Students felt well cared for in the
school, but said that they were
not often asked to do work which
taxed or pushed them. A majority
felt pigeonholed by ability early
on, and once labeled, felt stuck
in their grade category: "Once a
70 percent always a 70." Several
were worried that the changes the
staff were undertaking would leave
them ill-prepared for college. While
ninth-graders suggested that they
were doing more than they had previously,
a number of older students claimed
that not much had changed-they were
doing the same assignments that
older siblings had done. Teachers
were using similar textbooks, teaching
in familiar ways: lectures, note-taking,
dittos. Few students found Seminar
to be time wisely spent. Those involved
in Congress found it meaningful,
while those not involved speculated
that students' abilities to tackle
real issues were restricted. Their
most consistent request was that
teachers help them understand the
contemporary utility of what they
were studying, and that teachers
work to make the subject matter
more interesting.
When We Talked with Parents
Through their discussions with Dr.
Brenner, parents were familiar with
the direction in which the school
was going. They knew about the Coalition
and seemed comfortable with the
idea. They also seemed eager for
the school to change in some ways.
It made good sense to them that
the methods that worked when they
were in school should be called
into question. Frequently, one or
more of them would try to remember
something-anything-they had learned
in high school. What they could
remember were the events where they
had been involved in some public
demonstration of their competence-games,
plays, publications. They also remembered
how quickly they forgot the facts,
the dates, the names they had been
encouraged to memorize.
They cited a number of examples of
changed instruction, where their
kids came home from school talking
about what they had to do: the moon
and the tides measurement activity,
the adopt-a-country project, the
Holocaust unit.2 Several did note
that they were very excited by the
adult discussion of change, but
slow to see examples in their kids' daily experience. Parents suggested
that they were interested in knowing
more about what the staff and students
were doing so that they might be
supportive and well informed.
When We Looked in Classrooms
For the most part, the classrooms
we visited could have been classrooms
from our own high school experience.
This reinforced the consistent finding
that high schools have endured relatively
untouched in the midst of enormous
social and technological upheaval
in the last thirty years. The content
in many classes was familiar: work
on thesis statements, math problems
done by teachers at the board, cake
baking, French or Spanish oral recitations,
papers, teacher-led discussions
of economics, a student report on
paleobiology, and a chemistry lab
in which the teacher demonstrated
and kids filled in the blanks. There
were signs that some were changing
their teaching methodology by adopting
process writing, small-group work,
student-generated projects, rapid-fire
oral activities that required that
everyone participate and keep up.
And there were new forms of assessment,
or in some cases, new names for
old forms: Exhibitions, scoring
rubrics. And there were occasional
signs that teachers were modernizing
their curriculum by adding minority
authors or relating what students
were learning to contemporary issues,
as in economics, when the teacher
asked students to consider the fate
of socialist theory in light of
the impending collapse of the Soviet
Union. While faculty were enthusiastic
about the changes they were making,
those who were attempting fresh
strategies were new to innovation-enthusiastic,
but anxious for feedback. In addition,
while the staff was interested in
talking about the Principles, few
were attempting to translate the
ideas into daily practice. From
their perspective, and ours, it
was sometimes difficult to determine
that kids were using their minds
well or at least better than they
had previously.
[Return to Table
of Contents]
In 1992 and 1993
In the intervening years of the study,
several major changes took place
at the school.
Changes in the Educational Context
The state department of education
drafted new educational policy to
support reform and Oak Hill became
one of the first partnership schools.
As a partnership school, Oak Hill
would provide a model for the staff
at the state department of education
and would be one of the first schools
to translate new policy into action.
Staff and administrators were invited
to help the state department of
education think through their changing
roles and to suggest appropriate
redesigns of the SBEE.
A new principal and vice principal
came aboard, and, in a decisive
break from tradition, the faculty
began facilitating their own staff
meetings. Dr. Brenner moved into
the superintendency and expanded
her efforts toward achieving district-wide
coherence.
The Investigate program, which takes
place in the last term of the senior
year, was established. It requires
that students engage in an independent
study, an internship, or a research
project and then make some formal
presentation at the end of the year,
in front of a panel of external
judges, about what they have learned.
As we looked in from the outside,
our role changed. Faculty asked
us to go beyond mere description
to give them some sense of our impressions.
Accordingly, we raised a number
of issues with the staff in the
intervening snapshots. The most
constant issue we raised was the
lack of planning time, consistently
noted by the staff, that constrained
their efforts to reassess and strengthen
their practices. We suggested, too,
that while staff have constantly
revised their work schedule, they
have never tackled the issue of
planning time, beyond providing
mutual planning periods to team
members in some cases.
Instruction-related Issues
We saw that many teachers were in
a proverbial Catch-22 with kids.
Many kids, disengaged in the work
teachers offered them, suggested
that it was hard to do boring, repetitive
work. Teachers, however, found it
difficult to imagine that kids could
or would do more, or that teachers
should invest the time and energy
required to develop more rigorous,
challenging work than before. Thus,
a kind of mutually defeating set
of circumstances continued.
We were told that mathematics was
the most problematic discipline
in the school by all reports from
students, teachers, and parents.
Students found math confusing, and
frequently needed tutors. Parents
struggled to understand individual
teacher's systems and to find adequate
tutors. Teachers found too many
students ill-equipped and reticent.
We learned that the problems were
confounded by math teachers' perceptions
that math is completely linear,
that the curriculum is rigid, and
that demonstration and drill are
the only methods for teaching it.
After we raised these issues, members
of the math department worked together
to determine how to move ahead.
We discussed with the faculty several
issues related to instruction in
general. Teachers generally get
very little feedback about their
teaching and work alone for the
most part. Part of what the nine
Common Principles seemed to suggest
to us was that teachers should cultivate
a broad repertoire of pedagogical
techniques. Unfortunately, it is
extremely difficult to build this
repertoire when people work in such
isolation. We also observed that
teachers did not talk about their
own instructional practices as much
as they did about curriculum or
assessment. There are real implications
of this particular cultural norm.
