Ernest R. House Archives

2005

Three Perspectives on School Reform
Ernest R. House
University of Colorado Boulder

Patrick Mcquillan
Boston College

Most research on school reform over the past several decades is characterized by three perspectives--the technological, political, and cultural (House, 1979; House, 1981). Studies based on these three perspectives account for a vast amount of the scholarly literature. An adequate understanding of school reform necessarily involves all three perspectives, though many reformers emphasize only one, a partial knowledge which often results in reform failure because of neglect of the other powerful factors. According to our analysis, successful school reform must be based on all three aspects. In this chapter, we outline the three perspectives and suggest how successful reforms embody an appreciation of all three.

The Three Perspectives

The technological perspective takes production as its root image or metaphor. Examples include concepts like input-output, specification of goals and tasks, flow diagrams, incentives, and performance assessment. How to do the job is the dominant concern. The parent discipline is economics, and the primary concern is efficiency. By contrast, the political perspective takes negotiation as its underlying image. Key concepts include power, authority, and competing interests. The parent discipline is political science, and the primary concern the legitimacy of the authority system. The third perspective is the cultural, which rests on an image of community. Central concepts include culture, values, shared meanings, and social relationships. The parent discipline is anthropology and the primary concern cultural integrity.

Whichever perspective one adopts acts as an interpretive framework for understanding change and innovation in the schools. Each perspective delineates certain factors that are responsible for change. By framing these educational change processes, the three perspectives serve as guides to social action (Schon, 1979). However, accepting the same perspective does not mean that scholars or reformers necessarily agree with one another. For example, two reformers may implicitly frame the schools' problems as political, yet disagree as to whether centralization or decentralization of governing authority is needed.

Ultimately, school reforms fail partly because they neglect (or are not able to control) the forces identified by the other perspectives. Purely technological reforms fail because they lack adequate consideration of political and cultural factors. Purely political reforms fail because they lack appreciation of technical and cultural factors, and so on. Reformers typically have an incomplete understanding of school processes and problems. In fact, reform movements are inclined to present simple views, even slogans, in order to generate broad appeal. In our analysis, to be successful requires consideration of all three aspects, and perhaps others of which we are unaware.

Table 1
Three Perspectives on School Reform

Technological	Political	Cultural
Production	Negotiation	Community
Systemic, rational process	Group conflict/compromise	Interaction of cultures
Knowledge of technique	Persuasion, inducement	Value change
Technique & outcomes	Power and authority	Meaning and values
Common interests & values	Conflict over interests	Conflict over values
Cooperation automatic	Cooperation problematic	Cooperation enigmatic
Innovation	Innovation in context	Context
Efficiency	Legitimacy	Autonomy

Relationship to Disciplinary Knowledge

From where do these three perspectives derive? Partly from first-hand contact with schools and from the academic disciplines themselves. It is easy to see the relationship between economics and the technological perspective, political science and the political perspective and anthropology and the cultural perspective. One might think of society as being organized in three major ways, by the market (economic activity), through the government (political activity) and through civil society, such as professional and religious organizations (cultural activity).

Social scientists study these institutions--banks, stock exchanges, corporations, elections, bureaucracies, political parties, churches, families, and local communities-- and formulate how these institutions work, trying to account for their functioning with a set of explanatory concepts. Simplification and abstraction is necessary for the academic disciplines to make any progress at all.

However, actual institutions don't function exactly as disciplinary knowledge suggests. Banks are not only economic institutions, but also have political and cultural aspects. Governments are not only about politics but also about economics and culture to some degree. In their specialization, scholars formulate pure types which don't match the real world, since the world is always more complicated than the abstractions. Although scholars may omit complications without serious consequences, a banker who operated solely on economic theory would encounter serious problems.

The interaction of these perspectives may explain complex phenomena. For example, nationalism is a political concept, but may be explained as arising from a situation in which the rulers of a political unit belong to one culture (or nation) while those ruled belong to a different culture. Political legitimacy may become an issue when ethnic (cultural) boundaries cut across political ones, as a result of historical events (Gellner, 1983). Bosnia and Quebec are examples.

