Radius Vol. 1, No. 1

Hide Document

• •
Vol. 1, 10. 1

Editors Note:
Restructuring means dif;erent things to
different people. e'or sane, it is the
putting into question of asslltlptions
regarding the hierarchical way schools
have traditionally been organized and
the resultant flat structure of the
teaching profession. e'or others, it is
the grass roots rovement by which
fundamental changes in classrooms are
being advocated in accordance with
alternative views of how students
learn. Still others view it through
the econanic lens of declining
"canpetitiveness" with all that entails
for labor-managanent cooperation.
Undoubtedly each of these elements is
significant. Yet even collectively
they seem insufficient in capturing the
pervasively moral atmosphere in which
the litmus test of restructured schools
ought to occur: Does it make a
positive difference in how kids learn
and how they're taught?

e'or us in AET, however, it is rore than
a rnatter of definition. 1tIs a matter

A Pllblication of

TIlt .U'J' CtDfer

For a.an.ctun,.
Direclild by tile
AFT Educ:ationaJ
Issues Department

!\1artJYIl Rauth
Assistant to tile
President for
Educational Issues

Bruce ~dbera

Co-director

ManU IAvbJe
Co-director

May 1988

of putting ideas into practice, ideas
which help to prancte both stooent
success and professional practice. The
changes occasioned by restructuring,
moreover, are interconnected. More
often than not, a change implemented in
one corner of :ne education landscape
reverberates against the presumptive
soundness of yet another rule,
practice, or flrocedure. Restructuring
is a chain reaction process.

In what follows, and in each succeeding
publication, we will choose an issue or
idea currently being explored in
restructuring efforts. Our emphasis
will be on clarifying what the issue or
idea is, its relation to restructuring,
and what current experience has to tell
us about both its pitfalls and
promise. In addition, we provide a
resource guide indicating where the
practice is being tried and/or how to
obtain further information.

My views expressed are oot necessarily
official Ai:~ policy, but instead
represent recent thinking on the topics
and as such are intended to provoke
further thought and discussion.


school-Based Management: An OVerview•••••••••••••••••••••••••••Page 1
sane Organizational Projects COncerned With Restructuring•••••••Page 10
A Potpourri of Suggested Current Reading••••••••••••••••••••••••Page 11


~.!! It?

The central idea is building-level
autonany. Among areas usually included
Lii'ider tne purview of school-based
management (SaM) are:

1.
educational outccmes
2.
curriculum and instructional
decisions
3.
school-based budgeting
4.
parental, caM\unity and student
involvement
5.
persoonel decisions
6.
maintenance
7.
. non-instructional topics
(discipline, safety,
lunchroom, camlunity relations,
etc.) •
The rationale for SSM is that schools,
communities, parents and students have
different needs, and tnat these needs
can best be aCCQfllociated at tne
building, not the district, level.
This still leaves great leeway,
however, for decision-making at the
district level. Thus, according to
Lindelow , "The SChOOL board makes
general system-wide policies, including
a::xnmi.tment to program, budgeting and
operating autonomy of scnools, and does
not usurp or intrude upon
administrative implementation"

(Lindelow, 1981).

Motives, however, often differ. SaM
has been invoked as tne hopeful answer

to everything from achieving
desegregation eo enhancing teaching as
! profession. sane see it polltically

as tne extension of choice eo those

(parents and carmunity) who have beal
left out of local decision-maKing.
Others view it as effective business
practice, consistent with tne findings
of how excellent companies are managed,
while yet others emphasize potential
gains in student achievement.

At times, these motives congeal and SaM
is suggested as a remedy for a host of

ills. EmoarKing on a site-based

management course, one exuberant

Louisiana school district expressed it

this way:

-The site-based management effort will.
make a difference for our students.
The effort will get East Baton Rouge
Parish schools in canpliance with the
Desegregation Court Order, pupil and
teacher absenteeism will go down, test
scoreswill go up, varxialism will go
down, ccmnuniq support will go up,
dropouts, suspensions and expulsions
will go down, D:>rale of teachers will
go up and overall accountability will
be improved.· (At The Crossroads, East
Baton Rouge pariSh ScnoOl Redesign
Pian, Into The Next Century, March 11,
1988. )

Does school-based managEment require
Shared decision-making (~? .

