examining one school reform movement, the Coalition of Essential Schools (CES). .... New England states, Broward County (Fort Lauderdale), Florida, and the ...
1 "Change Takes Time": A Look at the Growth and Development of the Coalition of Essential Schools1 Introduction [T]here is not a specific blueprint here for a top-to-bottom restructuring of the system. That's been tried and is being tried with the result being a high degree of failure. In any case, such a blueprint or model would violate the first of the imperatives: giving room to teachers and students to work and learn in their own way (Sizer 1985a). In this article we take a micro-look at school reform in the United States by examining one school reform movement, the Coalition of Essential Schools (CES). We examine multiple dimensions of this school reform effort, beginning with an historical overview of the Coalition of Essential Schools, which includes a look at its expanding membership, collaborative partnerships, and the organizational restructuring that has occurred. After a brief description of the School Ethnography Project's study of the Coalition, we then look at some findings derived from our work. While "the Coalition" represents but one of many reform efforts in the United States, we feel it offers a productive perspective for viewing school reform more generally. For instance, CES has been involved with school change since 1984, when the first member schools joined. Some Essential Schools (as Coalition member schools are called), then, have been experimenting with Coalition-based reform for more than eight years. Essential schools represent a cross-section of American education--including public, private, parochial, urban, suburban, and rural schools. In addition, as with school reform more generally, the Coalition's reform platform has evolved over time 1.
Portions of this paper were presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association in New Orleans, Louisiana, November, 1990 and at the 90th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Chicago, Illinois, November, 1991. This research was supported by grants from the Exxon Education Foundation. The authors would like to thank Exxon and the following individuals who provided assistance and critical feedback on drafts of this paper: Susan Fisher, Julia Nesbitt, Edwin Campbell, Theodore R. Sizer, Patricia Wasley, Robert McCarthy, Beverly Simpson, Emily Mathis, Elaine D. Gustafson, and Martha Gardner. The authors also wish to thank the faculty and administrators from the eight study schools for their cooperation and feedback, even though confidentiality agreements preclude our mentioning them by name. We alone are responsible for the contents of this article.
2 and now incorporates many aspects of reform common to other movements, particularly its emphasis on schoolwide restructuring. Some CES members, for instance, have restructured their schools into teams of students and teachers; others have reorganized their schedules to provide extended time blocks. School-site management and faculty self-initiated professional development also have been increasingly advocated. Pedagogically and relative to curricula, some Essential schools have experimented with alternative assessment methods and others have begun to redesign their curricula in terms of "essential questions," all with the goal of making students more active learners.2 Mirroring developments in the larger arena, Coalition efforts have not been unequivocally successful. The Coalition has encountered problems and resistance in various forms. For example, findings suggest that Essential schools are encountering difficulties moving their ideas from the realm of discussion and limited experimentation in individual classrooms or in pilot projects to the arena of schoolwide change (Muncey and McQuillan 1990, forthcoming; McQuillan and Muncey 1991). Although problems exist, there are reasons for optimism as well. The Coalition of Essential Schools--An Overview The Coalition of Essential Schools is an ambitious school reform project focused on improving classroom teaching and learning. Most Essential schools are secondary schools, although middle and primary schools have also joined. The philosophical foundation to Coalition reform is the "triangle of learning"--the relationship between teacher, student, and subject matter. The central aim of the Coalition's efforts is to help students learn to "use their minds well" (CES 1985). In addition, the Coalition asserts that an "intellectual focus" (see Appendix 1) should apply to all students. Therefore, changes that Essential schools implement should derive from the "triangle" and the goal
2.
Works by Wiggins, particularly 1987 and 1989, but also 1991, discuss aspects of essential questions, alternative assessment, and student-as-worker pedagogy.