The point is that events occur in real world complexity. In order to understand and explain these complex social events, we apply interpretive frameworks derived from the social sciences, which are invariably partial. Real world events are never completely explained by these frameworks. The same is true for schools. Changing schools requires a broad understanding of the factors that influence their operations. Such understanding is not provided by any single discipline. The problem is compounded for those who try to change institutions, for they encounter the world in its full complexity. Unfortunately, we have no way to integrate all these factors into one conceptual model. The best we can do is display the interactions of many factors at work simultaneously in case studies of educational change, which is what we do in this chapter.

Chicago Decentralization

One of the most highly publicized reforms in the 1990s has been the decentralization of the Chicago schools. Individual Chicago schools were required to establish a governing board composed of parents, members of the public, and the principal. Such decentralization resulted from a view of the problem as one of political organization. And anyone who has dealt with the Chicago central administration over the years would agree that the central office served as a serious impediment to change. However, eliminating such an obstacle to change did not mean that change would follow necessarily.

Such a political reform did not address technical and cultural factors. When the new governing board takes control, do they know what to do? Do they know how to change the culture and teaching technology of the school? Although it is still early in the life of this reform, results so far suggests the answer is no. In a case study of one Chicago school, Stake (1995) found that decentralization had little effect at the school or classroom level.

The School Improvement Plan called for improvement in reading, multicultural studies, preparation for further education, even getting the leaky windows repaired. But what consumed the energy of the pedagogical day was even more mundane: accounting for the absent and tardy; finding but one student completing the homework assignment; confronting indomitable rebels; restraining lunch time lines, one to a cafeteria, one to the exit, until other classes cleared. Is the mundane more effectively subdued if one eye rests on lofty goals? (Stake, p. 137).

The local school council spent its time trying to understand its role. Professionals judged parents and laymen on the governing board not competent to handle many assigned tasks, including evaluating the principal. In general, the broad goals of the reform remained far removed from the everyday life of teachers and students. One might expect that in some Chicago schools there have been successful attempts to address technological and cultural factors. Decentralization is probably a necessary but not sufficient condition for successful reform. By 1995 there was talk of centralizing the school district again, this time in the Mayor's office. It is safe to predict that this change would not work either, at least not by itself.

In the rest of this chapter, we present cases of school reform which are successful because they managed the technological, political, and cultural factors. We explain the endurance of reform efforts at Central Park East, Green Valley, and in the Dubuque public schools in terms of their ability to attend to these considerations. This is not to suggest that these factors are entirely separate from each other. In practice, there is considerable interaction. Nor is the process linear; these schools attended to these concerns concurrently. Nonetheless, addressing these three dimensions was critical to the reform efforts.

Central Park East Secondary School

Perhaps the best known school in the country is Central Park East (CPE) in District 4, East Harlem. Debbie Meier founded this "school of choice" as part of District 4's choice policy (Meier, 1995). Although the school exists in a poor, minority community, the school's graduates have a high college attendance rate.

In Meier's (1995) opinion the key to the success of these schools is that they are small. Ideally, elementary schools should be 300 students and the secondary schools should be no more than 400. This small size allows for experimentation over a period of time. Small school size is critical for six reasons:

Faculty, parents, and students must find enough time for discussion and argument in order to reach consensus as to what the school shall do, and these discussions must be face-to-face. The agreement reached provides a vision for the school and one voluntarily entered. Furthermore, teachers can think and work together collaboratively in a small group. Such collaboration is essential if there is to be a strong school culture or ethos.
Faculty must be held accountable collectively to produce the overall school effect. They must have access to each other's work. The work group must be small enough to allow this to happen, to allow teachers to visit each other's classes and engage in peer critique and assistance.
Above all, teachers must get to know the students and their work, even the way individual students think. Students must get to know each other and the teachers.
Small schools promote personal safety, physical and mental. Teachers can know and respond to students who might be upset.
Accountability is a matter of access, not of monitoring. There is no need for cumbersome measurement systems to tell parents what's going on. They can come see, as can central administrators.
Small schools immerse students in a school culture that adults have a role in shaping deliberately, rather than abandoning them to a peer culture shaped by the mass media and student interests.

