u
.5

, .ey. .7
a”

:1 as ‘L. . . . u . . . . .
3%...“ #3.». , , . ‘. ..m%.

7"
‘t

em.“ .3 h \ . . . . ,
fifim V . ‘. . .. . _. w

a
.Wnnraa

. . . . ‘ , . a. 3
.. ...r «m. , , .1 cm
{€34 . , 1:5 .mar . ‘ .

..n-.!U~

3.x.

713:5..-

.
a. mi» . .3».
Li“ Y . .
e . ‘ .

.a‘nmxmflmww .. ,, l . . . . . . V . . ‘ . ‘ , amun.

ran?

2 .
121...“,
. 2.
“Pt: I. ‘ ‘ . 1.x
.3 x 3 Lawn. u.
. . , . . . . n
2.1!. 3. c , . . .2 3.38.21; : .,.é:...{c
1 E . 63 . ‘ a;~\7§l:;:. 3...... .. ‘ ..
u 33$ . it.u.§§.. 23...? 33%?“ s
. , v . . . . . ‘ I, , ..
.(Lum. . £553.)??? , . . , x . Lu. \up .. J .1. . that...
«W W . .Iv .. .. . , 5 u z
9. 5“ ext...
i: .. as. ,J. v at. . ‘ A ‘ A . . $2.5.
mtfi‘immrli . , . u
.1. a 1 Lb} . 4 . . . ,
.3. x .5: f
in!» . I. z; 4 . r «a
It . . .LSV . ikr $31
‘ a . .2111". .9
. Idwav: L
Elk.
t‘L. .7
.63"??-
. h

:

samba“ .
.

.r

.u 0.33 2“.” J
I 1.. S. u. x
A... AW ML

 

.

. :
hunk."
. .

Wu 3-

t
<._...

t.

 

r' ~. 1—“ku 7*“ ‘W-v

v-..

. .

 

 

 

.. ,
u:r..,.fv...v .3 4!

THESIS
4!

Q<Dl

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

NATIONAL PROGRAMS AND LOCAL RESPONSES:
ENACTING THE NEW TITLE I

presented by

Sue Poppink

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

Ph .D . degree in Philosophy

DatZZWLo-v 4 u. /cL W

 

MS U is an Afflrmaliw Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

 

LIBRARY

Mlchigan State

University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

1000126 200

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

moo mm.“

NATIONAL PROGRAMS AND LOCAL RESPONSES:
ENACTING THE NEW TITLE I

By

SUE POPPll\K

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

2000

ABSTRACT

NATIONAL PROGRAMS AND LOCAL RESPONSES: ENACTING THE NEW
TITLE I

By

Sue Poppink

The federal govemment program, Title I, was a supplementary
pullout program for disadvantaged student in high poverty schools, in
which a drill and practice form of pedagogy was used. Now Title I,
particularly through the Schoolwide provision, urges schools to coordinate
their efforts to enable all students to gain proficiencies in ambitious state
standards.

The changes require technical and social changes for schools and
classrooms. To understand if and how teachers and principals made
these changes, I conducted an implementation study using qualitative
research methods to investigate one district’s response and examined
how three schools enacted the Schoolwide program. I assumed the policy
was a sort of “curriculum” and policy enactors were “learners.” I sought

to understand if and how enactors were “taught” the policy.

The schools in this study enacted the policy in isolation from the
rest of the educational system. Nonetheless leadership emerged from
within the schools and all three schools enacted aspects of the policy.
One school relied heavily on its own Title I reading teacher for guidance,
who encouraged the school to develop both the technical and social
aspects of the policy. Another school relied nearly completely on the
Michigan Educational Assessment Program for guidance, incorporating its
technical aspects into the school’s already enacted social planning time.
A third school ignored the technical guidance of the state student
content standards and developed little congruence around the content of
the curriculum.

Variation at the local site is a central theme of the policy
implementation literature, and the three schools in this study reflect that
theme. One view of the implementation process is one of mutual
adaptation, which suggests that schools adapt the policy to their local
contexts, which accounts for the variation. This study adds to mutual
adaptation the idea that variation may be due as much or more to varying
sources of guidance within the decentralized and fragmented political

system.

 

Copyright by
SUE POPPIAK
2000

To Emma and Ken Brock

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

So many people inside and outside of Erickson Hall helped me
complete this degree that if I were to thank them all I might double the
number of pages in this dissertation. Instead I thank a few faculty,
graduate students, staff and family members who worked with me over
time.

First, I add my name to the list of graduate students who in their
acknowledgements write that their dissertations would not have been
possible without David K. Cohen. Our numbers are legion. I would not
have conceived of and written this dissertation without him. As my
dissertation director, he examined with me the issues presented herein,
and his exacting guidance helped me see the elegance of the complex
issues and the complexity of the seemingly simple issues.

David and Judith E. Lanier both encouraged me to pursue a doctoral
degree. I worked with Judy for five years and her knowledge of teacher
education and ways of seeing the relationship between the macro policy
issues and micro enactment issues has been a constant source of
inspiration.

Judy introduced me to Lauren Young and Gary Sykes who served on

vi

my committee in a gamely manner. Lauren was my advisor and
committee chair and took both responsibilities seriously. She always
looked out for my personal and intellectual growth. I am indebted to her
for serving as a quietly assertive committee chair. Gary’s idea that
teaching and learning about the new Title I policy is both a technical and
social undertaking was central to framing this dissertation. There are
more references in my dissertation to literature that I read in Gary's class
than in any other single class I’ve taken.

Next I met Deborah Loewenberg Ball and Suzanne M. Wilson.
Deborah played a central role in this dissertation by taking seriously not
only my ideas, but also the way in which I thought about them. She
cheerfully gave me feedback on papers, proposals and presentations
throughout my studies. I took more courses with Suzanne during the
course of my graduate studies than the university may allow all of which
fed into this dissertation. She spent much time with me outside the
classroom as well, reading books and writing papers.

David Labaree set a high standard not only as a committee member
but also as director of the doctoral programs. The care with which he
approached critiquing the essays I prepared for his class and my

dissertation will be difficult to live up to.

vii

Five graduate students were close friends and colleagues
throughout the process, Carol Barnes, Jennifer Borman, Steve Mattson,
Dirck Roosevelt and Kara Suzuka. Carol and I worked together every step
of the way. She always took time out from her busy schedule to listen to
my ideas and discuss the next aspect of my dissertation. I dare not say
that Jennifer Borman is an editor without parallel because then I may not
be able to selfishly keep her to myself. Steve Mattson, everyone’s
favorite spiritual advisor, taught me about educational theory and about
approaching life in a cheerful and ethical manner. Dirck’s East Coast
sensibilities were just what I needed to help me see the other side of
nearly any argument. Kara was a lifeline to me in the completion of this
dissertation. She was always able to help me figure out what my research
was about; and, better yet, how to format this paper to graduate school
specifications. Lisa Roy, one of the secretaries for the Education Policy
and Practice Study helped me through innumerable bureaucratic hoops,
including typing the bookplate -- the last task to be completed.

Finally, my family. Though my father and my sister, Grace,
wondered aloud if undertaking this project was the best thing to do, they
were my staunchest supporters in the end. My mother and my other

siblings, Martha, Dutch and Lyn were nearly as thrilled as I was to see this

viii

project through. My in-laws supported me during this endeavor and
supported my family financially by letting us borrow a car after both of
ours wore out.

My husband and daughter, Ken and Emma Brock have lived with the
pursuit of this degree day in and day out for the last several years.
Though not without complaint, they encouraged me to keep at it even
when I wondered if going on was the best thing for me and for them.
Emma asked that this dissertation be dedicated to them, so it is.

I also express my appreciation to the peOpIe who toil in the public
educational system every day trying to ensure that all children have
exposure to high standards in a safe and humane environment. Though it
is a system that is easy to critque, it is still quite remarkable that every
day approximately 44 million students and their 2.5 million teachers come
together under the banner of learning. Most of us in this system, like
Dorothea in Middlemamn, live faithfully a hidden life.

Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength,

spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But

the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably
diffusive, for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on
unhistoric acts, and that things are not so ill with you and me as
they might have been is half owing to the number who lived

faithfully a hidden life and rest in unvisited tombs.

George Eliot
Middlemamb. p. 881

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1
1. Policy Background and Change ................................................................... 5
1.1. State Alignment Strategy ............................................................... 7
1.2. Title I Schoolwide Programs ...................................................... 11
1.3. Changes in Organization ................................................................ 14
1.4. Conclusion on Policy ....................................................................... 20
2. The Problem .................................................................................................... 22
2.1. Policy Implementation ................................................................... 23
2.2. Policy Implementation as Mutual Adaptation ...................... 24
2.3. Policy Implementation as a Process of Learning ............... 24
2.4. Teaching the Policy ......................................................................... 27
2.5. Interpretations and Responses to the Policy ....................... 31
2.6. A Complication in Enacting This Policy ................................. 37
3. Research Questions ..................................................................................... 4O
4. Research Methods ......................................................................................... 41
4.1. Case Studies ....................................................................................... 42
4.2. Choosing a Site to Study Policy Enactment .......................... 43
4.3. Methodology: How I Explored My Questions ........................... 46
4.4. Data Analysis ..................................................................................... 50
X

 

CHAPTER TWO. THE DISTRICT AND CENTRAL OFFICE

BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 5 3
1. State Background .......................................................................................... 54
2. History of Schoolwide Programs in This District ......................... 57
3. Schoolwide Program Planning in 1995-1996 .................................. 61
4. Waning Support for Instruction ............................................................. 62
5. Leadership ....................................................................................................... 7 O
6. Some Consequences of the Local Education Agency’s

Passivity .......................................................................................................... 74

CHAPTER THREE.
THE CASE OF LAMBERT STRETHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL:
MEDIATING THE POLICY THROUGH THE TITLE I READING

TEACHER ..................................................................................... 7 6
1. The Setting: Tentative Steps Toward Coordination ...................... 77
2. Ann’s Mediation ............................................................................................. 80
2.1. Trusted and Respected Authority .............................................. 81
2.2. Knowledgeable about Education Reform ................................. 84
2.3. Direct Leadership Style ................................................................. 87
3. Internal Coordination ................................................................................. 91

4.0.

3.1. Communication Center: Meeting Goals through Changing

the Instructional Program ............................................................ 91
3.2. Coordination Categories ................................................................ 99
Internal and External Alignment Activities ................................... 114

4.1. Internal Alignment: K-2 Curriculum with Reading
Recovery ............................................................................................. 115

x i

7.

4.2. Internal Alignment through Grade Level Goals ................. 118

4.3. External Alignment: The MEAP .................................................. 119
Conclusion on Coordination and Alignment ..................................... 126
Staff Reactions to this Schoolwide Program ................................ 127
6.1. Benefits .............................................................................................. 127
6.2. Drawbacks ......................................................................................... 129
Conclusion .................................................................................................... 130

CHAPTER FOUR.
THE CASE OF GEORGE KNIGHTLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL:
ALIGNING WITH THE STATE’S STUDENT ASSESSMENT

PROGRAM .................................................................................. 1 3 4
1. A Small, Inner City School ..................................................................... 136
2. Coordination before the Planning Period ......................................... 139
2.1. No Focus .............................................................................................. 140
2.2. Few lnterdependent Relationships ......................................... 144
2.2. Budding Professional Relationships ...................................... 145

2.4. Images of Classrooms in the Direction of the
Reforms .............................................................................................. 146
2.5. Internal and External Alignment ............................................. 146
3. Act I: Planning Under the Principal’s Leadership ......................... 147
3.1. The Principal’s Leadership Style ............................................ 148
3.2. Looking to Central Office for Guidance ................................ 150

3.3. Using the Eight Components and the 80-item List as
Guidance ............................................................................................. 153

xii

6.

3.4. Opportunities Not Found .............................................................. 154

Act II: The Fifth Grade Teacher’s Guidance: Planning and Early
Enactment ...................................................................................................... 162

4.1. Shifting Direction: Making the Case for Coordination...162

4.2. Susan’s Background: Writing Comprehensive School

Programs ............................................................................................ 165
4.3. Planning a Multi-Age Program .................................................. 167
4.4. Enacting and Discontinuing a Multi-Age Program ............ 170
Act III: Using the MEAP for Guidance ................................................. 174
5.1. Role of the MEAP during the Program Planning Year ...... 175

5.2. The State and the School Emphasize the MEAP in
Enactment Year ................................................................................ 176

5.3. Aligning with the State Proficiency Test: Providing a
Focus and Helping to Define the Content of the
Curriculum ....................................................................................... 1 81

Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 185

CHAPTER FIVE.
THE CASE OF DOROTHEA BROOKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL:

MEASURING THE POLICY BY INTERNAL STANDARDS ............. 188
1. Background and Setting: Atypical for American Schools ......... 190
1.1. Defining DAP ..................................................................................... 191
1.2. The Decision to Become a DAP School .................................. 193
2. The School as a Learning Organization ............................................. 195
2.1. The Principal: Gatekeeper and Instructional Leader ....... 196
2.2. The Enactors: Prior Knowledge and Dispositions ............. 201

xiii

3. Internal Coordination: Setting the Environment for DAP ......... 202
3.1. A Strong Professional Culture ................................................. 204
3.2. The School’s Instructional Program: Interdependent Work
Relations ............................................................................................ 209
3.3. Individualizing Instruction ........................................................ 211
4. Internal and External Alignment: Leading the Policy ................. 222
4.1. Aligning to Ideas Concerning Early Childhood
Education ............................................................................................ 222
4.2. Leading the Policy .......................................................................... 227
5. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 232
CHAPTER SIX.
COMPARISON OF THE THREE SCHOOLS .................................... 2 3 6
1. Sources of Guidance .................................................................................. 240
2. Interpretations and Responses ............................................................. 241
3. Strether Elementary School Summary .............................................. 244
4. Knightly Elementary School Summary .............................................. 250
5. Brooke Elementary School Summary .................................................. 257
6. Idiosyncratic Mediators, Interpretations and Responses ......... 265
7. The Schools’ Learning Opportunities ................................................. 270
7.1. Who Mediated the Policy? ........................................................... 271
7.2. Who Enacted the Policy? ............................................................. 272
7.3. What Process and Content Was Used? ................................... 274
7.4. Summation of Mediating the Policy ....................................... 278

xiv

8. The Schools’ Enactments of the Policy ............................................ 279
8.1. Did Each School Develop a Focus?. .......................................... 280
8.2. Did Each School Develop Professional
Relationships? ................................................................................. 283
8.3. Did Each School Develop Interdependent
Relationships? ................................................................................. 284
8.4. Did Schools Develop or Use Guidance for Classroom
Practice? ........................................................................................... 285
8.5. Did Schools Align the Curriculum Internally? .................. 286
8.6. Did Schools Align Externally with the Content
Standards? ........................................................................................ 287
8.7. Additional Observation on Enactment ................................... 289
9. Enactment Follows Guidance ................................................................. 290
10. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 291
CHAPTER SEVEN. CONCLUSION ................................................ 294
1. Lessons Learned from the Three Cases ............................................ 295
2. Human Resources within the Schools ................................................ 296
2.1. Common Elements of Planning and Enactment .................. 298
2.2. Idiosyncratic Interpretations ................................................... 301
2.3. A Lesson on Organizational Change ........................................ 301
3. Nested in a Fragmented and Decentralized Political
System ............................................................................................................ 302
4. Policy Weakly Specified .......................................................................... 307
5.1. Local Control in Education ......................................................... 308

XV

5.2. Too Much to Specify ...................................................................... 308

5.2. Too Early to Specify ...................................................................... 310

5.4. Contexts Too Unique for Specification and Mutual
Adaptation ......................................................................................... 31 3
5. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 314
APPENDIX A ............................................................................... 3 21
APPENDIX B ................................................................................ 332
REFERENCES .................................. '. ............................................ 3 3 5

xvi

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

The Title I Amendments of the Improving America’s Schools
Act of 1994 (IASA), and the Goals 2000: Educate America Act
encourage high poverty schools to make significant changes in how a
school’s staff organizes the work of teaching disadvantaged
students. The Title I program, a program for low achieving students
in high poverty schools, was a pullout program in which Title I staff
worked with a few students on a skills-based curriculum. Now, the
Title I Amendments, particularly through Schoolwide programs,
encourage schools to act collectively to ensure all children -- not
just high achieving students -- learn to high standards. It is hard to
underestimate the changes in knowledge and beliefs, as well as
practices that these policies encourage.