Of particular l~terest to teaChers and

local unions is the extent to which S8M
entails some nocion of shared decisionmaKing.
SSM £OCdels exist which do not

involve teacners in meaningful
decision-making. 20r example, the East
Baton Rouge Parish plan cited acove,

wnile advocating that principals v-ork
collacorativelj with "SChool advisory
councils," is nonetheless clear about

how
decisions will be made: "The

principal remains the site-based leader

and
is ultimately accountable for

decisions and building performance. A

cri tical factor in the harrronious

interactions of the prinCipal and the

school advisory council is trust."

(East parish plan, page 4.) This
contrasts sharply with other
school-based management approaches that
do include shared decision-making. In
Hammond, Indiana, for example, where a
school improvement process (SIP) has
been fostered in a number of schools,
special attention has been given to
avoiding the traditional top-down
hierarchy of decision-making."Although


Hammond school representatives have
made ita point not to set any ngid
rules concerning SIP canrni.t tee
membership or meeting times and
procedures, there is one rule to which
all teams are expected to adhere: a
principal should never chair the sip
committee, because this would merely
perpetuate the traditiona1 top-down
approach to school managenent."
(Casner-Lotto, 1988) Similarly in Dade

County puolic Schools in Miami, an

inoovative pilot program is being

instituted'which makes the connection

between SaM and SOM explicit: IIThere

is a close correlation between
school-based management/budgeting ana

the shared decision-making process.
They go hand in hand." (School eased
Management/Shared Decision-Making, A
Historical perspective, p. 73, Dade
County Puolic Schools, Miami, Florida,
October 1987)

Indeed there is some evidence to

indicate that districts which fail to

link the two are less likely to
succeed. One such case is
Albuquerque. The attempt to mandate
school-based budgeting in Albuquerque

failed recently for reasons the
Albuquerque Teachers Federation
expressed as follows:

"The school-based bOOgeting process as
it now operates in the Albuquerque
school district appears to be a
dElll1i'Xra tic process with opportunities
for participation by a wide range of
educational coostituencies. In
practice, hcJ.1ever, it has resulted in
divisiveness, elimination of positions
such as librarians and nurses, same
programs atrophy as inadequate sctxx>l
budgets are cut in order to fund
special needs in any given school.
Final budget authority continues to
rest with principals who often wield
un:iue control aver the school-based
budget ccmnit tees. • • • The booget
ocmnittees at each school stkxlld have
the final say on the budget, not the
principal.• (AN Po6ition Paper:
School-Based Budgeting)

It is interesting to note that a
research debate lays at the root of the
controversy over linKing SSM wi th SOM.
Much of the impetus for SSM stems fran
the "effective sChoolsll researcn. This

diverse, and sometimes conflicting,

body of research identified five
general characteristics associated with
effective SChools: " •••strong

principal leadership, academic focus,

high e~ectations, healthy and orderly

environment, frequent monitoring of
student achieve:rent." (Miller and

Lieberman, 1988) In their now classic

review of the effective schools

literature, Purkey and Smith (1983)
drew attention to school-site
management as one of the "rrost

important organizational-structura1

variables" connected witn effective
schools.

At issue in some of the research,
however, is the place of "shared
governance." On the one hand, much of

the effective schools literature
attrioutes success to strong
instructional ~aadership by the
principal. Yet, in the words of one
critic, IIcontra.ry to the traditional
formula, the instructional leadership
at most of the effective schools did
not depend solely on the principal."