To accomplish what it needs to, the school must have autonomy. It must control budget, staffing, scheduling, curriculum, and assessment. The second essential feature is choice. Creating these successful school experiments in New York City would have been impossible without choice, according to Meier. By making CPE a school of choice it was permitted to experiment with new ideas in a way that would never have been possible if it had been mandated. Such change results in unwilling, unready parents and professionals.

At CPE, every student must complete the requirements of fourteen different "portfolio" areas: literature, history, ethics, etc., and present seven of these areas to a graduation committee for questioning and defense. The committee consists of two assigned faculty, an adult chosen by student, and a student. The purpose of this method of assessment is to strengthen shared and publicly defensible standards. If students fail, they can try again.

Teachers need a framework that enables them to know their students well and acquiring such knowledge takes time and trust. There are six scheduled school hours per week for the teaching staff to meet together. Teachers are encouraged to visit each others’ classes and give feedback. What this Central Park East school organization does is maximize everyone's chances to learn about each other, as well as learn subject matter and skills. The framework for school development is at least as important as the program itself.

Central Park East attacks school reform from all three perspectives. Politically, CPE accepts only volunteer teachers and students, thus eliminating much political conflict. In order to do this, it was necessary to secure the approval of the higher authorities. Secondly, the CPE reform makes the establishment of a new school culture a high priority. The small size allows direct influence and makes possible the agreement of the entire faculty on critical issues.

Finally, there is integral teacher training. In the oral exams, students demonstrate competence, and the teachers learn from each other. They can view each other's work. From this a new technology of teaching was developed. We are not suggesting that the CPE staff thought about these problems using our scheme. Rather, successful practitioners take these things into consideration (and no doubt other factors as well).

Green Valley Junior/Senior High School

Located in a White, working class town in the rural Northeast, Green Valley Junior/Senior High enrolls 350 students in grades seven through twelve and has a staff of 30. School restructuring reflects the vision of Stuart Tucker, the school principal. (Green Valley and Stuart Tucker are pseudonyms.) Before his arrival, the school had one of the higher dropout rates in the state, 20 percent, many discipline problems, and sent few graduates to college. The absentee rate was nearly 20 percent. The school also had a traditional structure--a seven-period day, a faculty organized by departments, and 350 students with 350 different schedules.

Under Tucker’s leadership, faculty have been teamed and work with the same group of students in a four-hour time block each day. Professional development became a part of school routine. The school’s curriculum centered on “Nineteen Skills” the faculty collectively identified as essential. All staff were assigned 15 advisees with whom they met every day. An Apprenticeship Program had students work as newspaper reporters, teacher aides, auto mechanics, and secretaries, offering them the opportunity to explore potential professional interests while developing socially and intellectually outside the school setting (Muncey & McQuillan, 1996).

The most fundamental feature technologically was that professional development became a routinized part of school life. Faculty had multiple forums in which to reassess their pedagogy, curriculum, and assessment practices. Every Wednesday, for instance, faculty met to address administrative as well as educational matters. As one teacher remarked, "Faculty meetings are always work meetings, and the work is always toward our larger goals--towards better personalization, better assessment, and better curriculum planning."

To expose all faculty to new ideas, Green Valley instituted the “two-week thing.” Once a year the school adopted a curricular focus and organized itself into teams of teachers and students, as faculty experimented with interdisciplinary curricula, group projects, active learning, and flexible scheduling. After experimenting for a few years in this way, teachers willing to team permanently were assigned a group of students and given a block of time to structure as they so chose. Eventually, the entire school was teamed. To complement the school’s collective undertakings, Tucker often worked with individual teachers and teams. He encouraged teachers to reflect through on their teaching through journals and he visited classes. As he explained:

My job is constantly to be working with faculty, to try to get them to change....I truly believe that [those who resist change] are not bad people. Often, they’re scared. So my job is to say, “Let’s work together. You’re good at this, let’s work on it.” And you try to find a way. You compliment the person and put them in a situation where they change.