The policy implementation literature indicates that making
such changes will not be an easy or clear-cut process. Researchers
have made many arguments as to why this is so. Recently, many
researchers have argued that making the changes that policymakers
ask for requires learning on the part of enactors (Berman, 1986;
Cohen and Barnes, 1993; Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

12, 3; McLaughlin, 1978; Sarason, 1982).

 

To enact these policies, teachers and administrators could
have both technical and social learning tasks ahead of them.1 The
Title I program is changing from a highly specified, drill and
practice, pullout program, to one that is driven by ambitious student
standards for all children including Title I students. Learning from
and about the technical aspects of the policy would include learning
the state standards, the state assessments, and how to align
curriculum materials, professional development activities and
classroom practices with the standards.

The social Ieaming requirements embedded in the policy are
also large. To enact these standards in classrooms, teachers might
need to make changes, and help students make changes, around the
social organization of classrooms. Teachers would need to ensure
that students have more than exposure to ambitious state standards.
They would need to understand how students are thinking about such
standards, which means listening more frequently and more closely
to students’ ideas. It also would mean creating a classroom
atmosphere in which students explain their reasoning to one another.

In addition, social change is expected between and among

staff. The Title I program is to no longer be a program in which

 

‘ I am grateful to Gary Sykes for pointing out that this policy has
both technical and social teaching and learning requirements

Title I staff are responsible for Title I students, independent of the
general education program. Instead, teachers and administrators are
to work together, as a unit -- not as individual classrooms -- to
help all children achieve these standards. Historically, teachers
have worked independently from one another, though within the same
building. Now they are to coordinate school and classroom practices
and coordinate both around student learning.

How to go about coordinating such efforts and creating such
classrooms, especially in high poverty schools, will most likely be
new territory for teachers and administrators to explore.

If enacting policy requires learning, then the learning
opportunities that enactors have to learn about and from the policy
might be of critical importance, perhaps shaping how they interpret
and respond to the policy. These learning opportunities will need to
encourage understanding the technical and social aspects of the
policy.

Many researchers have examined enactors’ responses to
policies. A few other researchers have examined the learning
opportunity enactors have or could have, together with their
interpretations and responses (Cohen and Hill, 1998; Spillane and

Thompson, 1997). None has addressed it and how policy provides

 

embedded in it.

instruction for schools to learn about the technical and social
aspects of the policy, and how schools respond to such instruction.
This is such a study.

In this exploratory study, I used qualitative research methods
to conduct a study of three schools within one district as they
planned for, interpreted and responded to this federal level policy.
In particular, I studied the opportunities the three schools had to
learn about and from the changes in Title I, how the schools
interpreted those changes and responded to them. I conceived of the
relationship between policy and practice as a process of teaching
and learning to examine enactors learning opportunities and their
interpretations and responses.

Each of the schools took the learning requirements to enact
this policy seriously, and worked to understand the technical or
social, or both, changes specified or implied in the policy as they
changed their school and classroom practices. The policy played out
in idiosyncratic ways in the three schools. One school addressed the
technical and social changes, one school highlighted the technical
changes and one school highlighted the social changes.

One reason the responses varied was because the human
resources available within the schools to provide policy mediation,

and to interpret and enact the policy, varied. The study shows that

instructional leadership emerged from the schools and had a strong
impact on the enactment of the policy. One instructional leader
highlighted both the technical and social changes in the policy, one
highlighted the technical changes, and one the social changes, and
the schools' programs reflected this.

The instructional leaders in each school had varying knowledge
and beliefs about the purpose of the policy and how best to educate
all children. These varying interpretations of the policy were in
part because the leaders worked in a fragmented and decentralized
political system. In particular, the schools’ district office was
passive about instruction generally and Title I Schoolwides
specifically. Therefore, the learning opportunities’were constructed
from within the school.

The idiosyncratic responses were also in part because the
policy was, by design, not strongly specified and schools were given
wide latitude in interpretation.

W

The Title I amendments of the IASA, together with the Goals
2000 legislation encourages both technical and social changes in
what and how students are taught, and social changes in how schools
coordinate instruction. States and localities are to make these

changes in the hopes that all children will gain proficiencies in high

state student standards. Though both policies are voluntary, the
incentives for states and localities to participate are strong
because of Title I funding, which was over $7 billion dollars at the
time the data were collected for this study.2

The technical changes the IASA and the Goals 2000
legislation,“ encourage are large. State Education Agencies (SEAs),
Local Education Agencies (LEAs), schools and teachers are to align
all instructional instruments and practices with high state student
standards, making technical changes in understanding, and technical
and social changes within classrooms. Schoolwide programs of the
Title I amendments is social change strategy, which encourages high
poverty schools to coordinate their efforts such that all students
gain proficiencies in these same state standards.

Below I describe in more detail the state alignment strategy
and changes required, and then the Schoolwide program coordination

strategy and changes required.

 

2 At the time of completion of this dissertation, the amount was
more than $8 billion.

3 I include Goals 2000 here because part of its purpose was to tie all
federal legislation, including Title I, together around a systemic
reform strategy. However the IASA is also a systemic reform
strategy, so I use the IASA for explanation here.

6

Way

In exchange for Title I grant money, SEAs must write plans to
develop within the state a systemic alignment strategy. As an
alignment strategy, the policy seeks to ensure that what is tested is
what is taught (S. Alan Cohen, 1987). As a systemic strategy it
seeks to ensure that instruments within the instructional guidance
system are created in support of this alignment (Smith and O’Day,
1991).

To comply with the IASA, states are to conduct three
activities. One activity is to develop a set of high state student
content and performance standards in at least mathematics and
reading or language arts. The content standards are to “specify
what children are expected to know and be able to do,” “contain
coherent and rigorous content, and “encourage the teaching of
advanced skills” (IASA, p. 3524). The performance standards are to
describe three levels of performance, “advanced,” “proficient” and
“partially proficient,” to determine how well children are mastering
the material in the state content standards (IASA, p. 3524).

Another activity is to create assessments, which are aligned
with the content and performance standards. The assessments must
be administered at some time between grades 3 and 5, again

between grades 6 and 9, and again between grades 10 and 12. They

should include “multiple, up-to-date...measures that assess higher-
order thinking skills and understanding” and “provide individual
student interpretative and descriptive reports” as well as
disaggregated results within states, districts, and schools by
gender, race, limited-English-proficient status, migrant status,
disability, and economic status (IASA, p. 3525).

States are also to create a support system for teaching and
learning including a system of school support teams to provide
“intensive and sustained support for schools receiving funds” (IASA,
p. 3548). However, this aspect of the policy was never funded.

Through Goals 2000, SEAs are also to encourage LEAs to align
their curricula with the state content and performance standards.
This alignment strategy, then, encourages the state to create a set
of aligned content and performance standards, and state assessment.
States are also to encourage the alignment of local curricula.

WM Sykes and Plastrik (1992)
note that reformers hope to change instruction through the use of
curriculum standards. As they write, “The image of directing or
guiding instruction relies on the alignment of multiple policy
instruments such as frameworks, texts, tests, incentives and

teacher training” (p. 12).