Teachers develop an individual style,
or set of techniques, with little
feedback about the range, the effectiveness,
or alternative possibilities. Consequently,
there is little support for teachers
who are trying new techniques, which
makes it less likely that they will
persist when something new does
not work out as planned. We hoped
that the development of a protocol,
a set of ground rules, for the discussion
of instruction might open this end
of the teaching triangle of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment.
The Nine Common Principles
Several things became clear about
how the school used the nine Common
Principles, a focus of our study.
The first was that the faculty seemed
not to have probed beyond surface
understandings of the ideas. When
we reported our observation to the
faculty, they asked us to interview
them about the nine Common Principles.
We found, not surprisingly, that
people tended to define the Principles
in terms of their current practices.
Since many of the staff had very
different notions about quality,
rigor, and what constitutes good
thinking, we suggested that deeper
discussion of those ideas might
provide the kind of mutual understanding
they needed to give them clearer,
more coherent direction than they
had previously. We noted that some
faculty perceived the nine Common
Principles as an orthodoxy, "the
right way" to do things; consequently
we suggested that deeper dialogue
about the Principles might help
people to build broader interpretations
than they previously had of them.
Divisiveness Among the Faculty
We also observed that as more staff
became involved in assessing their
work and redesigning new structures,
the whole faculty appeared more
divisive. Teachers, parents, and
students all commented on this phenomenon.
Divisiveness manifested itself in
several ways-private sniping, public
disagreement, or interdepartmental
arguments. There was a greater impatience
on the part of those who believed
change to be beneficial, and a greater
skepticism on the part of those
who were unsure about change.
As each group became more certain
of its advantage, so did its counterpart.
Both groups engaged in the kind
of covert action which is so irritating
to others. Supporters were said
to have made decisions without consulting
others; those uncertain about the
value of the changes under way allegedly
made lists of those benefiting unduly
from the changes. Rather than having
frank, whole-group discussions or
direct confrontation, both groups
became involved in the rumor mill,
which worked ceaselessly, to the
irritation of both groups. As the
irritation reached new heights,
those less interested in change
became more insistent that an evaluation
of gains be made. Those involved
began in small groups to review
the quality of their work, but generally
these groups did not include their
critics. We observed that it might
be healthier for everyone if the
school as a whole became committed
to schoolwide renewal and held all
programs and practices up to the
light over time.
[Return to Table
of Contents]
Part 2: Oak Hill Now
By the spring of 1994, the school,
Oak Hill's faculty, and the students
were at a different place-more change-wise;
more battle weary. Still, they were
struggling with some of the same
issues. English teachers collected
portfolio materials for a couple
of years. When they discovered that
they had no mutual understanding
about how the materials might be
used, they gathered to come to some
consensus. Faculty and students
involved in Congress believed that
their work had moved to a deeper
level, but they were still debating
issues of eligibility, fairness,
and the ticker (a programmable sign
in the lunchroom). Seminar was still
problematic and under review. Congress
was proposing that each Seminar
include students from all grades,
instead of only one grade, as a
strengthening measure. The staff
was again interviewing candidates
for a new principal. Nearly everyone
perceived that the school was contributing
more to the state's reorganization
than the school was getting back.
The Investigate program (in its second
year), in which seniors selected
an internship or a research topic
for an end-of-year Exhibition, went
through a review involving parents,
students, mentors, and Seminar teachers
to determine how to strengthen it.
Faculty voted to retain the schedule
they had last year that provided
rotating, double-blocked periods.
Some hope that during the 1994-95
school year they might build a simpler
schedule to provide planning time
and greater teaming opportunities.
A retreat that was designed for
faculty to share their work together,
snowed out in the winter, was rescheduled
for June.
[Return to Table
of Contents]
When We Talked with Teachers
The ninth- and tenth-grade English
and social studies teachers moved
from interdisciplinary work, in
which they studied feudal life in
social studies and King Arthur in
literature, to integrated work,
in which students researched the
nature of feudal society through
literature, history, and film. The
teachers changed the name of the
course to humanities. All
four teachers from these two levels
worked to redesign the Exhibitions
at the end of the tenth-grade year.
The eleventh-grade English and social
studies teacher instituted a research
paper and several exams that asked
students to use information gained
in both classes.
All of these teachers worked together
to develop assessments that substituted
for the SBEE. Other teachers in
chemistry, French, Spanish, earth
science, math, and biology developed
some performance assessment components
for the SBEE and had them approved
by the state department of education.
Teachers were gaining confidence
in their ability to judge and to
rethink this assessment tool.
The resource staff at each grade
level functioned as members of teams.
Recognizing that students needed
more organizational skills, they
turned their attention to those
needs.
The Same Goals for All?
About half the staff suggested that
the faculty held the same goals
for all kids, while the other half
suggested that they did not. In
any case, their reasoning was the
same: that all kids were expected
to work to their ability level.
More is expected of those students
perceived to be brighter than others.
This tendency, which has been the
conventional wisdom in schools for
years, is supported by tracking
and by the bell-curve system of
grading. One teacher suggested that
faculty had not discussed how the
Principle that suggests that schools
should hold the same goals for all
kids might indicate a different
set of solutions.
Most staff agreed that the nine Common
Principles are interrelated, but
suggested in their examples the
interconnection between only two
or three. Some could see the relationship
between personalization and "less
is more," while others could see
the connection between "student-as-
worker" and "personalization." Two
teachers did not think they were
related, one because the ninth Principle,
about the cost of reform, was so
different from the others, another
because, he said, "Less is never
more." Many said that the Principles
are interrelated but very difficult
to translate into daily practices.
We asked people to think about the
benchmarks that they might consider
as indicators of the successfulness
of the changes they have made. Two
people said that they were not sure
that there were any benchmarks yet.
One teacher said, "We're asking
less and getting less. I don't like
the reader response theory [in which
readers keep a running journal or
log as a way of reacting to the
text to increase comprehension],
and I think that it is possible
that teaming locks teachers into
an ever more rigid system." A number
of teachers suggested that the Investigate
program was a tremendous benchmark.