Moreover, professional development at Green Valley often extended into summer. Typically, teachers met for a week or two to discuss goals and curricula for the coming year.

Politically, these efforts were inclusive, involving the entire faculty, as well as students and parents, in proposed reforms. Second, those involved had considerable autonomy. When he first arrived at Green Valley, for instance, Tucker met with all students to hear how they felt about the school and did likewise with faculty, parents, and community groups. When reforms were adopted, teaching teams had freedom to develop curricula, design schedules, and organize students as they so chose. In the words of one teacher, "Stuart is into everything in good ways. He can make his case quite powerfully, but the ultimate decisions are always up to us. He steps in only when teaching and learning. Tucker also secured opportunities for faculty to help other schools, placing teachers in the role of reform advocates. Through articulating their goals and organizing workshops, faculty developed new understandings of their own work.

The political also intertwined with the cultural. In dealing with individual teachers, Tucker accorded them autonomy while cajoling them to abandon their routines and consider new ideas. One teacher explained: When I first came here, Stuart asked me, “Would you care to go into a teaming situation?”...And he explained to me some of what he meant. I said, “That’s sounds like a large step for me to make. I don’t think I’d like to do that right away.” So he put me into a regular program, where I did what I was used to doing. Then I began to talk to other teachers, and I began to think about it myself, and the first thing that I came up with was, “Of course, if you’re on a team, you’ve got people to help you out.... So, I started out as a conservative member and then I suddenly found this works great, let’s keep doing it, and I kept pushing for that. That’s one thing about working here. It’s made a different kind of teacher out of me.

The cultural dimension of Green Valley’s reform reflected a commitment to questioning the status quo. The school created opportunities for faculty to rethink aspects of school life, to experience alternatives, and to see their peers implement reform. As a result, faculty evolved a sense of common purpose and philosophy, with success being something shared by all.

The Dubuque Public Schools

In 1992, the New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDC), a non-profit corporation established by the Bush Administration, selected Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound as one recipient of a grant to initiate “break-the-mold” schools. The central organizing concept of Outward Bound’s proposal, Expeditionary Learning, was a set of ideas about teaching and learning rooted in the experience of an Outward Bound wilderness expedition. Three Dubuque elementary schools and the city’s alternative high school opted to participate (McQuillan, et al., 1994).

One key feature of this reform is that schools regularly undertake “learning expeditions”--active, interdisciplinary, student-centered projects that are at the heart of Expeditionary Learning. These extended learning experiences draw on a range of student abilities, require both collective and individual initiative, are informed by an ethic of service, and address character development. In addition, collaborative planning time has been institutionalized. Cooperative learning is commonplace, and special need students are included in most classrooms. Parent and community involvement have increased, especially as learning expeditions have moved beyond the classroom. For example, one learning expedition on “pond life” placed students in the role of “scientists” to collect and analyze their own samples of aquatic life.

To assist them, the school enlisted the support of a biology professor, an official from the Department of Natural Resources, a science curriculum coordinator, and a songwriter (AED, 1996, p. 32). As is common, this expedition culminated in a demonstration of knowledge by students that was open to the community.

A look at Central High provides further insight into the nature of these reforms. Teachers here traditionally taught eight 40-minute periods each day, with no cross-disciplinary integration, nor time for collaborative planning. Central now has four learning communities, and each holds a daily “community meeting” to discuss issues of general concern. Teachers are teamed and collaboratively design curriculum. Teams have a two-and-a-half hour block of time each day to schedule as they wish. In addition, Central created a “City As School” program in which students work as interns at such sites as the local YMCA, a florist shop, a veterinarian’s office, a radio station, and in elementary schools. The school also implemented a grading system where students are required to demonstrate either A- or B-level work.