Through the ambitious state standards urged by the IASA,
policymakers hope to change teachers’ and administrators’
assumptions about what economically disadvantaged children are
capable of Ieaming, how they learn, and therefore what and how they
should be taught.

Before 1988‘ one Title I program assumption was that
particular children need a skills-based curriculum. Put another way,
low achieving students learn in different ways than high achievers.
In addition, because of this difference, low achievers need a
curriculum delivered in stages or steps, starting with skills and
ending in more complex problem-solving activities (Rowan, Guthrie,
Lee, and Guthrie, 1986). Over the last two re-authorizations, these
assumptions have changed.

Cognitive and developmental psychologists who study thinking
and learning have argued that the mind actively makes meaning
(Bruner, 1990). Now many believe that learners, high or low
achieving, young and old, build on their previous knowledge and
beliefs to construct and reconstruct their understandings and
misunderstandings. Resnick (1987) notes that this active

constructing and reconstructing of knowledge is not limited to

advanced levels of development. As she notes, “ ...these activities
are an intimate part of even elementary levels of reading,
mathematics, and other branches of learning -- when learning is
proceeding well” (p. 8).

Therefore, learning is best accomplished not in a lock step
method, but by enabling children to grapple with complex problems
which allow them to problem-solve and learn skills within
applications (Lampert, 1990).

For Title I, this means that all children can learn to high
academic standards, and that Title I children, like all children, learn
through building on their own knowledge and beliefs and
constructing and reconstructing their knowledge bases. As the IASA
states, “All children can master challenging content and complex
problem-solving skills” (IASA, p. 3520).

It also means that teachers might need to change their
teaching practices so that all children have opportunities to
construct and reconstruct their knowledge and beliefs.

The standards driven aspect of this policy is technical and
social in nature because district and school personnel will need to

know about the state student content and performance standards and

 

 

‘ Schoolwide programs were originally introduced in 1988
legislation, the Augustus F. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary

10

the aligned assessments. They would also need to align the
curriculum, curriculum materials, teaching practices and
professional development opportunities to enact this aspect of the
policy.

It is social in nature because teachers and their students
might need to change classroom practices to ensure that students
understand the standards. For example, a teacher might pose
mathematical problems and create discussions in which all children
can build their academic knowledge and develop mathematical
understandings, as Deborah Ball suggests in Qhangjngflms
(Featherstone, 1990). It might mean changing classroom practice
such that teachers understand student thinking and use students’
understandings of the subject matter as the material for
discussions and as part of the curriculum (Peterson, Fennema and
Carpenter, 1991).

The policy’s call for social change goes far beyond classroom
changes and extends into the way teachers interact to coordinate
their activities as embodied in the Schoolwide programs.
WEEDS

The Schoolwide program provision of the Title I amendments

enable high poverty schools to transform their Title I programs from

 

and Secondary School Improvement Amendments of 1988.
11

Targeted Assistance programs that target Title I students only, to
schools in which the Title I program, and its resources, are
integrated into the fabric of school instruction for all students. In
the words of the policy, the purpose is to “upgrade the entire
educational program in a school” (p. 3534). The strategy enables
educators the flexibility to create programs based on their local
contexts in exchange for greater responsibility for student
performance.

Starting in the 1995-96 school year, the first year for which I
collected data, schools in which at least 60%5 of the students lived
in low-income families no longer needed to provide services only to
children eligible for Title I. Instead, a school could use its Title I
funding as the school sees fit. In exchange, the school is to be held
accountable for students’ learning as measured by state
assessments.“

The Title I amendments encourage all Title I schools, including
Targeted Assistance Schools, to move Title I programs away from
pull out programs in which Title I aides teach basic skills. Instead,

Title I is now to lead a reform strategy in which schools create one

‘

5For the 1996-1997 school year and beyond, this percentage was 50.
8 The policy encouraged the states to determine what it would mean
for a school to make “adequate yearly progress” (IASA, p. 3524) on

12

 

harmonious effort to ensure that all students achieve in ambitious
state standards. The IASA suggests at least five strategies for
achieving this. They include professional development based on
performance standards; an extended day or year school program; an
accelerated curriculum; fewer pullout programs; and integration of
Title I staff, teachers and aides, with the general education staff.
In the words of the policy, one strategy is “professional
development for teachers...and other staff to enable all children in
the school to meet the State’s student performance standards”
(IASA, p. 3537). Another suggested strategy is to “give primary
consideration to providing extended learning time such as extended
school year, before- and after-school, and summerprograms and
opportunities” (IASA, p. 3540). Two more strategies are to “help
provide an accelerated, high-quality curriculum, including applied
learning,” and “minimize removing children from the regular
classroom during regular school hours for instruction.” (IASA, p.
3540.) Schools are also “to promote the integration of staff
supported with funds under this part and children served under this
part into the regular school program” (IASA, p. 3541).

To become a Schoolwide, schools are to conduct yearlong

 

state assessments. At the time of data collection, this decision had
not been made in Michigan.

13

planning processes culminating in written plans. The plans are to
address, among other issues, how the school will incorporate the
eight Schoolwide components into the school. The eight components
are 1) a comprehensive needs assessment; 2) strategies for
improving student learning; 3) high quality instruction; 4)
professional development for teachers and others focused on
enabling all students to meet the state performance standards; 5)
strategies to increase parental involvement; 6) plans for assisting
preschool children in transition; 7) measures to include teachers in
decisions regarding the use of LEA student assessments; and 8)
activities to ensure that students experiencing difficulty in
mastering the standards receive additional assistance.

Through Schoolwide programs, policy enactors are asked to
make changes in the social arrangements of schools by coordinating
instructional activities. They are to create schools in which the
school, rather than the classroom, is the instructional unit.

Some have argued ways in which select schools offer a
coordinated or coherent curriculum based on high academic

standards.’ For example, Bryk, Lee and Holland in their book _Q_ath_o_lj_e

 

7 See for example Louis, K. S., S. D. Kruse, et al. (1996). Chapter
seven. Schoolwide professional community. Auth entie achievement:

14

Wd argue that the important components
of coordination in catholic schools are a definition of boundaries,
shared organizational beliefs and a set of shared activities. The
shared organizational beliefs include an academic core for all
students, the formation of personal character, and a school mission.
The school mission included a strong commitment to their students’
academic and social growth.

Gary Sykes (1990) in writing about teacher professionalism
and coordination discusses the importance of schools coordinating
their curricula, instruction and assessment. As he writes,

Agreements among school faculty members on matters of

curriculum, instruction, and assessment are necessary and can

be based on findings from research as well as knowledge of
local circumstances. The second-grade teacher depends on the

work of the first-grade teacher and may need to plan
cooperatively with other second-grade teachers (p. 82).

 

W M. Newmann and
Associates. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers: 179-203;

Newmann, F. M. and Associates (1996). The interplay of school

culture and structure Wm
W. M. Newmann. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass,
Inc.: 205- 27, Newmann, F. M. and G. G. Wehlage (1995). Successful
school restructuring: A report to the public and educators, Center on
Organization and Restructuring of Schools, University of Wisconsin-
Madison; Purkey, S. C. and M. S. Smith (1983). “Effective schools: A
review.” [be Elem memery Seh eel Jeurnel 83(4): 427- 452; Rosenholtz,
S J (1991IWWLWM
meets, New York, Teachers College Press; Rutter, M. J. (19812).

h h h ir If
m Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

15

But few are coordinated in either mission as Bryk, Holland, and
Lee describe, or in the concrete ways that Sykes mentions.
Therefore, schools are asked to organize in ways that are not typical
in conventional public schools, and Title I schools in particular; yet
this policy aims to change that on a national scale. Making such
changes would mean learning about the technical and social aspects
of the policy to create a harmonious effort to help children achieve
high standards.