Other comments about improvements
made were that kids can write better,
can solve problems better, and that
special education kids are less
isolated than they were before.
Leadership
In distinction from their view of
leadership at the school when we
arrived, the faculty saw a number
of teachers as leaders in the school.
At that earlier time, most discussed
leadership in terms of traditional
roles, such as the principal's.
This time, they did not suggest
formal leadership roles, like that
of the curriculum coordinator or
the union, so much as they gave
examples of how individuals moved
some aspect of the work in the school
forward. Eight teachers were named
for their contributions. This suggested
to us that the staff was interested
in "leadership density," a notion
developed by Scott Meyer in his
early book entitled Every Employee
a Manager,3 in which he suggests
that large organizations are too
complex to be governed by hierarchical
structures and that individuals
need to be able to contribute in
areas of particular interest to
them.
It was also true that many of the
staff wanted a stronger, more active
principal than they have. While
they were grateful for the opportunity
to expand their own leadership skills,
they wanted more vision, more decisiveness,
and a sense that someone was ensuring
the coherence of their efforts.
Finding the appropriate balance
between shared leadership and the
formal exercise of leadership was
a challenge.
Collaboration
We talked with all of the teachers
who had been working collaboratively.
The most experienced humanities
team had been working together for
nine years. They gave hope to the
rest by affirming that the need
for time to plan decreased with
experience. Everyone else was still
desperate for the time to work together.
The greatest challenges in teaming
were balancing the two disciplines,
supporting special-needs students,
meshing tempos, enculturating newcomers,
and struggling to find other approaches
besides ways to blend their work.
One newcomer said that she felt
like a substitute teacher coming
into a pre-established curriculum.
The majority of teams noted that
they were more reflective about
their work as a result of their
interaction with a colleague, and
that they shared "more laughter,
more ideas" as a result of their
work together.
Changes in Instruction
All teachers suggested that they
were working on some aspect of their
pedagogy or assessment. Changes
in curriculum were most frequently
mentioned-new texts, new projects,
new authors, new technology. The
addition of CD-ROM in the library
has provided an amazing resource.
In terms of instruction, teachers
mentioned working on Socratic seminars,
working in small groups, trying
to lecture less, and engaging kids
in more metacognitive reflection.
In terms of assessment, besides
the alternatives to the SBEE, teachers
mentioned Exhibitions in math and
humanities, and they noted the development
of new scoring rubrics to help kids
better understand the grading criteria.
Most teachers mentioned work in
only one area-like the incorporation
of new curriculum or a new assessment
technique. A number mentioned that
they were tentatively considering
changes in one area. The art teacher
and the business education teachers,
the major freelance collaborators
in the school, have been busy working
with teachers in a variety of disciplines.
Staff tackled some difficult issues
related to the divisiveness they
were experiencing. They established
a set of ground rules for talking
about change with students and among
themselves, directly addressing
issues that most schools simply
avoid. They also talked about the
need for tighter, more purposeful
staff meetings, and about the need
for a more coherent focus for their
work.
The general tone of the faculty was
much different from when we first
arrived. People were better versed
in discussion, and seemed more interested
in real exchange than in politeness.
There was little discussion among
fewer people questioning the need
for change. Several people felt
isolated in this regard, as if they
were not valued despite their very
real contributions. The faculty
still seemed to struggle to accept
varying points of view and had not
satisfactorily answered the questions
raised by those who would have liked
more faculty-wide evaluation of
the changes made.
Changes Being Developed
However, the majority were engaged,
and they described to us what they
were interested in pursuing next.
The science department suggested
again this spring that they might
be ready to make a major change
in their courses by the fall of
1995. The humanities teachers suggested
that they now needed to share student
work to double-check quality. The
Investigate program facilitators
hoped to find a broader range of
mentors earlier, so that students
would be able to make their arrangements
earlier on. The technology program
was experimenting with providing
real products for the cost of materials.
The math department planned to revamp
Course 2 next year by reducing the
curriculum to slow the pace.
It did not seem as if the faculty
was slowing down, waiting for the
opportunity to lapse back into business
as usual. On the contrary, they
seemed better prepared, more interested,
more intent upon next steps than
they did in previous years. While
they were a little stunned by the
range of emotions that change elicited
among staff-fear, frustration, anger,
exhilaration, closer friendships-only
two people (the principal and a
teacher) opted to leave in this,
their sixth year of change.
[Return to Table
of Contents]
When We Talked with Students
This year, we interviewed only seniors
and juniors. Out of our original
cohort, one student transferred
to an alternative program, one dropped
out of school, and two moved away.
The seniors were solidifying their
plans for the next year. Many of
the students expressed a kind of
mingled glee and nostalgia as they
anticipated graduation: "It's really
hard to believe that thirteen years
have gone by and I am on the threshold
of graduating from high school.
It almost has taken me by surprise!" Another student expressed her remorse:
I totally wish I was like a nerd
and a bookworm. I really, really
wish I was. I am so mad at
myself. Because I always thought
average is okay because my
mom was always telling me,
"There's 500 million other
average people." You know what
I mean? You have to be above
average.
Her plan now was to bring up her grades
at a local community college so
that she could transfer to the college
she wanted to attend.
We asked students to talk to us about
several issues: to think about whether
the school had the same goals for
all students, to indicate which
changes they considered worthwhile
and which they found lacking, and
to share how and what they knew
about the Coalition. We asked them
to indicate what they found problematic
about the school, and to tell us
what they would do to improve the
school.
Different Goals for Different Kids
Students, like faculty, gave two
answers, but arrived at the same
conclusion. Either the school had
the same goal for all students-that
all kids should graduate-but didn't
meet it, or the goals were different
for students of differing abilities.
Students suggested unanimously that
more is expected of and provided
for the more talented students in
the school. One student asserted,
"Honestly, I think they only care
about the top 20 percent and then
the rest they want to push off into
life with some preparation-but keep
them from bothering the top 20 percent.
Then the top 20 percent is played
off against each other." He and
his teammates compare what they
are expected to do for homework.