(Steadman, 1987. See also Zirkel and
Greenwood, 1987) Others have gone even
further in asserting that the research

takes the most CaMlOn form of school
organization--the hierarchical type--as
given. "AS a result, ESR (effective
schools research) and the school
effectiveness crovement that springs

fran it are primarily concerned with
improving scnools by making small
adJustments rather than fundacrental
changes. This means that the
assumptions on which traditional

schooling is based remain unexamined
and unchallenged." (Lauder and Khan,

1988)

The approach taken by teachers in

Hamrrond, Dade and Albuquerque is

consistent with an approach to

restructuring education which seeks

both greater decentralization of

2



decision-making and at the same time

alternatives to msting decision


malting structures. That is, the

realization of goals, such as the

professionalization of teachers as well

as the empowering of other

constituencies (parents,

paraprofessionals, students) 'ioOuld seen

to require the coupling of school-based
management with meaningful
shared-decision malcing. AS The
Carnegie Task Force on Teaching AS a
Profession, A Nation prepa.;-ed, noted:
"No organi.za'tion can function well
without strong and effective leadership
and schools are 00 exception. But the
single model for leadership found in
rost schools is better suited to
business or government then to the
function of education." (Carnegie, p.
61, 19S6)

The restructuring projects underway
have gone beyond the effective schools
roovernent, then, in tw:> ways: first, by
seeking to create structures not
ordinarily found in traditional
scnools, and second, by examining sane
of the assumptions on which traditional
schooling is based.

Does School-Based Management Prcm:>te
Learning?

Promoting efficiency and enhancing
autonomy for teachers are worthwhile
goals, but if at the same ~there is
no impact on student learning, while
certain battles might be won, the war
will be lost.

How are we to judge whether or not
SaM/SOO makes a difference? I t would,
seem first necessary to clarify what is
meant by "student learning." There is
a certain body of evidence (again from
the effective schools literature) which
takes as given the results of
no~referenced standardized
acnievement tests. The argument is
that those schools which practice
SBM!SDM are toose whose stu:1ents excel
at standardized tests. "Student
learning" then, becanes identified with
test performance.

'l\<.O concerns nave surfaced wi th this
line of re~ing. First, it is oot
clear that the reporting of test scores
has been totally accurate, and second,
there is some apprehension that, even
if accurate, damage can be inflicted on
the curriculum (and teaching) by
narrowing it to fit the kinds of basic
sKills measured by existing tests
(Steadman, 1987). In short, tnere is
roUJiting concern with the Kinds of
measures or indicators traditionally
employed to assess student learning.
Restructuring schools will involve
reexamining the instruments employed in
assessment and evaluation.

Another sort of issue is raised by the
question, It Do restructured schcx>ls
distract from student learning?" That
is, even if we could agree upon
measures to assess performance,
measures rore acceptable as accurate
representations of student learning
than standardized tests, there remains
the question of whether or oot "the
Shifting of management responsibilities
to the school level is in sane way a
distraction from the central processes
of schooling, namely, learning and
teaching••••" (Caldwell, 1988) Sane
recent commentators have warned against
wholesale adoption of SBM/SDM
structures which model those envisioned
in reports such as the 1986 Carnegie
Report, A Nation Prepared. t<oehlerand
Fenstermacher (1988), for example,
wonder whether calls for the
professionalization of teaching which
shift the focus of decision-maicing to
various levels of the teaching force,
are compatible with higher quality
student learning.

Of course there is 00 definitive answer
to this issue and for the very simple
reason that our experience with
restructuring schools is still in its
infancy. The case study cited by
Koehler and Fenstermacher, for example,
is very limited in scope, covering only
one K-6 elementary school, Desert View,
whose restructuring decisions seem to
lack clear consensus on what

3


constitutes student learning, as well
as questions regarding the
appropriateness of the chosen
implementation strategies.