A break frem treditienel eeheele. Changing schools such that
they coordinate across classrooms is a formidable undertaking,
particularly because of the social changes required. To get an idea
of the changes in school practices that Schoolwides ask for, I use
the work of Daniel Lortie (1975). Lortie paints a radically different
picture of school organization than that proposed by Schoolwide
programs. Lortie writes that the attributes of the teaching culture
are “individualism, “conservatism,” and “presentism.”

One social change is for schools to work as collectives,
instead of as individuals. By “individualism” Lortie means that
public schools are “staffed by peOple who have little concern with
building a shared technical culture” (p. 67). He describes schools as
places where teachers work independently of one another. They are

independent physically from one another because of self-contained

16

classrooms. They are independent also by having control over what
and how they teach students -- though this varies by state, district
and school. Schoolwides ask teachers to build a shared technical
culture. This means that teachers would need to build the social
resources to enable them to build common understandings around
what children can accomplish and how they learn.

Another social change the policy requests is for school
personnel to embrace school and classroom innovations, rather than
resist change. Lortie writes that “conservatism" is a strong
attribute cf schools. He uses “conservatism” to mean that
'teaching...is more likely to appeal to people who approve of
prevailing practice than to those who are critical of it' (p. 29). That
is, those who choose teaching as a career do so because they like the
way it is now organized in classrooms and in schools. The policy
implies social changes by asking teachers and administrators not
only to change the way they interact with students, but also with
their colleagues.

A third social change for school personnel is to become future
oriented. Lortie argues that the teaching culture embraces
“presentism.” By that, he means ”the dominance of present versus
future orientations among teachers“ (p. 86). If Lortie is right, that

teachers focus on today, rather than a long-term vision, the

17

 

Schoolwide policy asks them to marshal the social resources to
conduct long term planning as a school.

Wm Though comprehensive school
coordination is unusual for American schools, it is particularly
unusual for Title I schools. Because of accountability issues with
Title I funds, in the early 19703 Title I schools moved to providing
remedial instruction for Title I students in pullout programs. As
Cohen and his colleagues explain,

The combination of federal accountability requirements and

state and local desires to avoid federal audits and orders to

return misspent funds, encouraged localities to focus Title I

projects on pullout work, which often centered on drill and

practice. (Cohen, Cocoran, Ericson, Fuhrman, Janger, and

Spillane, unpublished mss).

Pullouts tend to focus on low-level skills and not to be
coordinated with a student's classroom instruction (Allington, 1989;
Rowan, Guthrie, Lee and Guthrie, 1986). They also tend to be short in
duration, lessening the possibility that they help students master
even low-level skills (Rowan, Guthrie, Lee and Guthrie, 1986).

One way to move away from the lack of coordination and
address the accountability issues in Title I schools, is to free
schools from strict accountability measures that track resources

through particular students, and instead hold schools accountable

for student learning. Historically, schools have not been held

18

accountable for children’s learning.

W Schoolwides are experimental for at least three
reasons. First in part they build on research that has yet to make
clear the relationship between school organization and what
organizational theorist call the “core technology” (Meyer and Rowan,
1983) of schools: teaching and learning. Peterson, McCarthy and
Elmore (1996) argue that changing teaching practice is a problem of
learning, not organization. Others argue that organizational change
or a change in school structure works in some situations and not
others, depending on whether teachers focus on the quality of
student Ieaming (Newmann & Associates, 1996; Louis, Kruse and
Marks, 1996). So the relationship between school organization and
classroom practices is, at best, unclear.

Second, to reorganize schools into a tightly coordinated unit
has not been tried on any kind of scale. Though the attempts to
restructure schools are growing (Elmore, 1990; The Holmes Group,
1990; Lieberman, 1995; Newmann, 1995; Odden, 1996), how such
policies will play out on a national scale and how teachers and
administrators will choose to undertake this work and coordinate
instruction is not known. Though some have conduced initial
research on how Schoolwides work. For example, the US.

Department of Education released a report titled W

19

W (1994).
n l ' n l'

The policies are not highly specified. States have wide
latitude in interpreting and responding to the call for standards and
aligned assessments. They also have wide latitude on how they will
interpret and respond to the changes in Title I. The same is true of
LEAs. They might further refine a state’s approach to standards,
assessments and Title I. The Schoolwide programs are defined only
with broad parameters and schools might interpret and respond to
them quite differently.

The purposes of the policies were not to provide specificity
for implementation. On the contrary, they were meant to set a broad
vision for all of America’s schools; and to move the Title I system
away from a set of highly regulated supplemental programs targeted
at specific students, to a much less regulated system responding to
accountability measures based on state standards.

Through the Schoolwide programs, the IASA and Goals 2000,
policymakers ask teachers and administrators to embrace the
purposes of providing a “high-quality education for all individuals
and a fair and equal opportunity to obtain an education” (IASA, p.

3519).

20

The purposes shall be accomplished by (IASA, p. 3521):

1) Ensuring high standards for all children and aligning the efforts
of States, local educational agencies, and schools to help children
served under this title to reach such standards;

2) Providing 'children an enriched and accelerated educational
program, including, when appropriate, the use of the arts, through
schoolwide programs or through additional services that increase
the amount and quality of instruction time so that children served
under this title receive at least the classroom instruction that
other children receive;

3) Promoting schoolwide reform and ensuring access of children
(from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies
and challenging academic content that includes intensive complex
thinking and problem-solving experiences;

4) Significantly upgrading the quality of instruction by providing
staff in participating schools with substantial opportunities for
professional development

5) Coordinating services under all parts of this title with each
other, with other educational services, and, to the extent
feasible, with health and social service program funded from
other sources;

6) Affording parents meaningful opportunities to participate in the
education of their children at home and at school;

7) Distributing resources, in amounts sufficient to make a
difference, to areas and schools where needs are greatest;

8) Improving accountability, as well as teaching and learning, by
using State assessment systems designed to measure how well
children served under this title are achieving challenging State
student performance standards expected of all children; and

9) Providing greater decisionmaking authority and flexibility to

schools and teachers in exchange for greater responsibility for
student performance.

21

 

Together the two policies ask schools to make technical and
social changes in their approach to educating all of American’s
chfldren.

IELELQQLQLD

To enact the policy requires most schools to make social and
technical changes. The technical changes include those aspects of
the policy that need some sort of specialized knowledge or skill.
This includes the alignment of state content and performance
standards, state assessments, professional development, curriculum
materials, and others. Other technical tasks include making
assessments that measure as yet under specified ideas such as
“higher-order thinking” skills.

But the technical changes are not the only changes enactors
need to make. They would need to enact social change as well.
Enacting the standards in classroom might require teachers to teach
students new ways of interacting. Coordinating the efforts of whole
schools to enact a comprehensive school program might be an
enormous change. These social changes would mean mobilizing
support for Schoolwide programs, and sustaining the cooperation and
coordination required to make such programs work.

To study if and how schools and teachers make the technical

and social changes called for in the IASA, I conducted an

22

implementation study addressing the following issues. Do schools
have opportunities to learn about the large changes the policies
suggest? And if they do, what are the qualities of such
opportunities? How do schools interpret and respond to these
policies? Do the schools’ responses correspond to their learning
opportunities?

Ideas about examining policy enactors as they learn from and
about the policy, and the correlation of what they learned with their
learning opportunities, evolved from the policy implementation
literature.

EolicLmelemematien

The early, assumed view of the policy proceSs was that it was
a rational process of mandate and implementation.8 In this view,
policymakers and analysts identified the correct policy goals and
dispensed with any implementation issues through developing a set
of rules, administrative structures, and incentives to encourage
people to behave according to those goals. Many researchers have
found that policy implementation is not a rational process (Allison,
1969; Hannaway, 1989; Lindblom, 1959, Majone and Wildavsky, 1977;

McLaughlin, 1978; Sproull, 1981). The policy implementation

 

8 Others took exception to this assumed view. See for example
Charles Lindblom, 1959.

23

literature suggests that even when policy is specified the policy
process is rarely a matter of mandate and implementation
(Brieschke, 1987; Malen and Hart, 1987; Shulman, 1983; Weatherley
& Lipsky, 1977). The literature also suggests that large-scale
policies play out differently in different local contexts (Berman and
McLaughlin, 1978; Elmore and McLaughlin, 1988).
E l' l | . II I II .