3 of improving all students' learning. In practice, this has often meant that Coalition teachers are encouraged to develop students' intellectual competencies rather than simply to cover content. Other forms these changes take are determined by the school itself. The Coalition emphatically rejects top-down and standardized solutions to school change. They do not offer member schools a specific "model" or even a suggested starting point for change. Consistent with this orientation, the nine Common Principles (see Appendix A) that undergird Coalition reform are ambiguous by design; each member school is to interpret the principles within its own cultural and institutional context. The Central Staff reinforces this philosophical stance by stressing that the Coalition is a grassroots movement and by emphasizing the need for and appropriateness of allowing member schools local control and autonomy in interpreting the Common Principles. The Coalition of Essential Schools was founded in 1984 by Theodore R. Sizer, former Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and former Headmaster at Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts. Many view Ted Sizer as the charismatic leader of the Coalition (Committee on Evaluation 1988; Muncey and McQuillan 1989). He formulated its guiding philosophy, embodied in the nine Common Principles, based on his five years of research studying American secondary schools. His writings, including Horace's Compromise,3 and subsequent public presentations have spread the Coalition's message widely. In fact, it was an enthusiastic reception for his ideas among the teachers and school administrators that he met, that encouraged Sizer to form a collaborative effort with interested schools and put together a small, university-based staff to assist with the emerging Coalition. Consequently, the man and the message are often closely entwined.
3.
The planning for this research, "A Study of High Schools," began in 1979. Fieldwork was conducted during the 1981-82 academic year (Hampel 1990). In addition to Horace's Compromise, two other books were produced from this study: The Shopping Mall High School (1985) by Arthur Powell, David Cohen, and Eleanor Farrar and The Last Little Citadel (1986) by Robert Hampel.
4 Throughout the late 1980s, Sizer and his staff continued to spread the Coalition philosophy through concerted efforts to increase CES's public visibility and to secure foundation support for its work. Simultaneously, they recruited new member schools and elicited support for their work from the education community. From an initial membership of 12 "charter" schools in December, 1985, the Coalition grew in just two years to over 50 schools nationwide. Despite this growth, some members of the Coalition's Advisory Committee and various funders argued that the Coalition would lack credibility unless it could incorporate more schools and replicate its "successes" in a wider range of educational settings (Committee on Evaluation 1988). With these suggestions in mind and with a growing awareness of both the complexity of the change process and the number of actors throughout the educational system who would need to be involved to foster the desired changes, the Coalition formed a partnership in January, 1988, with the Education Commission of the States (ECS), a "non-profit, nationwide interstate compact formed to help governors, state legislators, state education officials and others develop policies to improve education" (Re:Learning 1989:6). In this partnership, known as "Re:Learning: From the Schoolhouse to the Statehouse," the Coalition focuses on school-site reform, while ECS works with state and local governmental agencies as they develop a policy environment conducive to school-site change (e.g., procuring waivers if faculty feel restricted by existing regulations) and to encourage state-level support for schools interested in Coalition membership (Healey 1988). The Coalition's growth has been diverse and continual. As of October 1990, there were 74 CES member schools (those schools that are implementing new practices based on the nine Common Principles and that have made formal application for membership), six Re:Learning states, nine other states considering Re:Learning membership, and six CES "regions" with funded coordinators working to recruit and nurture schools through the change process. Coalition regions were created in New
5 York and California where several schools expressed interest in joining the Coalition but these states were not (at least initially) willing to become Re:Learning states. The New England states, Broward County (Fort Lauderdale), Florida, and the Jefferson County School District in Louisville, Kentucky, are other Coalition regions. By January 1992, there were 120 CES member schools, 21 schools in the planning/networking stages (those actively planning for change but that have not yet applied for membership), and 151 "exploring" schools (those researching and discussing the Common Principles). Presently, there are eight Re:Learning states: Delaware, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Illinois, Indiana, Colorado, and Arkansas. Figure 1 is a graphic representation of the growth of Coalition member schools between September 1984 and January 1992. Forty of the current member schools are in Re:Learning states as are most of the planning and exploring schools now on the Coalition's roster. [insert figure 1 here--see end of document] Throughout its existence, the Coalition Central Staff, based at Brown University, has faced a series of tensions--many of which stem from attempting to transform a charismatic movement founded on a set of ideas about schooling into a formal organization capable of influencing American education on a broad scale. For instance, the Coalition's reform platform is comprehensive--structural, curricular, pedagogical and assessment-related changes are all viewed as necessary. This multi-dimensional agenda has allowed both Central Staff and member schools considerable latitude to pursue school reform in directions they viewed as most expedient and appropriate. Between September 1984 and January 1992 the Coalition's Central Staff expanded from three persons to almost forty to keep up with the demands of the growing Coalition reform platform. In addition there is now a sizable outreach and support staff (over twenty people) located within the regions and Re:Learning states. ECS has a growing