The regular classes have far less
homework; "They have the same goals,
but subtly communicate that kids
aren't equal."
A student gave another example:
Teachers expect some students
to go further than others.
There is a kid in my class
who comes in late every day.
The teacher doesn't care anymore
and says, 'Well, you're going
to fail.' I think the student
can do the work; he just needs
someone to get on his case
a lot.
One girl who works hard in school
remembered how she was given the
message that she wasn't as good
as others.
I took the test to get into advanced
English, my best subject, and
I think like the whole year
I kept like a 93 average, and
when I asked why I didn't get
in, a teacher told me that
there were other students that
had the same grade as me, but
they didn't have to work as
hard to get it. I was like,
"Wait a minute. You're telling
me that because I worked harder,
I can't get the class I wanted?" Who cares how hard I had to
work for it? I did it. And
I was willing to do that. I
think the whole reasoning was
wrong.
Worthwhile Changes.
The two changes mentioned by students
were the Investigate program and
Exhibitions.
Many students said they are looking
forward to the Investigate program.
I am really glad that our school
is part of the senior investigation
program. This last quarter
of school would be unbearable
for me if we had to go through
with it in school as usual.
Even the teachers seem to think
and act as if school doesn't
mean as much at the end of
the senior year. The project
that I am undertaking is (in
my opinion) much more enlightening
than six more weeks of school.
Since I will be working on
my own mostly, I will have
to sharpen my motivational
skills and learn to actually
complete a project on time
as my own boss. These are important
qualities to focus on, seeing
as I would like to go into
business for myself.
In addition, kids mentioned the Exhibitions
in math.
In math we had to present an
Exhibition to the class. This
Exhibition consisted of working
in groups and being given a
certain math problem to solve.
Besides solving the problem,
we were asked to write out
our steps and draw a graph
of the solution, both on transparencies
so that the whole class could
see how we did it.
Another student added, "It really
helps to make us understand more
in the English sense how to get
the problems, rather than learning
the rules that you then don't know
how to use." Several students suggested
that Exhibitions were promising.
"After it was over last year, I
felt proud of myself because I had
done a good job presenting stuff
and I knew my character and the
others well."
Others noted that community service
was worthwhile, or that they believed
that they had learned to write better
and express themselves more confidently
than before.
Unproductive Changes
When we asked students which changes
were least worthwhile, they suggested
that the arguing among faculty was
disconcerting, and that the lack
of information they got about what
teachers were attempting and why
was problematic. Some considered
mandatory community service to be
contradictory. One student did not
like the Investigate program because
he said that it would be too easy
for some students to slack off.
Many students suggested that the
changes were occurring too slowly.
"I think the school's changed less
than I've changed. I look at things
differently, but I don't see much
difference in it."
A group mentioned that they would
like to go beyond oral presentations
and that they need more variety.
Students said that double-blocked
periods were killers, if no instructional
adjustments were made. One student
noted,
It is interesting. We have been
watching a lot of TV in school
lately. At one time, we were
watching three separate movies
in two classes. This is much
more than I watch at home.
It is interesting how teaching
methods are moving away from
a teacher lecturing. Watching
a lot of TV also raises questions
itself.
Students' Thoughts about the Coalition
We asked how students got information
about the Coalition, an issue the
faculty had asked us to check out.
Tiger Pause, the student
newspaper, conversations with faculty,
and a student session conducted
several years ago were their main
sources of information. One student
described that he felt that almost
everything in the school was blamed
on the Coalition.
The things I remember are "less
is more," "student-as-worker," "teacher-as-coach," which in
one teacher's class is bad
because it's taken to the extreme.
I think the Principles are
pretty vague, so teachers interpret
it the way they want. In one
class, the teacher doesn't
teach; he expects us to learn
from the textbook. Well, the
text is an aid, but it's not
the only way you should get
your information. The Coalition
is something that teachers
and students should be able
to talk with each other and
have a mutual understanding
about. That's something that's
not really happening in the
school. And because students
automatically assume that the
Coalition is bad, anything
that the teacher describes
as Coalition has got to be
bad. It's part of "School is
bad, school is boring; Coalition
is school, so Coalition must
be bad and boring." Or I take
a different kind of test and
I get a bad grade on the test,
so "These tests are ridiculous,
the test is new; therefore,
the test must be Coalition
and bad." A lot of little things
work on association like that.
A number of students suggested a new
view of the Coalition after a brief
conversation with Theodore Sizer,
founder and chairman of the Coalition
of Essential Schools. Unfortunately,
very few students shared that opportunity.
I think most students who got
to speak to him had a much
different view, and all of
them thought a lot higher of
the Coalition and the things
that are going on after speaking
with him. Even though he left
us with a lot more questions
than answers, which is typical
of every Coalition meeting
I've ever attended, we really
talked a lot. We asked him
a lot of questions about the
nine Principles and applications,
and in a lot of cases, he didn't
have the answers. At the same
time, you see where he is trying
to go with it, and I agree
that the American education
system right now is really
poor.æ.æ.æ. I am still as critical
and analytical, but I'm less
likely to just dismiss the
nine Common Principles offhand.
"Less is more" means that you
cover less material, but you
go more into depth on what
you teach. With Oak Hill teachers,
it's a common joke. To them
it means you do less work and
you get more out of it. After
meeting with Sizer and hearing
about what the Coalition stands
for, it is not the problem.
It is how it is implemented
in this school.
Another student was more concise:
"The main Coalition idea is to make
students more active in the learning
process; less 'sit back and take
it' and more 'go out and find it.'"
Students seemed to come down squarely
in favor of learning something more
thoroughly, rather than racing through
it. "I don't like not remembering
what I learned!" The students were
in agreement that they would like
both more information and more dialogue
with faculty about the changes the
school is trying to make.
Critical Observations
Students raised a number of issues
which seemed problematic to them.
Many of the seniors noted that their
senior year is much easier than
their junior year-that not as much
is asked of them. This was a consistent
comment throughout both visits this
year and was reinforced by last
year's seniors and their parents.