Nonetheless, it is tmperative to
realize tnat whatever SBM/SDM models
are designed, the quality of student
learning will be affected. E'ollowing
one path might lead, as it did in the
case of Desert View Elementary, to
teachers spencling rore time on
collective decision-making and other
meetings than on instL'uction, or to
increased educational problems for
children, but things don't have to end
up this way. It is instructive to
contrast, for example, successful
restructuring efforts, as in Germany's
Koln-Holweide school (American
Educator, spring 1988) when the
measures urxiertaken stem fran the
shared desire to create a school
catmunity. In Desert VieM, st1.Xients
were pulled out of class for special
help; they roved classroom to
classroom, from teacher specialist to
teacher specialist; and tnere was
little apparent coherence in the
functioning of teacher teams. tn
Koln-Holweide, on the other hand, teams
of teachers worK together employing
multiple instructional strategies (such
as cooperative learning) allowing for
students to remain in class for special
help; teachers are. cooperatively
responsiole for rore than one academic
specialty; and students experience a
satisfying coherence in lessons,
discipline, and classroom
communication. Restructuring schools
in Koln-Holweide means, among other
things, tnat, in the words of its head
teacher, Anna Ratzki, " ••• teachers are
responsible not merely for teaching
their subjects but for the total
aducation of their students, for making
sure that their st1.Xients succeed,
personally and academically."

(American Eaucator ,Spring 1988)
SSM/SDM is rore likely to succe~ when
it springs fran concern for student
success than when it is tangential to
it.

~thereproblans ~!district
moves simUltaneously to centralize and

decentralize?


As mentioned before, SSM is perfectly

cons~stent (and empirically coincident)
with a school ooard setting system-wide

goals.. However, conflict can still

arise. I t often does so when the
question, "Who controls the
curriculum?" is raised. The rove to
centralize control over curriculum, a
rove, for example, key to Thatcher's

Reform Plan in Britain, is also causing
conflict here. In philadelphia,

teachers have been advocating greater
decision-making authority at precisely

the same time the district had been
attempting to impose a standardized
curriculum. (Education Week, March 23,

1988) Similarly at the state level, a~
a time when local districts such as
Hamoond are involved in pranoting
shared decision-making, the state of

Indiana is imposing a state-wide
testing program that's certain to
affect the degree and extent of local
initiative.

~general so Lutions seem possible.
Eitner, as in Philadelphia, some move

toward a less rigid, more flexible
approach to curriculum, a compromise,
can be l?roposed or else (as in narrm:md
aoo Dade) waivers to existing

regulations can be sought.

What kinds of resources are necessary
to effect SBH/saf?


As in all cnange, time and money are
critical resources. Dade, for example,
allotte<l sane $6250 per school for the
purtJOse of planning its SBM/SDM
l?roposal. Even ~en staffs often met
on their own time to develop and
further refine their proposals. tn
reflecting on Hamoond's School
Improvemen t Pro)ect, Hamrrond E'eder a tion
of Teachers President Patrick O'Rourke
has suggested that extra time be spent
in discussing the meaning.and rationale
for snared decision-making along w~th a
more thorough regard for
implementation. Similar thOughts are

4


being echoed by teacher leaders in
Toledo, Rochester, New YorK, Cincinnati
and Qther districts evolving new
decisiQn-mak.ing structures. In sun,
rore planning time and financial
resources will be helpful in effecting
a transition to SSM/SOM.

~~la:does it take for ~to be
~~P ce? ~

Although there appears to be no one

right answer, experience tends to
c9nfirm a gradual, evolutiQnary
approach to implementatiQn is
desiraole. EdrIalton, Canada, perhaps

the NQrtn American school district with
the most experience in school-based
management, is still evolving after ten
years. This evolutionary approach,
however, is Qften at odds wi th the
American penchant fQr speedy
application. In Albuquerque,
site-based budgeting was tQ oe
implemented within two years, and plans
to accomplish even more encompassing
measur.es were presumed possiole in the
same a:nount of time by the Eas t Saton
Rouge parish school system. Caldwell
wri tes, "Time lines have been
unrealistically short, with experience
to date suggesting five years lOr more
are required. If (Cal~ll, 198d) This
is especially so when complex issues
such as equity in resQurce allocation

(Edn'ontQn takes into account eleven
levels Qf per pupil allocation to meet
fQrty-seven categories Qf student need
in determining each school's allQtment)
lOr toe ouilding Qf trust among
decisiQn-makers, is necessary to the
SIOCXJth functioning Qf the changes being
uniergQne.