6 proportion of their staff now working directly with states to develop the Re:Learning state and district agendas. After repeated reorganizations to accommodate the rapidly growing membership and the new projects, the Coalition's Central Staff is currently divided into six divisions: research and development, outreach, professional development, fundraising, communications (including the publication of Horace, the Coalition's newsletter), and administration. Several projects are subsumed within each division: for example, within the research and development division there are projects on teacher change (Wasley 1990a, 1990b, 1990c, 1991a, 1991b), exhibitions4 and alternative assessment (McDonald 1991a, 1991b; Cohen 1991), school design, school change, and technology in school reform. Virtually all of the funds to support the Coalition and Re:Learning's work have, to date, been privately raised. In his most recent book, Horace's School (1992), Sizer thanks each of the more than fifteen corporations and almost thirty foundations that have contributed to the over $30 million dollars raised to date. These funds support the work of the Central Staff, regional and state efforts, and some Essential schools in CES regions and Re:Learning states. School Ethnography Project and the Study Schools In 1986 the School Ethnography Project began a four-year ethnographic study of the Coalition's Central Staff, a sample of eight of the twelve charter schools, and the professional development activities offered by the Central Staff for member (and potential member) schools. In our research we did not seek to evaluate the Coalition of
4.
Common Principle number six (See Appendix 1) asserts that students should be able to "exhibit" their mastery over specific subject matter and its implications. Ideally, "exhibitions" should serve as a form of school-wide assessment required for promotion or graduation.
7 Essential Schools; rather, we sought to document broadly what occurred as a consequence of the Coalition's reform efforts.5 Most of our research was conducted in the eight study-site schools and focused on two broad questions about the Common Principles: How are the Common Principles interpreted by individual schools? And, how do those involved in Essential schools (teachers, administrators, and students) implement the principles as they are developed in each setting? Specifically, our research entailed observing classes, afterschool activities, planning meetings, and other school-based activities. We interviewed students, teachers, and administrators about their work, about proposed or implemented changes, and about their future plans. We conducted a survey of 1500 students in eleven Essential schools and collected related data about the schools--such as newspaper articles, yearbooks and other school publications, faculty- and studentauthored materials, and materials stored in CES archives about individual schools. Although our research focused primarily on school sites, we also attended Coalition staff meetings, conferences and workshops, interviewed Central Staff members, and generally stayed abreast of developments within the Central Staff. We concluded our research in June, 1990. Of our eight study schools, six were public high schools, one was a private high school, and one was a newly created secondary school in a district of choice. All were located in eastern states. Three of the public schools were urban schools with enrollments of approximately 1,000 students--two having largely minority populations. Two schools were suburban high schools with substantial per-pupil expenditures and reputations as "excellent" schools; one enrolled 250 students and the other nearly 1,000. One school was a small rural school. The private school, too, was small, with about 200 5.
We acknowledge that there is much concern regarding the influence of CES reforms on student performance. However, as anthropologists studying change broadly, our research focus was not on educational evaluation. We therefore did not attempt to measure how these reforms affected student academic performance.
8 students. Changing demographics were at issue in most of our study schools. For example, at one school the student population fell by as much as 30 percent over the course of our research. Prior to joining the Coalition, each school varied in its commitment to change. Only two of the eight schools held faculty referendums on Coalition membership before joining. The other six schools joined primarily because of the initiative of the principal or superintendent. Findings from the School Ethnography Project Study In this section we specifically discuss (1) the characteristics of those schools which, after six years of Coalition membership, continue to pursue a reform agenda; (2) some common problems that emerged at many of our study sites; (3) the variety of student responses to Coalition-based reforms we observed; and (4) some skills that have become important at schools that are restructuring traditional practices. Seven Characteristics of the Schools that Continue to Restructure Of our eight study schools, three continue to push an active Coalition reform agenda. One is a comprehensive urban school in a city where such schools traditionally have had the "lowest attendance, worst [test] scores, and highest dropout rates."6 The second is located in a poor, rural district that had had a relatively high dropout rate and had sent few students to college prior to the arrival of its new principal and its association with the Coalition. The third is a new school in a district of choice in a large urban center with some of the worst school conditions, highest dropout rates, and generally low academic performance in the country (Kozol 1991). These three schools share seven characteristics in terms of their Coalition-related reform efforts: •1• The principals are strong, effective leaders who are vocally supportive of their restructuring efforts and respected by most faculty members. While at other schools faculty often resisted efforts to implement change solely on the basis of their opposition to the principal and his or her close association with this effort, 6.