The year did not challenge or push
students as much as they expected
or would have liked, despite the
fact that they found some classes
very interesting. Gaining an understanding
of the utility of what they learn
continued to confound them. A number
of students said, "Kids don't know
how to use what they've learned," or "I know how to plug in the numbers
to get the right answer, but don't
know when or how I would use it
on my own."
Congress still felt contrived for
some, and they were distressed by
the fact that they were dealing
with the same three issues they
were confronting when they started.
Seminar still felt superficial and
the purpose was not always clear
to them.
Suggested Improvements
We asked students to give advice
about what they thought might be
done to improve the school. They
were earnest and thoughtful in their
suggestions. The most important
recommendation was that student
interest be central to teachers' planning and to classroom work.
I need to be more stimulated
by classes. That is the key
for someone to be a learner.
Kids have to be interested,
stimulated, and motivated.
The force to learn comes from
them. Teachers can't make someone
learn.
Another said, "We need more latitude
in finding an angle on an assignment."
Along with the latitude to locate
personal interest in a topic, students
commented on their need to understand
the utility of what they learned:
In many classes you can easily
not pay attention for a long
period of time, preview the
book at the end of the year
and pass the SBEE and come
out knowing absolutely nothing.
One teacher just reads the reports
that students wrote: the digestive
tract of an earthworm versus
grasshoppers. This is stuff
that you memorize for a little
while but forget because it
has no meaning in your life.
Maybe if it were focused on
enzymes and how enzymes work,
because we have enzymes, too,
that affect our digestion.
Mr. Sagor's Great Issues class
is the most important class
I have. I can use what I learn
there. It's important right
now.
There were two requests to teachers
embedded in these suggestions by
the students. Students wanted to
be engaged in activities that require
them to place the content of their
study into the context of their
lives, and they wanted assignments
that allowed them to identify the
intersection of the content and
their own interests. The first student
also indicated a need for specific
content to relate to larger concepts,
both within and beyond the discipline.
Rushing through things was difficult
for kids, as was predictability
or repetitiveness.
In her class, I have the kind
of tests she gives down pat.
I can take the test without
reading the instructions and
get a 90 something. It's the
same things over and over.
Not really challenging at all.
Another student commented, "Throwing
dittos at us that we have to do
gets boring."
Teacher enthusiasm played into their
enthusiasm for school as well. Mr.
Nelson was an example of "raw energy" that forced the kids to become more
interested. They resented teachers
who were negative towards them and
blamed students for not learning,
when from their perspective, it
was also the teacher's responsibility
to engage with students.
Several students offered recommendations
regarding the changes that teachers
were making. They said it was hard
to learn from the oral reports of
others: "It's hard enough to learn
from listening to a teacher, but
with students it's impossible!"
Students suggested that it was necessary
that teachers go beyond putting
kids in little groups. They did
not feel that group work by itself
elicited more from them or provided
more for them, in and of itself.
Group work embedded in a larger
task was a different story.
They hoped that teachers would use
double-blocked periods more creatively,
use a variety of teaching techniques,
or allow students more latitude
in their selection of topics to
pursue. They did not feel that they
were better off if double blocks
were used as study halls, or if
they found themselves doing repetitive
activities for the full two periods.
When doing that, their attention
and interest flagged.
Students wanted teachers who would
support them. Many students had
suspicions that several teachers
translate the nine Common Principles
too literally, that "student-as-worker" means that teachers retreat to allow
kids to figure it out alone.
One of my teachers is heavy into
the Coalition. He's interpreting "student-as-worker" as "I don't
feel like teaching you. Learn
it on your own." He's taking
the framework and mangling
it. He's taking a welding torch
to it and changing it to new
shapes to suit him. He says
we're the worst class he's
had in ten years and we say
it's because he won't teach
us.
Another student asked that the sexism
in classes be reduced, that math
teachers refrain from suggesting
gender as an explanation for poor
math performance.
Finally, a student summarized for
the rest that teachers are key to
their education: "A teacher can
open doors for you, or guide you
to it."
[Return to Table
of Contents]
When We Talked with Parents
During our final visit to the school,
we were joined by a group of six
parents, down from our normal group
of ten to fifteen. The group reinforced
one continuous theme: they would
like more information about reform
and about the changes the school
was making, and they would be interested
in helping in more interesting and
compelling ways at the high school
level. Again, they reinforced that
they loved the initial sessions
Dr. Brenner conducted with them;
they longed for more activities
of that nature.
Two of the parents expressed their
belief that the school had the same
goals for all students. One, a parent
of a resource student, believed
that her son had been challenged
and not exempted from anything other
kids were expected to do. She was
most appreciative, and she believed
that her son had flourished in a
way he would not have if he had
been left to a resource room. The
other parent in this group had a
son who was not strong academically.
She cited example after example
of how the school managed to find
her son's gifts and to push him
in that direction. The other parents
believed that the school favored
the more talented students, that
tracking limited the opportunities
students have, that in order for
students to jump tracks, parents
had to be very vigilant and outspoken.
By and large, these parents continued
to be enormously supportive of the
changes the school was making. They
mentioned the Investigate program,
the community service program, and
the focus on writing and on Exhibitions
as benchmarks of change and as worthwhile
indicators of better preparation
for their kids. One mother, who
was an evaluator last year during
the Investigate program, shared
a story: "One student built a guitar.
He glowed, and the instrument glowed,
and it was an incredible experience.
You realize that it is within your
power to create those kinds of experiences
for kids." Another noted that her
current college freshman had gone
to college better equipped than
her equally bright older sister
who graduated from Oak Hill earlier.
Her younger daughter was more adept
at problem solving, at writing,
at speaking in front of others.
On the other hand, two of the mothers
of less academically capable students
stated quite clearly that none of
the changes which the school said
it was making affected the daily
lives of either of their children.
From their perspective, there was
more rhetoric than action; this
was disappointing, as they believed
that their children would benefit
the most from new designs and activities.
At the same time, they were supportive
of what the school was attempting
and seemed to believe that action
would eventually follow the rhetoric.