Many researchers have tried to understand the relationship
between policy and practice, and to characterize the process of
implementation. One particularly fruitful view of the process is one

of mutual adaptation, which Berman and McLaughlin (1978) explain

in the final volume of the report W
W. As they write.

Effective strategies promoted mutual adaptation, the process
by which the project is adapted to the reality of its
institutional setting, while at the same time teachers and
school officials adapt their practices in response to the
project (p. viii).
E l' | I . E I l .
Mutual adaptation might imply that one must learn about the
policy to enact it. After having participated in the development of
the concept of mutual adaptation, Berman (1986) argued that

learning is a better way of understanding implementation than is

compliance.

24

 

Others have also noted that changes in school and classroom
practices present challenges of learning for teachers and
administrators (Cohen and Barnes, 1993; Fullan, 1991; Sarason,
1982; National Center for Research on Teacher Learning, 1993).

It might seem obvious that policy enactors must learn, for in
enacting policy they must change some habits, even if in small ways.
Yet, learning on the part of enactors hadn’t been studied explicitly in
education policy implementation until the late 19803 when the
Education Policy and Practice Study (EPPS) at Michigan State
University began to examine what teachers learned from the
California mathematics state curriculum policies. Policymakers
hoped that the policies would have a direct impact on classroom
practice. These policies included state-created curriculum
frameworks, and state-created or selected professional
development activities, texts, and tests. The policy instruments
encouraged a kind of teaching associated with constructivists’
views of knowledge (Peterson, 1990).

A host of books and papers from the EPPS, including one entire
issue of the WW journal
(1990), showed that what teachers learned from the California
mathematics curriculum framework policy changed their teaching

practices in incremental ways. Their new practices were based on

25

their former practices with some assumptions about elements of
teaching for understanding teaching included. Their interpretations
depended on their prior knowledge and skill as well as their
dispositions toward the frameworks. These could be influenced by
their opportunities to learn about and from the policy, as well as
factors such as time to learn.

To enact this policy, some might need to learn about and from
the technical and social changes in the policy. Learning about
technical is a social process. Teachers and administrators might
need to learn what others mean by state standards thus meaning that
Ieaming about technical changes which is a social process. To do
this, they could work together to understand the elements of the
policy. For instance, teachers and administrators would work
together (a social activity) to understand such ideas as “alignment”
and “complex thinking and problem solving experiences” (IASA, p.
3521) and the like (technical ideas), thus making technical learning
a social activity. When changing the social organization of the
school or classroom, teachers and administrators (a social activity)
would find they have differences in opinion about what such words
as “alignment,” “complex thinking and problem solving experience,”
(which are technical, though weakly specified, ideas), thus making

the social activity an opportunity to learn about technical changes.

26

In the abstract, this interactive process between learning
about the technical and social aspects of the policy seems not only
plausible, but also perhaps ideal, implying that administrators and
teachers will find this process of studying the student curriculum
and the school organization a harmonious one. However, enacting
such a policy might be quite problematic. In a school case study,
Carol Barnes (1996, 1997) found that when a school enacted both the
social and technical aspects of this policy, conflict ensued. The
teachers and principal made decisions about the whole school’s Title
I resources that they thought would help all children in the school
achieve high standards. But the school became deeply divided over
these resources as they tried to live with the agreements and
changes they had made.

I I' II E I'

If enacting the policy requires learning, then how a policy is
“taught,” or the instruction provided to enact the policy, might
affect the responses to the policy. For Schoolwides this means the
learning opportunities schools have to plan and enact the policy
would help improve the policy’s effectiveness, or the efficiency
with which it is enacted.

To organize my study’s questions I conceived of the policy

process as a process of not only learning, but of teaching as well.

27

These ideas build on a phrase Cohen and Barnes (1993) used, "the
pedagogy of the policy,” to examine the aims and methods of
education policy. In this view, policy and program development or
policy instruments are a kind of “curriculum” for those that would
enact the policy. This curriculum is directed at classroom teachers
and administrators, or those who are to implement the policy. The
policy's mediators or agents are "teachers" who work with teachers
and administrators to enact the policy. The teachers and
administrators are the “learners” of the policy.

I investigated the learning opportunities schools had to plan
for, study, interpret and enact the policy together with their
interpretations and responses. Studying the learning opportunities
highlights not only what content was used to represent the policy,
but also the means of the teaching of the policy -- who taught, and
how they taught -- to the fore.

To examine the learning opportunities or guidance created for
teachers and administrators to learn about and from the policy I
used Gary Fenstermacher’s (1986) definition of teaching.
Fenstermacher explains he is defining generic teaching, neither good
teaching nor bad teaching, nor a particular school of thought

concerning teaching.

28

 

Fenstermacher argues that teaching, all teaching, is the
deliberate activity on the part of one person (a teacher) who tries
(but doesn’t necessarily succeed) to convey content to someone else
(a learner). Content is broadly defined to include knowledge and
skill, beliefs, emotions, traits of character and so on.

By applying Fenstermacher’s definition of teaching to policy
interventions, the teacher is the policy's agent, referred to in this
dissertation as the instructional leader, or mediator, or policy
agents, whoever that might be. And the learner is the person or
people enacting the policy. The content is what they studied and
how they studied it. This entire process is referred to as a learning
opportunity.

Learning opportunities could generate from at least three
sources: policy agents, the policy’s curriculum, or other schools
enacting the policy. One source of guidance for policy
implementation could be policy agents that work with schools or
districts. The policy encouraged federal agents working in the
federal education technical and research centers to work with
schools. The policy also encouraged state policymakers and
officials to create state support teams for schools that would
presumably be made up of state policy agents. However, this part of

the policy wasn’t funded. Policy agents could also be district

29

 

personal as the policy implies by encouraging LEAs to work in
consultation with schools to enact the policy. Or policy agents could
work in schools.

Learning opportunities could be constructed not by relying on
an agent, but on the “curriculum” of policy, or policy documents.

One can imagine schools studying the legislation, or regulations, or

national or federal reports such as Making eeneele gem fer ehileren
1(1992). and WW
'r i ' i r f h N i n I f h

CheeteLLEmLam (1993), or other documents. One could envision a
school’s staff working together to understand the policy through
joint readings and discussions. In addition, they could discuss their
own school and classroom practices to understand what seems to
help students achieve high standards.

A third learning opportunity that could enable schools to enact
Schoolwide programs is through observing or working with other
schools that have enacted the policy. That is, schools could use one

another as resources for learning about and from the policy.

30

 

I i P Ii

To get a sense of what enactors might learn about or from the
policy, I examined how school personnel interpreted and responded
to the technical and social ideas in the policy. I did not attempt to
measure what or how much enactors had Ieamed. Instead, I asked
about enactor’s interpretations and responses to the policy as
schools planned for the Schoolwide program and made changes in
school organization and classroom practices.

I used literature concerning school coordination, including the
effective schools and restructured schools literature, to help
develop categories to examine how schools coordinated their
instructional programs. The categories I used include a vision or
common focus, professional relationships, and interdependent
relationships.“ In addition, I asked teachers if they had
opportunities to observe or see classroom practices based on the
Title I reforms. I examined if and how schools aligned instructional
instruments internally.

In addition to internal coordination, I also examined if and how
schools aligned externally with the state student content and

performance standards.

 

9I am indebted to Carol Barnes for helping me make sense of the
school and system-wide coordination literature.

31

 

Each of these potential responses contain technical and social
teaching and learning problems. As technical problems the policy’s
“teacher” needs to enable learners to understand and use these
responses. But enacting any of these responses would require much
more than technical teaching and learning. They also require
teaching and Ieaming how to enact such responses. As Barnes
(1996, 1997) has pointed out, there is much more to enacting these
policies than technical aspects would indicate.