As cited in the report of one of the supporting foundations (1988).
9 these principals have been able to persuade faculty to participate in the reforms. In addition, they have been at their schools throughout the period of restructuring. Our other five study schools have experienced at least some administrative turnover--either the principal, assistant principals, and/or the school's Coalition coordinator. •2• There were no powerful, entrenched interests in place at these schools prior to the reform. These schools did not have magnet programs, extensive Advanced Placement offerings, a powerful union presence, or other special interests that might have felt threatened and/or resisted efforts to restructure. •3• Somewhat related, none of these three schools had a reputation for academic excellence. Two schools had substantial at-risk populations, relatively high dropout rates, and few students who went on to college. The third school, since it was new and building grade-by-grade, had no prior reputation. •4• These three schools also received considerable attention from the Coalition. The Central Staff visited them more than most member schools--possibly because these schools reported regularly on their experimental efforts and made specific requests for assistance from the Central Staff. Because the Coalition Central Staff perceived these schools to be doing some of the more ambitious reform work, they were often "showcased" in CES symposia, workshops, and public relations efforts. Yet, in providing support to these schools, the Central Staff did not direct the schools' work; rather, they tended to do whatever they could to support the schools' self-initiated efforts, a key aspect of their respect for local autonomy and decision-making. As a result of the interaction between the Central Staff and these schools, teachers at these schools generally viewed Central Staff members quite positively, as persons with something to offer them and as encouraging of their efforts--almost as mentors.
10 •5• These three schools sponsored and ran their own professional development activities, which built on aspects of Coalition philosophy. These included halfday, in-service workshops, faculty retreats, and extended summer workshops. Coalition Central Staff members commonly contributed their expertise to staffing these efforts. •6• Principals at these three schools have taken advantage of faculty turn-over and selective loss of staff due to declining enrollments to hire and retain those faculty members who expressed interest in pursuing reform goals. These principals also assisted less interested faculty in finding positions elsewhere. •7• Each of the three schools took various steps to support the efforts of teachers involved in their restructuring efforts. These included creating common planning time so that those persons involved in the reform efforts could meet jointly and securing funds so participants could attend Coalition-sponsored workshops. Abstracting from these common characteristics, two points are worth noting: First, school reform at these three sites was clearly multi-dimensional and provided many different opportunities for school personnel to become involved.7 In addition, there were both external (e.g., Central Staff expertise) and internal (e.g., planning time, professional development, etc.) supports for people's efforts at change.
7.
Cusick (1991) for instance, argues that most effective efforts at school change have been systematic and multi-dimensional.