Another father noted that he was
troubled because he perceived that
the changes under way were preceding
the faculty's understanding of the
nine Common Principles-that action
was preceding ideas. He would have
preferred the reverse to be true
on occasion, as he believed that
the stability of the changes made
would be more secure if teachers
had a strong philosophical undergirding.
The group credited a number of teachers
for both leading and having the
courage to examine their own work.
They agreed that Dr. Brenner is
a remarkable leader, but debated
whether she elicited real participation
or was actually managing a personal
agenda. One parent served on a committee
whose recommendations were ignored.
Others believed that parents had
been legitimately involved.
Consistent with our earlier conversations,
parents suggested that "schools
undergoing change are more flexible,
more open to new ideas and to children
in wonderful ways." Their emotional
reaction to change was to say "Phew!" and "Oh, good!" Clearly, these parents
were willing to support the faculty's
in-depth redesign of school practices.
[Return to Table
of Contents]
When We Looked in Classrooms
After this visit, we might characterize
classrooms in several ways. Some
exemplified traditional practices
which asked little of kids-teacher
talk predominating at the front
of the room, reviewing textual material,
or teachers working problems at
the board. Two more traditional
classrooms demonstrated approaches
that engaged students in serious
ways-through guided analytical discussion
which center on the teacher's knowledge.
Other classes exemplified teachers' experimenting with new techniques
which they believed moved them and
their students closer to more active
participation. In some cases, these
classrooms seemed successful-more
thoughtful, more demanding of students.
In others, the tasks students were
undertaking were not very compelling
or demanding, or students simply
were not given enough guidance from
their teachers to provide them with
the wherewithal to do the work.
The science department was most often
identified as either misinterpreting
the Principle of "student-as-worker" or as abdicating responsibility
for providing support. At the same
time, some of the activities the
science department had undertaken
prompted more intellectual engagement
on the part of students. Similarly,
while the math department eliminated
some curriculum and moved towards
a redesign of the SBEE, we still
saw only an occasional example of
more varied instructional approaches.
In a discipline which consistently
confounds so many students in the
school, we can't help but persevere
in suggesting that a greater variety
of instructional approaches would
be helpful to students.
It may be important to clarify here
that the majority of teachers were
involved in making the structural
changes in which the school is involved-changing
schedules, establishing Congress,
serving as a Seminar teacher. Still
others were involved in reassessing
the curriculum to reshape it around
essential topics, as opposed to
coverage. Many were redesigning
assessments-changing part or all
of the SBEE, experimenting with
Exhibitions, using scoring rubrics,
studying uses for portfolios. However,
fewer teachers were involved in
rethinking instructional techniques
than were working on assessments.
When we looked back over the last
three years, we had visited some
classrooms up to fifteen times.
We have had students who wrote weekly
journals recounting exactly what
they were doing in class. What we
noticed most clearly was that the
majority of teachers at Oak Hill
used one technique predominantly,
and then had a limited complementary
repertoire of options for moving
through material. Students, therefore,
accepted routinization as a regular,
daily part of their school experience,
but complained vehemently and consistently
about boredom, predictability, a
lack of freshness, and the lack
of connection between what they
were learning and the larger world
in which they lived. We think that
there is a significant connection
between the variability of teachers' instructional approaches and students' engagement. We also have evidence
that changing assessment or curriculum
does not necessarily drive the kind
of changes in instruction needed
for the consistent intellectual
practice kids require to learn to
use their minds well.
A second related issue was that even
those who were changing tended to
overuse or quickly routinize new
approaches, so that they, too, lost
their freshness. Writing first-person
narratives (an assessment technique)
and reporting on a chapter in science
were examples often cited. The old
saw about too much of a good thing
may pertain.
A third issue was that many teachers
had adopted one fresh project or
approach over the last three years
and stopped there. While it is understandable
to us that the addition of a major
project or a technique like Socratic
seminars may take a number of years
to refine and evaluate, we are left
wondering whether teachers believed
that the addition of a project or
two was sufficient to the school's
commitment to foster student competence.
That, in turn, leads us to wonder
why it was so. Was it that the faculty
believed that this was another temporary
phase in the school's long history?
Was it that it was too hard for
individual teachers to engage consistently
in learning new approaches?
[Return to Table
of Contents]
Part 3: The Study Themes
We started this study to investigate
three themes which we believed were
largely absent from the reform literature.
We asked how schools were using
the nine Common Principles, how
they maintained the momentum of
change over time, and whether they
were involved in whole-school change.
While we plan to spend the next
year analyzing all of the data from
the original three sites and from
the two sites added last year, we
thought some brief preliminary thoughts
might be in order.
[Return to Table
of Contents]
The Nine Common Principles
Professor Sizer generated the nine
Common Principles as a fresh approach
to school redesign. Historically,
change has been mandated for those
who work in schools by those who
don't.4 Clearly, many of the mandated
requirements for change were shortsighted
and thus fell short of providing
better student learning. The Principles
are designed to be respectful of
the intellectual capacity of those
who work in schools, to suggest
that they themselves are best suited
to diagnosing and redesigning their
practices. The Principles are offered
as a kind of architectural support,
like a blueprint, that has to be
translated on sight to account for
local differences and values. They
are prompts for the construction
of new meanings, practices, beliefs,
and structures.
We know from a number of studies
of schools in their first three
to five years of reform that they
do not use the Principles in very
rigorous ways.5 It appears that
schools further down the road do
not feel the need to use the nine
Common Principles vigorously either.
At Oak Hill, we believe that only
a few of the ideas are really under
consideration. Most faculty suggest
that they are working on "personalization" or "student-as-worker." Fewer still
are working on "less is more." Despite
the conversations we've had about
the ideas in our interview sessions,
faculty do not hold shared understandings
of what they mean. While many people
feel that the ideas are interconnected,
we see only limited evidence that
teachers wish to move towards a
holistic interpretation.