For instance, creating a common vision, working in
interdependent teams, observing new Title I classroom practices and
aligning curricular materials internally and externally could be
viewed as technical in tasks. But each also has strong social
teaching and Ieaming components as well. For instance, a “vision”
isn’t common until all or most parties in a school hold this vision.
The act of planning for a Schoolwide and coordinating activities
such that all children have equitable opportunities to learn is a
social as well as technical undertaking. Working independently can
be as simple as one teacher pulling students out of an another
teacher’s classroom, but even this has social aspects. Teachers

must agree on when children are to be pulled out and how often.

32

 

WW I used the idea of a common vision or
focus because many researchers have argued that a common vision
led by the principal or teachers leads to shared goals (Purkey and
Smith, 1983; Newmann and Wehlage, 1995; Leithwood and
Montgomery, 1984). Many argue that this kind of cohesion leads to a
more coordinated curriculum for all students. While the vision
itself could be considered technical, the development of such a
vision is a social undertaking.

W I used the
ideas of professional relationships and interdependent relationships
to begin to understand a school’s culture and structure. Many
researchers write about the importance of culture and structure in
providing not just a coordinated curriculum but also one that is
focused on high academic achievement for all children. But the
evidence about the roles of culture and structure is mixed. Newmann
(1996) argues that the structure of a school isn’t what makes a
difference between a school that pursues intellectual quality and
one that doesn’t. As he writes,

Separating school culture and structure analytically can help

to explain why structural innovations work in some situations

and not others. For example, a school’s teachers may have
access to teaming and common planning time (structures), but
it they are not committed to using these structures to focus on

the intellectual quality of student learning (culture), we would
not expect to find much authentic pedagogy in that school (p.

33

206).

Others present mixed views of culture and structure. Judith
Warren-Little (1990) in describing “joint work” shows how
structure and culture interact as teachers share in defining what
they want to accomplish and how to accomplish it. She defines joint
work and having aspects of both professional and interdependent
work relationships.

I reserve the term joint work for encounters among teachers

that rest on shared responsibility for the work of teaching

(interdependence), collective conceptions of autonomy, support

for teachers’ initiative and leadership with regard to

professional practice, and group affiliations grounded in

professional work (p. 519).

To understand more about culture and structure, I used ideas
concerning professional and interdependent work relationships. By
professional relationships I mean those in which school personnel
work to develop shared values or norms, particularly around
learners, learning and teaching (Ball, 1988). I choose learners,
Ieaming and teaching because the Title I reforms are based not only
on new conceptions of learning and teaching, but also different
conceptions of learners. Though traditionally Title I students might
have been thought of as less capable learners than their

counterparts, through the IASA and Goals 2000 teachers are

encouraged to ensure all students gain proficiencies in state

34

 

standards. The idea of professional relationships assumes that the
social teaching and learning aspects of enacting the policy are
central, because building relationships is a social activity. It also
assumes that these social relationships will be centered on the
technical understandings of the teachers and principal as they define
learners, learning, and teaching.

By interdependent work relationships, I mean school
structures or instructional programs that encourage or require
school personnel to become familiar with one another’s teaching
practices. Team teaching is an example of this. Interdependent
relationships could be enacted in technical or social ways or both.
They could be enacted technically such that teachers merely split up
the work, just as the research suggests pullouts programs were
typically run (Rowan, et al., 1986); or they could be enacted in social
ways as general education staff and Title I staff work together to
coordinate the curriculum.

W I also wanted to know if teachers had
the opportunity to observe teachers teaching in ways encouraged in
the policy. The IASA is replete with notions about what might help
students “acquire the knowledge and skills contained in the
challenging State content standards and challenging State

performance standards” (p. 3521). These notions include “intensive

35

complex thinking and problem-solving experiences” (p. 3521);
“advanced skills” (p. 3524); “higher order thinking skills and
understanding” (p. 3525); “applied learning” (p. 3540); and others.
Therefore, I asked if they had available to them images -- such as
videotapes or other models -- of teaching Title I students in ways
the reforms encouraged. This, too, could be either a technical or
social undertaking. Observing images of the reforms could be a
technical response to the policy. It could also be a social response
if school staffs discuss these images and develop ideas about what
the images portray about learners, learning and teaching, and how to
enact the images.

Internal and External Alignment. Finally, I looked at internal
alignment as a coordination strategy, and external alignment with
the state student content standards. In the literature “alignment”
is generally used to indicate that teachers’ goals and practices are
aligned with tests or assessments (S. Alan Cohen, 1987; Rowan,
1990). Schools can align internally by developing their own goals
and tests and ensuring they match one another.

Schools can align externally by aligning their teaching,
professional development, curriculum, materials or other
instructional instruments with state student content standards or

state tests, as policymakers hoped they would. They can also align

36

 

externally with instruments that are not governmental in nature,
such as textbooks, if the SEA or LEA does not select textbooks.
Alignment, though technical in nature, could highlight the social
component of learning as schools decide as a collective what and
how to align.

These five coordination strategies -- a common vision or
focus, professional and interdependent relationships, images of
teaching, and alignment -- are not mutually exclusive. Indeed in the
literature, many researchers cluster together various strategies
needed to enhance school coordination and students academic
achievement (Bryk, Lee and Holland, 1993; Seashore-Louis, Kruse,
and Lewis, 1995).

i ’ ' 'n Thi Ii

An additional complication when viewing the enactment of this
policy as a social and technical teaching and learning problem, is the
lack of specificity in the policy.

Enacting weakly specified policies is quite different than
enacting highly specified policies, especially those in which
enactors will need to understand technical and social changes
required and how to make those changes. To enact such changes
would require that teachers and principals accommodate the policy,

as well as assimilate it. As Elbow (1986) describes Piagets’ terms,

37

In Piagets' terms, learning involves both assimilation and
accommodation. Part of the job is to get the subject matter to
bend and deform so that it fits inside the learner (that is, so it
can fit or relate to the learner's experiences). But that's only
half the job. Just as important is the necessity for the learner
to bend and deform himself so that he can fit himself around

the subject without doing violence to it. Good learning is not a

matter of finding a happy medium where both parties are

transformed as little as possible. Rather both parties must be
maximally transforrned-in a sense deformed. There is violence
in learning. We cannot learn something without eating it, yet

we cannot really learn it either without being chewed up. (p.

148).

One can imagine different scenarios of how this policy could
play out as learners interpret and re-interpret their own
conceptions and misconceptions of the subject matter, in which
learners assimilate or accommodate the policy. For one, enactors
could have learning opportunities that help them specify the policy,
or provide highly structured guidance for enacting the policy. This
might make policy aims and means clearer to enactors, or provide a
sense of security about how to enact it, or both. It might also make
it easier for them to assimilate and not accommodate the policy by
merely putting the highly specified terms into action.

On the other hand, without learning opportunities that provide
structure for enacting the policy, enactors might impose on the
policy their prior knowledge and beliefs so strongly that the policy

is assimilated and accommodated at all. This seems more likely to

happen in the American instructional guidance system, which has

38

tended to rely on the targets of reform -- teachers and principals --
to also be the agents of reforms (Cohen and Ball, 1990; Fullan,
1991).

A third way learners could respond to such a policy is by trying
to enact it. That is, they might interpret it in one way and respond
to that interpretation by trying to enact it. They might find that
their initial interpretation did not bring the results they hoped it
would, and continue to re-lnterpret and re-enact it over time.

These three types of learning opportunities and interpretations
and responses are meant to show that weakly specified policies
present challenges of learning and perhaps learning opportunities for
enactors and for those who are responsible for, or take
responsibility for, their enactment. They are not meant to be
exhaustive or mutually exclusive. One can imagine that schools
could respond to a policy by incorporating all three kinds of
responses. That is, enactors could respond to a policy that has been
highly specified by a learning opportunity by assimilating or
accommodating it. And they might continue to interpret and enact
the policy in an interactive way over time, perhaps initially
assimilating it and accommodating it over time.