11 Seven Problems that Emerged in Most Schools While all of our study-site schools defined and interpreted the Common Principles in different ways and went about their efforts to implement change very differently, at seven of our eight schools--including two of the schools discussed above-many similar problems emerged. We summarize seven of the most common problems as follows: •1• Perhaps the most widespread "problem" (at least from the perspective that stresses a need for change) was that in each of these seven schools there was no consensus that fundamental changes in school structure and/or teaching practices needed to occur. Rather, if there was any consensus among faculty at these schools regarding the need for change, it was that the larger society needed to change, since present social conditions (e.g., single-parent families, drug abuse, disrespect for authority by students, etc.) made it difficult for successful teaching to occur. •2• The changes that occurred or were considered when a school joined CES forced the issue of what constituted the school's philosophy. Making a school's philosophy problematic for its staff in this way tended to disrupt the fragile (usually unspoken and unquestioned) assumption that shared purposes, values, and beliefs underlay the everyday world of the school and revealed differences various faculty had concerning their jobs, the school's mission, and the best ways to educate students. •3• While reports of success by individual teachers were often impressive, few schools ever attempted the more schoolwide reforms the Coalition envisions. In each school, reform efforts began with aspects of the Common Principles that individual teachers (or small teams of teachers) could implement with little disruption to the daily business of school and without faculty consensus regarding their appropriateness or representativeness as a school-wide
12 philosophy--for example, student-as-worker and personalization (see Appendix A). •4• At most schools, it was only a small "vanguard" of faculty who voluntarily embraced Coalition philosophy and became active in their school's reform efforts. While they often saw themselves, and were seen by the administration, as "harbingers of the future," faculty not involved in Coalition reforms often saw them as receiving preferential treatment within the school. Consequently, rather than providing examples or role models, these vanguards often divided the faculty and any signs of their success were dismissed as the result of these alleged "favored" conditions. •5• Most Coalition vanguard teachers focused their efforts on the academic aspects of their reform efforts and paid little attention to their use of power within the school or the consequences of reform-related actions for their less reform-interested colleagues. While at times this was an effective short-term strategy, political issues eventually surfaced. When those initially unconcerned about or uninvolved in Coalition reforms realized the ramifications of Coalitionbased changes in practice, what seemed like a good idea or, at worst, a harmless experiment, became the basis for substantial political controversy and contentiousness for which the vanguard was unprepared. •6• The divisions created within schools as a result of the schools' reform efforts restricted communication among the faculty. This, in turn, often meant that the opposition that emerged at our study schools was based on hearsay as well as actual developments. •7• Schools assumed that once a faculty "accepted" a reform program, there was little need to reflect on this decision further. In effect, planning for change became defined as part of the start-up for change rather than as part of an ongoing process of change. While many schools created time for their faculties to
13 discuss the implications of CES membership before joining, once they had joined, there was much less faculty-wide discussion about restructuring--unless the program became a topic of serious political contention within the school.8 As a result of these and other site-specific problems (union issues, declining enrollments, and administrative turnover), six years after they began their Coalition work, one of our study school's school-within-a-school (SWAS) program is "on hold" with no plans to expand, three schools are "rethinking" the nature of their commitment to the Coalition (or to restructuring in general), and one school has left the Coalition and has no plans to continue restructuring, although they continue to discuss school change issues. Students' Responses to Coalition Reforms Students have not been passive recipients of Coalition reform efforts at their schools. We have noted a wide range of student responses to the changes. In our study schools, students were often enthusiastic about the changes they experienced. In particular, students generally approved of and found helpful one popular curricular innovation in Essential schools--that of making interdisciplinary connections between traditionally distinct fields.9 Commenting on her English/history course, one junior discussed how this interdisciplinary offering made both subjects more accessible to her class: [W]hen they say, "Take your Scarlet Letter out," you know they're going to talk about English and when they say, "Take out your American history book," you know it's history. But it's so interrelated that it's really just one thing. It's just like the Puritans are in history, the Puritans are in our English books....It's also 8.
These points are explored in more detail in an article forthcoming in Phi Delta Kappan entitled, "Findings from the Field: Preliminary Results from a Five-Year Study of the Coalition of Essential Schools." 9. Often these connections were made between English and history. Sometimes math and science were combined and, more rarely, other combinations such as science and history or math and English were undertaken.