The technological dimensions to Dubuque’s restructuring initiatives have drawn extensively on the active, experiential, and reflective aspects of Outward Bound philosophy. Denis Udall and Leah Rugen (1995), Expeditionary Learning staff members, observed:

[Teachers’] beliefs and attitudes about teaching are deeply affected when they experience and reflect upon their own growth: that is, when they come to understand the impact of an innovation through their own lived experience. In turn, teachers lend a critical degree of meaning and viability to an innovation through their efforts to make sense of it (p.11). In effect, Expeditionary Learning lets teachers experience what they are to implement and makes the integral values and assumptions explicit--thereby encouraging participants to question some of the taken-for-granted in their professional lives.

To prepare for these changes, the Dubuque schools spent one year exploring and clarifying the idea of Expeditionary Learning. Specific activities were designed to model Expeditionary Learning pedagogy. The first, an exploration of the Dubuque community, served as an introduction to Expeditionary Learning and as a chance to create a resource base for later expeditions. A five-day “mini-sabbatical” teamed teachers to design a learning expedition that modeled Expeditionary Learning philosophy--requiring teamwork, research, creativity, risk, and a public demonstration of learning. A week-long “summer institute” clarified this philosophy and provided time to revise the first expedition. The project also offered opportunities to experience 14 Outward Bound courses adapted for Expeditionary Learning teachers, to participate in workshops directed by experiential educators, and to exchange ideas and experiences with Expeditionary Learning teachers from other cities. There has been an increase in joint planning time as teachers collaborate within grades and subject areas, across grades and subject areas, and even with teachers from other schools. The district’s instructional facilitators participate in these activities, assist teachers in developing curriculum, and attend Expeditionary Learning principal meetings (Timmons, 1984).

As at Green Valley, inclusivity and autonomy played key roles in the political dimensions of Dubuque’s restructuring efforts. When Expeditionary Learning was proposed, the superintendent met with teachers and administrators to answer their questions. This set the tone for implementing Expeditionary Learning in the city. Professional development work has included participating teachers, as well as administrators and instructional facilitators. At the school sites, administrators have made teachers and parents integral collaborators, as some measure of site-based management has been initiated at all schools. Parents have not only assisted with learning expeditions but have reviewed student portfolios and other academic work (AED, 1995, p. 21).

Teachers were encouraged to implement Expeditionary Learning concepts at a rate with which they were comfortable. When teachers at Central Alternative High expressed concern about whether students were learning math concepts adequately, the school debated this issue and added more traditional math classes to the curriculum. When some elementary teachers questioned the value of following their students to the succeeding grade, the issue became the focus of a mini-sabbatical in which teachers designed a multi-year teaching structure in a way that worked for them.

These schools also accorded greater autonomy to students. All learning expeditions, for instance, strive to be student-directed and allow students some say in what they study. At Central Alternative the students in one learning community developed their own business venture around the production of Native American crafts. Although teachers had reservations, they allotted a portion of each day to planning, accounting, phone calls, and letter writing for this project. Other political factors aided change in Dubuque. For one, all teachers were given the option to transfer to other schools if they could not make a full commitment. (None did.)

In addition, certain political factors have been outside the schools’ and district’s control. In a school board election, the superintendent lost two critical supporters, which placed her tenure in jeopardy. She accepted a position elsewhere (though her successor expressed support for Expeditionary Learning). In 1995, voters rejected a bond proposal so school funding fell below limits that would have allowed Expeditionary Learning to expand to other schools as planned.

In Dubuque there has been attention to issues of culture and belief. The implementation of Expeditionary Learning began with extended discussions among teachers and administrators about the nature of this philosophy, its viability in Dubuque, and what it would look like in classrooms and schools. Such dialogue has been facilitated by professional development, as well as through additional planning time. In the words of one teacher (AED, 1996):

Having time to write expeditions with our partners was the most successful and valuable part of our staff development activities. We were able to pool ideas and each of us could have a part in collecting resources. We were able to inform and teach one another. Because we were better prepared, the expeditions were more successful and varied (p. 33).