One Qther possibility should be noted.
The preceding discussiQn could be
interpreted as assuming the Qnly
setting fQr school-based management is
that Qf an entire school building and
staff. s,uch an interpretatiQn would be

mistaken. It is possible (iooeed it is
a reality) to create
"schools-within-schools," and oy so
dQing, expedite the implementatiQn Qf
SBt1/SCM. This strategy, elaborated
upon most recently by AFT President
Shanker, will be tne subject Qf a
future issue Qf RADIUS.


1. School-based management will more
likely meet its goals when it is
coupled with meaningful shared
decision-making•.
2. The goal Qf enhanced student
learning is an indispenSable
precondition for considering SSM/SOM.
3. To insure that s tudent learning is
enhanced, it is necessary to enunerate
tne kinds of decisions to be considered
a t the school level (the use Qf
multiple instructional strategies,
scheduling, etc.)
4. Simultaneous attempts to centralize
and decentra1.ize can result in conflict
(as in curriculum and testing
decisicns) wnich can be managed if
planned fQr in advance.
5. AdditiQnal time and resources are
items most Qften clamored fQr oy staffs
implementing SSM/SOM.
6. An eVQlutiQnary approach (lOver at
least five years) to SaM/SCM is Loore
likely tQ succeed than one mandated fQr
implementation in a shOrt period Qf
time.
7. SSM/SOM is one piece Qf the
restructuring puzzle and SQ should be
cQnsidered in relatiQn to Qther pieces
(assessment and curriculLm, fQr
example) •
5



AN Position paper. "Subject:

School Based Budgeting," Albuquerque

Federation of Teachers.

Caldwll, Brian J.. "Issues in
Self-Governance: An International
Perspective on New Patterns in tne
Governance of Education." Paper read
at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, Louisiana, April 5-9, 1988.

Carnegie For\.lD on Education and the
Econany. A Nation Prepared:
Teachers for the 21st Century," May

1986. --


casner-Lotto, Jill. "Expanding the
Teacner's Role: Hammond's School

Improvement Process, " American
Educator, January 1988, pp. 349-353.

Dade COUnty Public SChools.
School-Based Management/Shared
Decision-Making: A Historical
Perspective, OctotJer 1987, Miami
t'lorida.

East Baton. Rouge Parish School
System. Into the Next C~ntury, 'lear
2UOO, A Mooel for Affi'e'rica, March-rI;

19'88. -


La\Xier, Hugh and Khan, G. I .A. R.

"Deoocracy and the Effective Schools
C'X)vement in New Zealand," QSE, Vol. 1,
No.1, January-March 1988, pp. 51-68.


Lindelow, J. School-Based
Mana1ement, 1981, Burlingame,
caliornia, Foundation for Educational
Adrninistration.


Miller, Lynne and Lieberman, Ann.
"School Improvement in the United
States: Nuance and Nurnoers," QSE, vol.
1, No.1, January-Marcn 1988, pp. 3-19.


PUrkey, Stewart C. and smith, Marshall

S. "Effective Schools: A Review,"
The Elanentary school Journal, March
I983, pp. 427-452.

Ratzki, Anna. "Creating a School
Ccmnunity: One Model of How It can Be

Done," An Interview, American Educator,

Spring 1988.

Richardson-Koehler, Virginia and

Fenstermacher, Gary D. "Graduate

Programs of ·reacher Education and the

professionalization of Teaching" in

Beyond the Debate: Research

PerspectiVes On Graduate Teacher
Preparation. Prentice-Hall 1988

(forthcaning) •

Rottman, Robert. "Teachers vs.
Curriculum in Philadelphia," Education
Week, March 23, 1988.

Stedman, Lawrefi:e C. "It's Time We
Changed the Effective Schools Formula,"
Kappan, NOvember 1987, pp. 215-224.