14 easier to understand because English helps you with the history and the history helps you with the English, because the history tells you how people were and whole outlines. But then the English gives you examples. You feel what the people felt. Students did not, of course, enthusiastically endorse and accept all the changes they experienced. We saw numerous instances of student resistance (both active and passive) in Essential school classrooms. For example, students might not complete work on time. They could delay making up work and argue that they did not understand a teacher's new expectations. When facing new and different projects and standards (often instituted by school-within-a-school teams), students raised two common objections: "They don't have to do this in the other [non-Coalition] history (science, etc.) classes," and, "Why should I not pass if I have a 70, and 70 is passing in the rest of the school?" Occasionally, students expressed distrust about the changed relationships they experienced or new programs their schools implemented. Some were skeptical, distrustful, or outright rejecting of efforts to empower them, although such efforts as creating student-faculty legislatures or small advisory group programs were designed to provide them with more personalized contact with their teachers. At times, students were quite cynical about why a new opportunity was provided. One student expressed his lack of faith in a new governance initiative this way: "I think they [teachers and administrators] wanted to have it so at meetings with other high schools they could say, 'Well in [our meetings] we have parliamentary procedure and it's really working well, and the students get everything done that they want....'" If programs proved trustworthy (over long periods of time) student attitudes usually grew more favorable. A final response that we noted, primarily in non-suburban schools, was that of raised expectations on the part of the students. Low-income (often minority) students repeatedly voiced the (new) expectation that they would attend a four-year college. We
15 attribute this expectation in large part to the individualized attention that students in Essential school programs commonly received. At these schools, teachers presented college as a real possibility, almost an expectation. They reinforced their expectations by making field trips to various colleges, attending college fairs, and encouraging students to take SATs. As students from the first Essential school classes at these schools have graduated, this expectation has, to a large extent, been borne out as college attendance rates have increased markedly. It remains to be seen whether these students will complete college; nevertheless the college attendance rates of the early graduating classes from our urban, often "disadvantaged," student populations have been impressive. The types of changes that Coalition teachers made in their classrooms were designed to create activities to promote active student learning and increasingly to personalize students' experiences at schools. As we noted above, faculty often reported substantial satisfaction with these endeavors and felt revitalized as a result of students' responses and the quality of the classroom learning they felt was taking place. Students usually voiced awareness of these two goals, whether they were supportive of or resistant to efforts to change their classroom learning environment. For the most part they were very appreciative of any efforts made to increase the personal interaction they had with teachers, to encourage them to pursue their own interests in their course work, and to assist them in the college application process. For students in the nonsuburban schools, this increased personalization in Essential school classes was in marked contrast to, for example, other classes with forty-five or more students and guidance counselors they saw only when they transferred from one school to another. Skills That Teachers Requested to Help Deepen Their Reform Work From its inception, those involved with CES reform have acknowledged that, to take strong root in schools, reforms would have to effect changes in both beliefs and actions. Although it would seem that the combination of action and belief would be
16 sufficient to bring about real reforms at schools, we have much evidence that suggests a third necessary component: skills.10 That is, one may philosophically support the intention of a reform effort (belief), and may work in a school undertaking activities to achieve these ideals (action), but lacking appropriate skills to realize the desired end, one's efforts may prove not only ineffective but also disillusioning. The three schools that continue to change have incorporated action, belief, and skills into their reform planning and work. They have created structures to support their efforts. They have discussed and defined the philosophical and pedagogical assumptions that undergird their actions. Also, they have created opportunities, often in conjunction with the Coalition, to help faculty and administrators develop the skills they need to implement Coalition philosophy and realize their desired outcomes. These include not only skills to improve classroom pedagogy, but also ways to improve collaboration with colleagues, make parental interactions more productive, and cope with teachers' expanded role as student advisors. Other skills of concern to Essential school teachers include: team teaching; shared leadership (management and administrative techniques); interdisciplinary planning; developing curricula driven by essential questions; devising appropriate performance-based assessments; and creating long-term goals and a vision for their schools. As teachers and administrators have identified skills, the Coalition's Central Staff and the individual school sites have sought to develop appropriate professional development activities to meet these needs. Summary
10The
emphasis on the need to develop skills in the persons who will be implementing changes has been noticed by other researchers studying change efforts. For example, Dryfoos (1990), surveying programs for at-risk students, names "staff training" as one of the key points in determining whether a program is successful in attaining its aims or not (1990:241). She writes:
The importance of training, highlighted by many of the models, gets short shrift in experts' recommendations. Although most recommendations call for committed and sensitive teachers, social workers, community aides, and other staff and volunteers, little attention is paid to giving them the necessary orientation, skills, and supervision to activate their commitment. (1990:235)
17 The Coalition of Essential Schools encourages schools to seriously rethink the realities of their day-to-day operation and the vision of education that underlies their current functioning. Throughout its eight years of rapid expansion--both of Central Staff and member schools--the Coalition has encouraged schools to incorporate more actors into their discussions about and experiments with change; they have created new professional development activities to address concerns that affiliated schools have encountered; and they have taken an increasingly active role in the national discourse about educational reform. The struggles of the schools we studied are not atypical of other Coalition member schools, nor are they atypical of schools and organizations attempting to introduce changes into entrenched, static systems. The crucial lesson that derives from these first eight years of Coalition reform efforts is that the task of bringing about genuine change in schools is an enormous one involving parents and people at all levels of the educational system. Cautious action and continual reflection are interconnected elements of the change process advocated by the Coalition. And as Sizer has maintained from the start, meaningful reform will not happen quickly: Experiments must be ambitious and long range; schools are complicated places, and attitudes--those of teachers, students, and others--must change as well as [must] the structures of the schools in which they work. This takes time...(Sizer 1986).