At the Expeditionary Learning schools principals have weekly meetings with instructional facilitators to negotiate aspects of Expeditionary Learning philosophy and, in turn, meet regularly with their staff to discuss related topics. This dialogue has taken many forms. At one elementary school the principal and teachers produced a pamphlet which outlined the connection between the school’s mission statement and the ideals of Expeditionary Learning. At Central High faculty conducted peer reviews of learning expeditions as teachers presented their plans to the staff who reacted to the ideas. Speaking to the issue of common beliefs, Central’s principal noted the value of summer planning time: “I think the turning point for Expeditionary Learning in the whole school was the summer institute last year. We worked together as a team for ten solid days. This last summer we worked for nine days together. This really brought things together” (AED, 1996, p. 42). Given the centrality of Expeditionary Learning philosophy, which focuses discussions and work, such opportunities can promote shared understandings.

Expeditionary Learning has also promoted common beliefs through modeling. The processes initiated to bring about change parallel the method of collaborative learning, community building, challenge, and risk teachers undertake with students. One district facilitator explained, “We want to make sure that our trainings are conducted in the way we expect teachers to be teaching, that they parallel an expedition” (Timmons, 1994: 17). Faculty at Expeditionary Learning schools have adopted a similar strategy. As one teacher noted, “I carried over the team building I learned with the other teachers to team-building exercises in my classroom” (AED, 1996: 50). Another added:

When we started Expeditionary Learning last year, we must have said the phrase ‘expeditionary learning’ about twenty thousand times a day. But now we hardly use the phrase. I think this is because we have created a culture here which is inherently about Expeditionary Learning. I know for a fact that in our morning expedition we strive to [incorporate] inclusivity, respect, hard work, teamwork and the idea of success and failure (AED, 1996: 39).

In sum, Dubuque’s restructuring work has offered teachers opportunities to experience new approaches to teaching and learning. Those affected by the reform have a say in what changes would be enacted. And throughout this effort, there has been an ongoing dialogue about the values underlying the reforms and an effort to model these values in relevant contexts.

Summary Points

(1) Leadership
At all three sites where reforms endured, leadership played a central role. The technological--what was implemented and how--represented the vision of the principals or superintendent. At Central Park East, Debbie Meier had the vision about how a school should work, how faculty should interact, and how students should be treated, although this was developed over a period of time. At Green Valley, the apprenticeship program, the "two-week thing," and the advisory system originated with Stuart Tucker. He directed the school’s professional development and secured funds so faculty could refine their ideas. In Dubuque, the superintendent, saw Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound as a means to promote changes she felt were needed. Her successor expressed commitment to the ideals as well.

Leadership also played a vital role in the political aspects of these efforts. Meier gained permission to experiment in her school of choice and kept the operation autonomous from the New York system, not the easiest thing to do. While Tucker was the catalyst for much change at Green Valley, he gained grassroots support for his educational plans by including all relevant actors in the reform process and allowing these persons, including students, substantial autonomy in how they implemented reform. Much the same was apparent in Dubuque where inclusivity was honored in the superintendent’s dealings with principals, in the principals’ interactions with their faculties, and with the teachers’ interactions with students. Further, each Expeditionary Learning school was given a prominent say in how they adapted the design principles.

Culturally, creating a consensus involved drawing in people who shared common beliefs or who developed common beliefs through their interactions. As a Green Valley teacher remarked, “Nobody comes here who doesn’t want to be...working on teams. . . teaching an integrated curriculum and advising.” At Central Park East, the faculty went through numerous discussions in order to arrive at common understandings regarding what constituted a worthwhile education. At each Expeditionary Learning school, there was extensive discussion of what this concept implied as a curricular and pedagogical philosophy. Without shared beliefs, it seems unlikely these reforms would have lasted.

Moreover, the schools sometimes had to transfer or release those who didn’t embrace their plans and ideas. The leadership style was not "anything goes." Tucker noted: If people were trying to stop stuff, I’d simply say, “If you don’t like it, then you should go. As long as I’m principal, that’s the direction that we’re going. I’m not saying that you’re not a great teacher, but...”And you either buy in or you buy out.