Zirkel, Perry A. and Greenw::x:d, Scott

C. "Effective SchoOls and Effective
Principals: Effective Research?"
Teachers College Record, Vol. 89, No.
2, ~inter 1987, pp. 255-267.
Merri Mann:
United Teachers of Dade,
2929 S.W. Third Avenue
Miami, Florida 33129
Phone: 305-854-0220

Steve Monahan:

Louisiana Federation of

Teachers

7417 Jefferson Highway

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806

Phone: 504-923-1037

6


Patrick O'Rourke:
president

Hammond Federation of Teachers

5944 1/2 Hol'Inan
Harrmond, 'Indiana 46320
Phone: 219-937-9554


Dal Whatley:
President
Albuquerque Teachers Federa tioo
6l0l Marble, N.E., Suite .7

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110

Phone: 505-262-2657

7



BIBLICGRAPHY


American Educator: The Professional
Journal of the American Federation of
Teachers, Spring 1987, Vol. 11, No.1,
pp. 10-17, 46. "Shared Decision Making
at the School Site: Moving Toward a
professional Model."

Aviran, OVadia. "The Impact of
School as a Social System on tne
Formation of Student Intergroup
Attitudes and Behavior." Journal of
Educational Equity and Leadership,Summer
1987, Vol. 7, No.2, pp. 92-108.

Brady, Laurie. "The Supt?Ortiveness
of the principal in School-Based
Curriculum DevelofXT\ent~ II Journal of
CurriculLll\ Studies, January-March 1985,
Vol. 17, No.1, pp. 95-97.

Chapnan, Judith; Boyd, 'I'lilliam Lowe.
"Decentralization, Devolution, and the
School principal: Australian Lessons
on Statewide Educational Reform."
Educational Administration QUarterly,
Fall 1986, Vol. 22, No.4, pp. 28-58.

Dentler, Robert A.; And Others.

"Decentralization in the Cleveland

PUblic Schools: An Bvaluation.1I

~ty ~EXcellence, Spring 1987,

Vol. 23, No. 1-2, pp. 37-60.


Doyle, Denis P.; Finn, Chester E.,
Jr. "American Schools and the Future
of Local Control.II Public Interest,
Fall 1984, No~ 77, pp. 17-95.
Questions Revisited. 11 CEE'P Journal,
Septemcer-october 19ij5,-voI. 23, No.5,
pp. 12-14.


Genck, Fredric H. I'Ha.-I to Improve
Performance Results in 'four District."
School Administrator, August 1987, Vol.
44, No.8, pp. 17-19.


Guthrie, James W. IISchool-Based

Management: The Next Neeaed Eaucation

Reform. II Phi Delta Kappan, December

1986, Vol. 68, No.4, pp. 305-309.
Herrick, Neal Q. Ills the Tirre
Finally Ripe for Educational
Democracy?I' Social Poli£" Fall 1985,
Vol. 16, No.2, pp. 53-5 •

Johnson, Willian L.: Snyder, Karolyn

J. "Instructional Leadership
Training Needs for School principals. II
Journal of Educational Aaninistration,
Summer 1986, Vol. 24, No.2, pp.
237-253.
Kennelly, Catherine A. IIConverting
to School-By-School Budgeting." School
Business Affairs, II October 1984, vol.
50, No. 10, pp. 44-45.

Knight, Peter. liThe practice of
School-Based Curriculum Developnent. I'
Journal of Curriculum Studies,
January-Marcn 1985, Vol. 17, No.1, pp.
37-48.

McPherson, R. BrUce; And Others.
IlMarJ0rie Stallings: A ~alk Through a
~ne Field. 1I Urban Education, Apn1.
1986, Vol. 21, No.1, pp. 62-85.

Pink, William T. "Introduction: An
Issue on School Reform." Urban RevlC\ol,
1986, Vol. 18, No.1, pp. 3-5.

Prasch, John C. "Reversing the Trend
Toward Centralization." Educational
Leadersnip, October 1984, Vo. 42, ~o.
2, pp. 27-29.

Rallis, Sharon F.; Highsmith, Martha

C. "Tne Myth of the IGreat
Principal. II' American Educator: Tne
professional Journal of the Amerlcan
Federation of Teacners, Spring 1.987,
Vol. 11, NO. l, pp. 18-22.
Raywid, Mary Anne. liThe Choice
Concept TaKes Hold." EqUity and
Cnoice, Fall 1985, Vol~ 2, No.1, pp.
7-12.

