This has been such an exciting conversation about schools and school
reform! It's great to see so many of us getting into the conversation
about prospects, problems, and the wider contexts of reform.
I want to offer a view that I'd see as complementary to Jay's
perspective, or as Eugene put it, his "state of education" address. One of
the reasons many reformers advocate more autonomy and choice for local
schools from district offices, especially those connected to groups like
the Coalition of Essential Schools, is that they believe such bureaucracies
get in the way of teachers sustaining innovation and creativity. I think
many in the charter schools network share this belief.
I would argue that it's not just ossified bureaucracy at work, however,
that prevents large-scale school reform. One of the things that principals
and other school leaders in charters and Coalition schools are attempting
to create is what Callon and Law (1989) call a negotiation space. That is,
they are trying to create for teachers a certain autonomy within a global
network of actors-actants in order to create a local network to carry out
their own reforms. Unfortunately, the global network of most schools
leaves them open to having to respond to a host of institutional motives,
which are often contradictory: e.g., educate all students well vs. select
some for magnet schools; meet social-emotional needs of students vs. remove
those students who are most disruptive to the learning of their peers;
maximize instructional time vs. test students extensively to be able to
measure how much progress they're making, etc. These motives are largely a
part of a global network of actors that comprise federal, state, and local
governments, researchers with reform agendas, boards and district
administrators, parents, business/market interests, pricipals and teachers,
but, sadly as Jay notes, rarely students.
Having worked as a district-level administrator, I would say my
experience points to the salience of the global network as something that
in fact does get in the way of serious and sustained reform efforts in
schools, and that it is at least an important factor as bureaucratic
ossification in why school reform often doesn't last. In fact, I'd argue
that many people get into district positions find themselves bewildered by
the multiple demands of the larger global network on learning. Moreover,
they have to contend with political cycles--Presidential, Congressional,
gubernatorial, legislative, mayoral, board, and superintendency--that don't
move in sync but that shape how dollars move within the system.
One of the failures of districts is that they don't effectively create
their own negotiation spaces for schools within their jurisdiction to
sustain reform. I believe there's a critical role for the district--namely
to maintain the emphasis as schooling as fighter-for-civil-rights. By that
I mean the district does have an important accountability function in
ensuring that students from a wide variety of backgrounds have access to
equitable opportunities to learn--good teachers and teacher professional
development, adequate materials and other resources, a building that's not
falling apart. Large-scale assessment I believe has a role to play here,
though I think the emphasis should be on early detection of schools'
failure to help young kids of all backgrounds grow emotionally and
intellectually.
That said, I don't think this is an easy task, because the total dollars
available to people within the school system is much less than the combined
dollars of the global network that is shaping what goes on in schools.
Creating a negotiation space within which a group of schools can construct
a local-learning-network is certainly not easy, and my greatest fear is
that in fact business interests will ultimately re-shape public education
to the point that there is nothing public about it and that even the
ideological imperative to educate all students is no longer in place. In
this respect, I don't share Eugene's focus on the compulsory aspects of
public education--though I agree with his comments about many of its
effects--I think that we should focus instead on how to develop strategies
for universalizing access to opportunities for participation in the broader
global network.
Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Penuel, PhD
Research Social Scientist
Center for Technology in Learning
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Avenue, Mailstop BS116
Menlo Park, CA 94025
tel: 650-859-5001
fax: 650-859-4605
Check out our websites at:
http://www.cilt.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------