We can speculate as to why the Principles
play such a limited role in the
school. Staff have limited time
to work together. High schools have
never been accustomed to fostering
shared understandings, but rather
have been collections of individuals
or departments. It is also possible
that staff have participated in
vision-building sessions that take
only a few hours or a day, and so,
do not see that there is a need
for deeper conversation or sustained
effort. In addition, schools in
general are more action oriented-their
approach is to build a new program,
add some new curriculum-they are
less oriented to establishing the
philosophical base for action first.
Furthermore, as we've mentioned
previously, we are a society of
slogans, such as, "Just do it," "It's the economy, Stupid!" "Every
child can learn." Evidence abounds
that there are little or no consequences
for adopting new rhetoric to old
practices. In fact, our political
life suggests that adapting new
slogans without changing much is
what we expect and is the status
quo.
Whatever the reasons, the nine Common
Principles do not appear to undergird
the work of the majority of the
faculty. More frequently, they are
used to help to clarify divisiveness
among staff. As we noted in our
first snapshot, they are frequently
the source of humorous exchanges.
We agree with Mr. Walters that the
Principles can and should withstand
significant, heated debate. We also
believe that the Principles are
only useful to local communities
when they are actively used.
The question we will grapple with
over the next few years is whether
the strategy-local interpretation
of a common set of ideas-has real
potential to support better schooling,
or whether it does, as its skeptics
claim, ask more of school folk than
they are willing or able to give.
[Return to Table
of Contents]
Sustaining the Momentum of Change
If schools are to engage in schoolwide
renewal over time, the momentum
for change has to be sustained by
the faculty and the community over
time, also. Historically, efforts
to change have been stalemated by
the transition of one principal
or superintendent to the next, or
by the departure of important faculty.
Interestingly, at Oak Hill, despite
the departure of two principals
and the retirement of three faculty,
support for change appears to have
grown steadily. A major factor is
the superintendent, who was the
high school principal previously.
She created a resource-rich environment
for the faculty when she was at
the high school, and now is providing
the same for the entire district.
Dr. Brenner is heavily involved
in the state's restructuring effort
and has ensured the compatibility
between what the district and the
state are doing. Seen as manipulative
by some, touted as the champion
of the district by more, she has
been the single, most important
force for change.
We are not unaware that the presence
of the study has had some effect
on change efforts. In addition to
the visits, the study sponsored
faculty participation in summer
seminars on the development of student-centered
curriculum (a study of math and
science teachers' roles in Coalition
schools) and provided the opportunity
for the staff to visit with eminent
educational leaders such as Ann
Lieberman, Art Powell, and Seymour
Sarason.
On the other hand, some staff have
gained interest purely as a result
of their own investigations. One
staff member took an evening course
on alternative assessment with her
daughter. Another did independent
reading that led her to conclude
that the school's direction might
just be on target.
At the same time, the faculty worked
hard to develop the interpersonal
skills to deal with conflicting
views. With those skills, the capacity
to discuss, to argue, to confront,
and to clarify has been extended.
As the debate among faculty moved
from the typical "polite-but-separate," it seems to have become intrinsically
more interesting-and frightening-for
the participants.
The principal who replaced Dr. Brenner
was hired by her and was carefully
screened in terms of his ability
and willingness to foster and support
the school's effort. He, in turn,
approved of shared leadership, so
faculty took an increasingly lively
interest in organizing and conducting
staff meetings. In the last year,
virtually all of these meetings
have been run by staff. This suggests
a new kind of opportunity for professional
growth for teachers. Places where
the staff is challenged and growing
are far more likely to persevere
than places where the staff is stifled
and opportunities are scarce.
The community has been uncommonly
supportive. While communities around
the country are succumbing to the
second back-to-basics movement of
the far right, or the restrictive
satisfaction with their own schools
but discontent with others that
the Phi Delta Kappan reports
each year, parents and business
people alike in Oak Hill seem to
recognize the need for change and
appreciate what the staff is doing.
Their enthusiasm may extend from
a combination of the following factors:
the fairly well-educated, liberal
backgrounds many come from; the
work Dr. Brenner has done-seminars
and community town meetings; and
the fact that the local newspapers
cover education better than most.
Whatever the reasons, parents in
this community continue to encourage
teachers to tackle major obstacles
like state tests and to create meaningful
and engaging work for their children.
Students also contribute to the momentum
at Oak Hill. While they complained
and worried about being "guinea
pigs" during the first year of reform,
they generally accepted and were
cheerful about changes in ensuing
years. Students here, for the last
two years, have consistently seen
the Investigate program as beneficial
to them. They debate the advantage
of the exams teachers are creating
to substitute for the SBEE. While
we heard much more fretting about
the changes in examinations two
years ago, we heard relatively little
this year. While students expressed
a fear that they wouldn't get into
colleges two years ago, given the
track record of elder schoolmates,
those fears have subsided. Continuing
to indicate that they would rather
be challenged and work hard than
slide through school, the students
provide a steady impetus for teachers
to understand what that might mean.
Staff turnover has worked to the
advantage of those interested in
change. Two teachers suggested that
they retired because they felt themselves
unable to muster the energy to shift
beliefs and attitudes. They were
replaced by teachers who at the
very least suggested their willingness
to participate. It is also true
that those staff who were not supportive
of change contributed to the momentum
for change. They raised good questions,
which helped faculty to clarify
their positions. They stimulated
the discourse and, in many cases,
refocused the staff on important
issues. In a couple of instances,
they strengthened the effort by
solidifying the larger faculty around
issues like teachers' rights to
professional development and travel.
Without these people, the effort
would have less depth and less clarity.
Currently the faculty faces another
new principal. There is not the
trepidation this time that there
was last time. Many staff and most
parents hope for a leader who can
promote and support change so that
they can continue on their journey.
The greatest challenge may lie ahead
if and when key teachers leave,
although leadership for change is
spread widely throughout the faculty,
or when the superintendent leaves.