8


Rerlnie; Robert J. "SChool Centered

Management: A Matter of Style."

School Business Affairs, April 1985,

Vol. 51, No. i, pp. 64=65, 67.

Saber, Naama. "School-Base<l

CUrriculum Development: Reflections

fran an International Seminar."
Journal of Curricul\.lt\ Studies,
October-December 1985, Vol. 17, No.4,

pp. 452-454.

St:aert, G. Kent. "sane Old
QUestions Revisited." CEFP Journal,
Septemoer-Qctober 1985, Vol. 23, No.5,
pp. 12-14.


TOrrance, Harry. "Current Prospects
for School-Based EXamining."
Educational Review, February 1985, Vol.
37, NO. 1, pp. 39-51.


weintraub, Rebert J. "Meaningful
Participatioo and an Ef feeti'Ie School:
Stooents, Parents arxi Teachers Run
Their OWn Micro-Soci~ty." Equity and
Choice, Fall 1984, Vol. 1, ~pp.

31-36.

welsh, patrick. "Are Aaninistrators
Ready to Share Decision Making With
Teachers?" American Educator: The
professional Journal of the American
Federation of Teachers, Spring 1987,
Vol. 11, No.1, pp. 23, 25, 47-48.

Zerchykov, Ross. "Why School
Councils?" Equity and Choice, eall
1985, Vol. 2, NO. l;-Pp. 37-38.

9



AssociatiCXl for supervision and
Curriculum Development
ASCD: Mini conference on restructuring
tentatively scheduled for November
1988.
National curriculum Study Institute:
SesSions on relevant issues (planning,
decision making, etc.). E'or dates and
locations, Contact: Delores
Flemoury, NCSt Assistant, ASCD, 125 N.
West St., Alexandria, Virginia
22314-2798. Phone 703-549-9110.
Consortium of schools involved in
restructuring (governance, roles,
curriculum, instruction) starting
scmetime in 1988. Contact: Diane
Berreth, ASCD, Director, Field
Services.

National Governors' Associa tioo
NGA: Restructuring Schools Project:
PrOvides grants and tecnnical
assistance to states for such projects
as rethinKing state accountability
systems, organizing schools to ennance
productivity (emphasis on shared
decision making, collegiality,

attracting minorities into teaching).
Contact: Dean Honetshlager or Mike
Conen, NGA, 444 Nortn Capitol,
Was~ngton, D.C. Phone 202-624-5300.

Education canrnission of the States

B:S: Defining the term and linKing it
~state policy. Contact: Jane
Armstrong. Phone 303-830-3600.
National Center a1 Education and the
Ecornny
Inherited the policy development
function of The Carnegie Forum on
Education and the Econany. Will be
working closely with Rocnester Scnool
District on implementing its
comprehensive restructuring agenda (tne
Center will be located in Rocnester)

and will provide technical assistance
to other districts throughout the
country. Contact: Marc Tucker,
Carnegie Forun, Washington, D.C. Phone
202-463-0747.

Coalition for ESsential Schools

Based on many of Ted Sizer's ideas, the
coalition is a loosely based net~rk of
secondary schools who share a number of

beliefs in cammon (student-as-~rker,

less is more, teacning and learning
should be personalized, no more than 80
students per teacher, and so forth) •
contact: Susan Follett, P. O. Box

1938, Providence, Rhode Island 02912.
Phone 401-863-3384.

Network for OUtcane-Based SChools
With nelp from Danfortn Foundation, ~
school districts (in Arizona and
Illinois) are oeing restructured
oeginning Wl th the definitions of
outccmes and then roving to how the
curriculum ~ets developed and how
instruction gets delivered. Follows
generally a "mastery learning"
approach. Contact: aill Spady

(Spady Consulting Group), 14 wnitman
Court, San Carlos, California 94070.

pnone: 415-592-7053.