At CPE, the small staff and intense interactions sometimes led to factionalization and some pursuing their own vision elsewhere. In Dubuque, the teachers at EL schools were offered the option to transfer if they didn’t care to be involved. As one principal said, “People need to be committed. If they can’t commit, then they need to do something else because these changes are absolutely right for kids.” Not one hundred percent of those engaged eventually accepted the changes.

(2) Change As The Norm
By approaching reform and restructuring so systematically, change appears to have become the norm. A Green Valley teacher noted: We’re always looking at what we’re doing and how to make it better. We really discuss and we debate. We never just say, “OK, we’re all teamed now, and that’s good.” We’re always looking at the structure of our teams, we’re always analyzing our teams. We have the kids, analyze curriculum. They provide feedback on how the team is working together. In the summer we meet with kids and parents when we’re planning curriculum. We just never settle for what we have right now. Everything we do is constantly being looked at. And we try things and sometimes they fail. But that doesn’t stop us. Similarly, at Central Park East the school program and professional development processes were constantly under review by the faculty, both individually and collectively. This was integrated into the thinking of faculty and institutionalized in routine procedures. In much the same fashion, Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound is viewed as an ongoing process of growth, an assumption apparent in the degree to which the teacher-as-learner metaphor guides their professional development work (Udall and Rugen, 1994). Reflecting this view, one teacher outlined why his team had repeated learning expeditions that had been developed the previous year:

We repeated expeditions so we could do them right. We’re refining so many things like portfolio assessments, rubrics, mixing the behaviorally disruptive students with the regular students, and block scheduling....When you do an expedition the first time, things aren’t always clearly in focus. For us, it’s designing things that take more than one go-through to get right (AED, 1996: 39-40).

(3) Scale and Time
At all three sites, the schools that implemented enduring reforms were relatively small. Aside from one Dubuque elementary schools that enrolled over 500 students, no school enrolled more than 400. People at these schools--students, teachers, and administrators alike--were known. They could form communities through shared educational ideals and because they knew one another.

Size also seemed related to trust. Teachers and students were accorded considerable autonomy perhaps because the schools were small enough to ensure accountability. Administrators knew what faculty were doing. Teachers knew what students were doing. Practices and policies were shared and public features of school life. Also, these reforms were not enacted overnight. They took time and laborious development. It was not as if the reformers had a vision which was implemented and all was well. Rather, people worked out these ideas--adjusting, changing, and advancing better conceptions and practices.

(4) Reputation
Our cases are schools that do not serve the top students in their town and/or districts. Aside from one Dubuque elementary school, these were not flagship schools that served high-SES populations. These efforts were undertaken at schools that served relatively unempowered populations. Perhaps that is one reason such reforms were tolerated by the larger system. We are not sure whether this is a necessary or facilitating condition or an anomaly.

(5) Ties with outside organizations
These cases also represent schools that have been part of reform networks, a development that benefited their efforts. For instance, both the Coalition of Essential Schools and Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound offer a philosophical direction, a foundation of beliefs around which like-minded persons could coalesce, but which allowed schools to design and implement as best fit their needs. To complement their philosophy, both organizations sponsored professional development opportunities and offered funding that allowed schools to take advantage of these opportunities.

Moreover, the organizations provided a sense of legitimacy. The Coalition of Essential Schools, based at an Ivy League school, Brown University, and chaired by Theodore Sizer, a prominent school reformer, lent its member schools a measure of prestige, a distinct political advantage. Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound was linked to a long-standing, respected outdoor education network as well as the New American Schools Development Corporation.

(6) Professional development
Professional development blending the technological, political, and cultural. Looking at school reform from these three points of view also suggests that professional development may be most effective when it blends the political and cultural with the technical. In a political sense, professional development work was not something imposed from outside; rather, it reflected the concerns and interests of the teachers involved. In cultural terms, professional development was aimed at having faculties reassess taken-for-granted values that informed their teaching practices.