Bibliography
Coalition of Essential Schools (CES) 1985
Prospectus. Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University.
CES, Committee on Evaluation 1988
Report of the Committee on Evaluation of the Coalition of Essential Schools.
Rhode Island: Brown University, September, 1988.
Providence,
18 Cohen, Marshall A. 1991 "An American Teacher's View of British Assessment Practice." Studies on Exhibitions. Providence, Rhode Island: Coalition of Essential Schools, Brown University. Cusick, Philip 1991
The Educational System, Its Nature and Logic. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dryfoos, Joy G. 1990
Adolescents at Risk: Prevalence and Prevention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hampel, Robert 1986
The Last Little Citadel. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Healey, Ann Macari 1988
A Plan to Unshackle School, 'Re:Learning' program invites Rhode Island, and others to
experiment with change. The Providence Journal Bulletin, August 18, 1988. Kozol, Jonathan 1991 Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools. New York: Crown Publishers Inc. McDonald, Joseph A. 1991a "Dilemmas of Planning Backwards: Rescuing a Good Idea." Studies on Exhibitions. Providence, Rhode Island: Coalition of Essential Schools, Brown University. 1991b "Three Pictures of an Exhibition: Warm, Cool, and Hard." Studies of Exhibitions. Providence, Rhode Island: Coalition of Essential Schools, Brown University. McQuillan, Patrick J. and Donna E. Muncey 1991 "School-Within-A-School Restructuring and Faculty Divisiveness: Examples From a Study of the Coalition of Essential Schools. Paper presented at a session entitled, "The Consequences of Restructuring for Teachers and Teaching," at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois, April, 1991. Muncey, Donna E. and Patrick J. McQuillan (in press) "The Dangers of Assuming Consensus: Some Examples from the Coalition of Essential Schools." Forthcoming in G. Alfred Hess, Jr. (Ed.) Empowering Teachers and Parents:
19 School Restructuring Through the Eyes of Anthropologists. Westport, Ct: Greenwood Publishing Group. (in press) "Findings from the Field: Preliminary Results from a Five-Year Study of the Coalition of Essential Schools" Forthcoming in Phi Delta Kappan. 1991a "Incorporating Action and Belief into School-Based Reform: Can Schools Restructure?" Paper presented at a session entitled, "The Voices of Restructuring: Varying Perspectives on a School Reform," at the 90th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Chicago, Illinois, November, 1991. 1991b "The Meeting of Many Worlds: Professional Development in a Grassroots Educational Reform Movement." Paper presented at a session entitled, "The Coalition of Essential Schools: Restructuring From an Important Perspective," at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois, April, 1991. 1989 "Educational Reform as Revitalization Movement." Paper presented at a session entitled "Multi-site Research Methods in Ethnographic Policy Studies" at the Ethnography in Education Reform Forum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March, 1989. Powell, Arthur, Eleanor Farrar, and David K. Cohen 1985
The Shopping Mall High School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Re:Learning 1989
The Conversation: From Schoolhouse to Statehouse. Denver: Education Commission of
the States.
20 Sizer, Theodore R. 1985a
"School Daze: Adolescent Apathy." The Brown University Human Development
Letter.
1985b
Horace's Compromise. The Dilemma of the American High School. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company. 1986
"Precis of the statement on the improvement of American Secondary Schools to
the
National Governor's Association," February 23. 1989
Letter sent to all CES schools, January 17.