Institute for Educational Leadership
IEL: Still in embryonic form, a
collaborative proJect between IEL,
Education CaThnission of tne States, and
the National Conference of State
Legislatures, will soon focus on Elve
states, bringing together poli~ers,
practitioners, civic and business
groups, in order to attempt to acnleve
a cammon understanding of
restructuring. Contact: Marty
Blanc, 10001 Connecticut Avenue, ~.~.,
Washington, D.C. 20036. pnone:
202-822-8405.

10


Educational Leadership, February Information-based organizations require1988. Issue aevoted to "Restructuring relooking at how we define leadershi~,
Schools to Match a Changing Society" management roles, structure (teams and

(rethinking school calendar, task forces, not departments) ,

eliminating tracking, changing schoOL
structure in the sLmt\er, interview with
Ted Sizer, demographics, and·more).

"Beyond Special Education: Towards a
QUality Systen for All Stooents,"
Harvard Educational Review, Gartner and
Lipsky, November 1987, urges a
"unitary" or "merged" systan for all
students which requires the authors
argue a paradigm shift in how we
organize schools and how we view the
purpose of education.

"Learning In School and OUt," Lauren
ResnicK, Educational Researcher
December 1987. Different~ates

"in-school" and "out-of-school"

learning and conc ludes there is a
"general need to redirect the focus of
schooling to encompass more of tne

features of successful out-of-school

functioning.-"

COntradictions of Control, Linda M.
Mc:::Nei1 , Rootledge & paUl, 1986 • Case
study analysis of four secondary

schools which reveal in various degrees

contradiction between educative and

administrative/control functions of

schools. "-rhe ter¥lency of teachers and
students within this organizational
context to bracket their personal

knowledge in the exchange of

information reducible to minimal
classroom exchanges heightens tne

feelings of both that schoollng is a

ritual rather than an education."
Synopses of the txxlk appeared in
Januarj 1988, Fecruary 1988 and Marcn

1988 Kappan and was reViewed cy Ai

Shanker in Feoruary 14, 1988 ~here We

Stand.

"The caning of the New organization",
Peter Drucker, Harvard Business Review,
January-February 1988.

utilizing analogies with organizations

liKe symphony orchestras.

Impr~ Education \'lith I.ocall~
Devel Indicators, Jane L. David,
October 987, Center for Policy in
Education, ~isconsin Center for

Educauon Research. "To be useful for
local educational improvement,
indicators should provide adequate
measures of those aspects of schooling
deemed important and amenable to change
through policy-maKing." In addition,
selection of indicators should "be
accanpanied by attention to the
organizational factors that prorote use
of fee:Jback Educational Ir¥licators.
for improvement at all levels of the
system." ThUS, cooperative planning,
stakeholder involvement, etc. See
March 19d8 ~:.3.ppan for a number of
articles on ::ducational Indicators.

Making Sense of the Future: A
position Paper-on The Role of
Technology in Science, Mathematics, and
Ccrnputing Education, January 1988,
Educational Technology Center, Harvard
Graduate School of Education. A
sensicle approach to integrating
computers and instruction that is
consistent with restructuring (teacoers

as coaCh/student as WOrKer). Process

involves practitioners in collacoratlve

research. "proJects consider toe
constralnts and rewards tnat affect

classroom teachers and schools as
organizations• "

"Assessment of Educational Perscnnel
in the Twenty-First Century,"
Tetenbaum & MulKeen, Journal of
Personnel Evaluation 1n Education,
2ebruary 1988: ~ollows Drucker's
thinking on information~based
organizations and applies it to teacher
assessment {acknowledging at toe same
time the importance of teaching

11



"artifacts"-canf?uter f?rograms,
studyguides, etc.--as well as \
uncertainty and"inadequacy of
pedagogical knowledge, professional
autonany, the limitations to !?lanning) •

Direct All Correspondence To:

Bruce Goldberg
Assistant Director
Educational Issues Department
American Federation of Teachers
555 ~ew Jersey Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone: 202-d79-4559


12



Hide Document