(7) Moral Vision

One thing not included in our scheme is worth mentioning. That is the way all three cases of successful reform treated faculty, students, and parents. All participants were treated with respect and accorded considerable autonomy. One has the feeling in reading these cases that the way people were treated had much to do with why they reacted positively to the reform and shouldered the extra work burden. Debbie Meier is perhaps most explicit about the necessity of treating students and teachers with respect, the idea most central to her vision.

The Common Principles of the Coalition of Essential Schools maintain that “[t]he tone of the school should explicitly and self-consciously stress values of...trust (until abused) and of decency (the values of fairness, generosity and tolerance)....[And that] parents should be treated as essential collaborators” (CES, 1984). The design principles that undergird the efforts of Expeditionary Learning (1992) reveal the same orientation as they make “learning and character development” central to their work and assert that learning is dependent on “intimacy and caring” (pp. ii-iii).

A Checklist for Innovation

In conclusion, our scheme posits three critical dimensions necessary for successful school reform--the technological, political, and cultural. What does the job consist of and how does it get done? What factions support and oppose it? Does it involve people in collective, collaborative efforts that lead to common norms? Anyone creating or implementing a successful innovation should be able to answer these questions:

Will this technique, curriculum, change really make any significant difference?
How can the teachers learn to do it? How can they practice it safely, without undue risk?
Is it much harder to do than current practice?
If so, how can it be made easier to implement?
How does it fit with the everyday routines now in existence?
What are the mechanisms for feedback to the teacher?
What are the political forces in favor of the innovation?
What are the political forces opposed?
Are they operating at the same level or in the same realm?
Are the former stronger than the latter?
If not, what are some likely political allies?
Will the innovation itself create new political forces either for or against?
If so, how can these be dealt with?
How does the innovation fit the school culture, including teachers, students, administrators, and parents?
Is this an attempt to change the school culture in a significant way?
If so, how can this be done over a period of time?
How, and in what contexts, can the values associated with the innovation be modeled?
What motivation is there for teachers and students to attempt such a change?
With what other values and assumptions in the school culture might the innovation interact and change?
How does it relate to the culture outside the school?

No doubt attending to these three perspectives on school reform will not guarantee success. However, we believe they are necessary, and that school reforms which neglect these dimensions and their interactions are likely to encounter significant problems. The incomplete analyses of social reality that the academic disciplines provide can mislead by focusing on single dimensions of reality, always more complex and subtle than social science models can fathom.

References

Academy for Educational Development (AED). (1995). Expeditionary learning Outward Bound: Interim report. New York, March.

Academy for Educational Development (AED). (1996). Expeditionary learning Outward Bound: Final report. New York. Feb.

Coalition of Essential Schools (CES). (1984). Prospectus . Brown University. Providence, RI.

Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound. (1992). Expeditionary Learning: A design for new American schools. Proposal submitted to the New American Schools Development Corporation. Cambridge, MA.

Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and nationalism. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

House, E. R. (1979). Technology versus craft: a ten-year perspective on innovation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 11, 1:1-15.

House, E. R. (1981). Three perspectives on innovation: Technological, political, and cultural. In R. Lehming and M. Kane (Eds.). Improving Schools: Using what we know. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications, 17-41.

McQuillan, P., Kraft, R., Timmons, M., O’Conor, A., Marion, S., and Michalec, P. (1984). An assessment of Outward Bound USA's Urban/Education Initiative. Final evaluation report. School of Education. University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas. Boston: Beacon Press.

Muncey, D. and P. McQuillan. (1996). Reform and resistance in schools and classrooms: An ethnographic view of the Coalition of Essential Schools. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Schon, D. (1971). Beyond the stable state: Public and private learning in a stable society. London: Maurice Temple Smith Ltd.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Timmons, M. (1994). An examination of the Dubuque Expeditionary Learning Schools. School of Education. University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, August.

Udall, D. and Rugen, L. (1995). From the inside out: The Expeditionary Learning process of teacher change. Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound, Cambridge, MA.