1991a
Letter sent to all CES schools.
1991b "No Pain, No Gain." Educational Leadership v (#). 1992 Horace's School: Redesigning the American High School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Wasley, Patricia A. 1990a "A Feeling of Uneasiness: A Teacher in the Midst of Change." Studies on Teacher
Change.
Providence, Rhode Island: Coalition of Essential Schools, Brown University. 1990b "A Formula for Making a Difference." Studies in Teacher Change. Providence, Rhode Island: Coalition of Essential Schools, Brown University. 1990c "Trusting Kids and Their Voices." Studies in Teacher Change. Providence, Rhode Island: Coalition of Essential Schools, Brown University. 1991a "Changing Mid-Career." The Teacher's Journal, Volume IV. Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University. 1991b "Stirring the Chalkdust: Changing Practices in Essential Schools." Teachers College Record 43 (1). Wiggins, Grant. 1987 "Creating a Thought-Provoking Curriculum: Lessons from Whodunits & Others." American Educator 11 (4). 1989 "Teaching to the Authentic Test." Educational Leadership 46 (7).
21 1991 "Standards, Not Standardization: Evoking Quality Student Work." Educational Leadership 48 (5). Appendix 1: Nine Common Principles of the Coalition of Essential Schools The Coalition of Essential Schools 1. The school should focus on helping adolescents learn to use their minds well. Schools should not attempt to be "comprehensive" if such a claim is made at the expense of the school's central intellectual purpose. 2. The school's goals should be simple: that each student master a limited number of essential skills and areas of knowledge. While these skills and areas will, to varying degrees, reflect the traditional academic disciplines, the program's design should be shaped by the intellectual and imaginative powers and competencies that students need, rather than necessarily by "subjects" as conventionally defined. The aphorism "Less Is More" should dominate: curricular decisions should be guided by the aim of thorough student mastery and achievement rather than by an effort merely to cover content. 3. The school's goals should apply to all students, while the means to these goals will vary as those students themselves vary. School practice should be tailor-made to meet the needs of every group or class of adolescents. 4. Teaching and learning should be personalized to the maximum feasible extent. Efforts should be directed toward a goal that no teacher have direct responsibility for more than 80 students. To capitalize on this personalization, decisions about the details of the course of study, the use of students' and teachers' time and the choice of teaching materials and specific pedagogies must be unreservedly placed in the hands of the principal and staff. 5. The governing practical metaphor of the school should be student-as-worker rather than the more familiar metaphor of teacher-as - deliverer - of - instructional – services. Accordingly, a prominent pedagogy will be coaching, to provoke students to learn how to learn and thus to teach themselves. 6. Students entering secondary school studies are those who can show competence in language and elementary mathematics. Students of traditional high school age but not yet at appropriate levels of competence to enter secondary school studies will be provided intensive remedial work to assist them quickly to meet these standards. The diploma should be awarded upon a successful final demonstration of mastery for graduation — an "Exhibition." This Exhibition by the student of his or her grasp of the central skills and knowledge of the school's program may be jointly administered by the faculty and by higher authorities. As the diploma is awarded when earned, the school's program proceeds with no strict age grading and with no system of "credits earned" by "time spent" in class. The emphasis is on the students' demonstration that they can do important things. 7. The tone of the school should explicitly and self-consciously stress values of unanxious expectation ("I won't threaten you but I expect much of you"), of trust (until abused) and of decency (the values of fairness, generosity and tolerance). Incentives appropriate to the school's particular students and teachers should be emphasized, and parents should be treated as essential collaborators. 8. The principal and teachers should perceive themselves as generalists first (teachers and scholars in general education) and specialists second (experts in but one particular discipline). Staff should expect multiple obligations (teacher-counselor-manager) and a sense of commitment to the entire school. 9. Ultimate administrative and budget targets should include, in addition to total student loads per teacher of eighty or fewer pupils, substantial time for collective planning by teachers, competitive salaries for staff and an ultimate per pupil cost not to exceed that at traditional schools by more than 10 percent. To accomplish this, administrative plans may have to show the phased reduction or elimination of some services now provided students in many traditional comprehensive secondary schools.