[Return to Table
of Contents]
Whole-School Change
Research on schools in their first
three or four years of work in the
Coalition suggests that individuals
are able to effect differences for
kids in classrooms, but that, with
the exception of schools that are
able to start from scratch, whole
faculty have yet to be engaged.6
We set out to determine what whole-school
change might be, how many faculty
that might require, and whether
whole faculty might be able to build
sustained effort. In traditional
comprehensive high schools, everyone
doesn't agree, but everyone does
participate in a single organizational
design. We have to determine the
role of dissenters, and determine
what constitutes a "whole." On cursory
glance, if we examine decision-making
processes, the whole faculty is
involved. If we look at the number
of people who are affected by change,
the whole school is involved. If
we look to see how many students' experiences are affected by change,
again, most are. With the exception
of only a few teachers, everyone
is involved in some way.
What accounts for this expanded participation?
The size of the faculty significantly
affects its ability to engage in
whole-school change. The fact that
the faculty can sit comfortably
in the music room contributes to
its ability to make decisions as
a group and makes the task of joining
together much easier than it would
be for a larger faculty. The recent
transition from Dr. Brenner to Dr.
Goodman might have facilitated greater
involvement in two ways. Dr. Goodman
provided less clear direction. As
a result, more faculty got involved.
At the same time, he defused some
of the tension that existed for
those who did not support Dr. Brenner's
direction. The fact that the staff
is largely a homogeneous group cannot
be ignored either. These, too, are
factors in whole-school change.
Eventually, this current reform movement
will depend on the ever-increasing
numbers of whole schools who can
provide stronger images of schooling
for neighboring schools and for
policy makers alike. Oak Hill's
movement from a vanguard to larger
faculty involvement seems promising
in this regard.
[Return to Table
of Contents]
Part 4: Where to Now?
When we started this study three years
ago, we stated in our first snapshot
that the staff was at a crossroads.
A number of changes had been made,
but few affected the daily lives
of students. We suggested that their
challenge was to move deeper into
further analysis of their own regular
practices. If they chose to stop
where they were, they would join
the ranks of hundreds of reforming
schools in this country who struggled,
but in the end, made changes that
improved the lives of adults, yet
seldom changed the intellectual
life of young people.
As the three of us finished our last
site visit, we agreed that the staff
had taken the less traveled road.
Almost everyone on staff is involved
in some aspect of redesigning the
school to serve youngsters better.
What used to be perceived as major
obstacles-the schedule and the SBEE
exams-are now redesigned each year
by many faculty. The faculty's understanding
of and experience with norm-referenced,
criterion-referenced, and performance-based
assessments grows each time we meet.
What used to be a place that valued
politeness over conflict is now
a place that believes that its members
can negotiate procedures for important
disagreements and can weather the
more productive and honest debate
that ensues. And almost all students
who go through this school will
be asked to demonstrate what they
know, so that their parents and
local community members can assess
their competence and their skill.
It is a very exciting place, a place
that has grown and pushed itself,
a place that inspires hope in those
who visit. It provides new images
of how our high schools might work
and get more from their students.
Still, there is always the question,
Where to now? We would suggest again
the harder trail, the less familiar
route, a path that leads to new
ground in several directions. We
would suggest much deeper discussions
about instruction, a much greater
focus on experimentation, feedback,
and tough-minded, collaborative
exchange on actual teaching techniques.
Despite the fact that the faculty
has been at this for a number of
years, too many youngsters spend
their time in Oak Hill classrooms
in passive roles, required to do
little meaningful work. While we
know that many have challenged instruction
directly, we would hope that the
entire faculty might ask the question:
What instruction consistently and
over time helps our students learn
to use their minds well? How many
techniques are there that a teacher
might use through the course of
a year to build student capacity?
What is it that teachers need to
do every day in their classrooms
to enable students to become active,
confident learners?
We hope the staff will work harder
themselves and in collaboration
with the superintendent to deal
with the issue of time. Planning
time needs to be included in the
next iteration of the schedule.
As part of the effort to use time
more effectively, faculty meetings,
early-release days, and teacher
work days need to be planned for
coherent and focused professional
development for all. Staff need
to set priorities and then work
on a limited number of issues over
time. If double-block periods require
more various teaching methods, the
staff could spend a year and more
exploring possibilities together.
In addition, we hope that the staff
will pursue its interest in examining
student work as a means by which
to assess the quality of their efforts.
A mutually sustained and balanced
focus on curriculum, pedagogy, and
assessment seems critical to the
school's ability to better serve
its students.
Given past history, we believe that
such a path itself would not be
altogether unfamiliar; there will
be controversy, exhilaration, confusion,
and illuminating experiences along
the way. Given the staff's heightened
ability to negotiate the unknown,
it might help to develop the kind
of learning community in which everyone-students,
staff, and parents-flourishes. We
have seen powerful changes in the
last three years; we hope to see
more as the school community perseveres.
[Return to Table
of Contents]
Notes
- The term Exhibition,
described in the sixth Common
Principle, refers to a kind
of assessment used for high
school graduation. An Exhibition
is a culminating, public demonstration
of what a high school student
knows and can do
- A description of the moon-tracking
activity and a discussion of
the Holocaust unit appear in
Patricia Wasley, "Principles
and Practice," Studies on School
Change (Oak Hill No. 2), Coalition
of Essential Schools, Brown
University, Providence; and
a discussion of the adopt-a-country
project appears in Wasley,
"A Gathering Momentum: Change
and Transition," Studies on
School Change (Oak Hill No.
3).
- M. S. Meyer, Every Employee
a Manager, (New York:
McGraw Hill, 1971).
- See A. E. Wise, Legislated
Learning (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1979).
- D. Muncey and P. McQuillan,
"Preliminary Findings from
a Five-Year Study of the Coalition
of Essential Schools," Phi
Delta Kappan, February
1993: 486-489; and Nona A.
Prestine, "Sorting it Out:
A Tentative Analysis of Essential
School Change Efforts," American
Educational Research Association,
Washington, D.C., 1994.
- See Muncey, note 5.
[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: OH6
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:
|
Publication Year: 1994
Publisher: CES National
School Level: High
Focus Area: Leadership
STRAND: Leadership: the change process
|
|