Having defined how I examined the schools’ teaching and

learning of this technical and social policy, I now present the

39

research questions followed by how I conducted my research.
Besearcbfluestlcns
I asked the following questions to describe and explain the
learning opportunities available to those enacting Title I Schoolwide
program.

. Was there an instructional leader or policy mediator? If so,
who?

. What (if any) content and what process did the instructional
leader use to convey or impart knowledge to others? How did
the technical and social aspects of the learning opportunities
interact?

. Who learned to enact the policy?

I asked the following questions in order to describe and explain

the interpretations and responses to the policies.

. Did schools develop a Schoolwide focus? What was the focus?

Did schools develop professional relationships? How?
. Did schools develop interdependent work relationships? How?
. Did enactors have exposure to images of the reforms?
0 Did schools align internally? How?
. Did schools align externally? How?
I then asked if there was a relationship between the learning
Opportunities and the enactments of the policy. If there was, what

was it?

40

In the next section, I explain how I explored these topics, or the
research methodology and data analysis.
WM

Using the frame of the policy process as a process of teaching
and learning, I now turn to the research methods.

I used a qualitative case study approach to answer the
questions. Qualitative research is suitable for the research issues I
have described because I wanted to examine a process of enactment.
Also, I sought to understand the meaning that enactors up and down
the system gave the policy. Various enactors (policymakers, state
and district officials, and school staffs) are likely to have different
perspectives on the policy.

In describing the qualitative tradition, John Creswell (1998)
writes that,

Writers agree that one undertakes qualitative research in a

natural setting where the researcher is an instmment of the

data collection who gathers words or pictures, analyzes them
inductively, focuses on the meaning of participants, and
describes a process that is expressive and persuasive in

language (p. 14).

My study has all five distinguishing characteristics. The

natural settings in which I conducted this study were one central

office and three schools. I was the instrument of the data

41

collection, refining questions to suit the context as I learned about
the central office and the three schools. I gathered words through
interviews and observations, and analyzed these inductively.

I focused on the meaning the participants made of Schoolwide
programs. I sought to understand the knowledge and beliefs of the
peOple who populated the three schools and the central office
because those who work within the Title I system will enact
policies according to the purposes they understand, the meaning and
importance they give the task, and the various ways in which they
envision the task. I described each school’s process in this thesis.

Creswell distinguishes between five traditions of qualitative
research -- biography, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography,
and case study. I worked in the case study tradition.

W

The following is how Creswell describes a case study.

...a case study is an exploration of a “bounded system” or a

case (or multiple cases) over time through detailed, in-depth

data collection involving multiple sources of information rich
in context. This bounded system is bounded by time and place,
and it is the case being studied -- a program, an event, an

activity, or individuals (p. 61).

I conducted three case studies of schools nested in a passive

central office that responded to policymakers’ requests to enact

Schoolwide Programs. I studied the planning processes and the

42

 

interpretations and enactments of the Schoolwides. Therefore my
study was bounded by place with the three schools and their central
office, though I took into account the federal and state actions. It
was bounded by time through the year of planning and first year of
enactment. I also collected data over time using multiple sources of
information, which is described in detail under the section on
methodology.

i i P li n m n

Iitte | Seneelwiee eregrame as a eite. I chose the Title I
Schoolwide programs as a site for studying policy enactment for
three reasons, one practical and two more personal. The practical
reason was I hoped to be able to observe policy enactment across
levels of governance. I wanted to observe what McLaughlin argued
would be the next wave of implementation analysis, the relationship
between macro and micro (1987). I expected to observe one central
office work with different schools. Thus, I thought I would see
three schools interpretations and responses to the same learning
opportunities.

This is not what actually happened in the field. Nonetheless, I
had strong reasons for believing the policy might be enacted in this
way. For one, the legislation asks central offices to work in

consultation with schools as they create Schoolwide programs. For

43

 

another, the central office personnel assured me that they would be
working with schools. For another, many researchers have argued
that the Title I system is more tightly coupled (Cohen, 1982; Cusick,
1992; Kirst and Jung, 1981) than the larger formal system which is
decentralized and lacks hierarchy (Cohen, 1982; Cusick, 1992) or
perhaps doesn’t even existent (Sarason, 1982).

A second reason I chose Title I Schoolwide programs as a site
was the strong professional development component the legislation
encourages. Demands on teachers and schools are growing. Teachers
are now asked to respond to state student standards and the aligned
assessments in a growing number of subject matter areas. My hope
was to observe ways in which teachers received support or guidance
for responding to these demands.

A third reason was my interest in how teachers teach higher-
order-thinking skills to all students. Title I, tied to Goals 2000
legislation, is a vehicle for pressing toward ambitious teaching and
Ieaming for all students. Having once been an elementary school
principal, I was aware of how difficult it is for teachers to meet the
needs of a wide range of students. By range of students, I include
those of varying achievement levels, racial and ethnic backgrounds,
social economic classes, and dispositions toward school learning. I

hoped to observe ways that teachers used to motivate and interest

44

students a range of students in academic subjects.

Ibe_state__ae_d_dj§trj_ct_ae_srtee._ The state, Michigan, and the
district, Mapleton,1o were sites within the EPPS sample. Starting
with the California mathematics curriculum framework research in
the late 19803, the EPPS researchers investigated the relations
among state and district policies and teachers' classroom practices
in three states -- California, Michigan and South Carolina. The
states were selected because policymakers in each had undertaken
substantive reform efforts, and the states represented an array of
state and local governance arrangements (Spillane, Peterson,
Prawat, Jennings, & Borman, 1996).

The EPPS researchers chose Mapleton as a site because it is a
mid-size urban district with a high number of schools for
disadvantaged students. Researchers on the project chose districts
with somewhat high levels on poverty. The district had 34
elementary schools, 27 or nearly 80% were Title I schools.

Ibe_eehee|_e_a§_sjtes_. I followed three schools in one district
in one state because doing so allowed me to hold some policy
variables constant. All three schools had access to the same state
content and performance standards and same state test, and worked

within the same state's approach to Title I. The district's

45

curriculum, texts, tests, and union rules were the same across the
schools. Each school worked with the same Title I central office.

Purposeful sampling is an important part of qualitative case
studies. I chose these schools because they appeared to vary on the
degree to which they were coordinated across classrooms within
each school at the beginning of the Schoolwide planning process.

r i n

Following in the qualitative tradition, I collected data through
observations and interviews, as well as documents and reports.

W Over an eighteen-month period, I
interviewed central office administrators, principals, teachers,
district-hired consultants, and others. I observed teacher's
meetings within schools, and meetings between central office
personnel and school personnel, and classrooms.

All together, I conducted 44 interviews and 50 observations. I
conducted 25 interviews with school staff, 17 with central office
staff, and two with outside consultants.

I observed meetings within schools 21 times, classrooms 14
times, meetings between school and outside consultants nine times,
central office personnel working with school administrators and

teachers four times, and school board meetings two times.

 

‘° I used pseudonyms for the district, schools, and all individuals.

46

The issues I hoped to capture were the organizing principles of
observations and interviews. In particular I wanted to examine the
learning opportunities schools had for assisting them in this change.
I asked school personnel when they would be planning for the
Schoolwide program and joined them on those occasions. As I
observed their planning times, I was able to determine other
appropriate times to observe them.

By pursuing particular opportunities, I used an instrumental
approach to case studies. Stake (1995) distinguishes between an
intrinsic case study and an instrumental case study. If the focus is
on the case itself, he refers to this as an intrinsic case. If the focus
in on issues within the case, he refers to this as an instrumental
case. I used an instrumental approach, choosing those opportunities
to observe the school’s change from a Title I Targeted Assistance
School to a Title I Schoolwide program.

My interviews and observations were based on the Education
Policy and Practice Study’s spring 1993 interview and classroom
observation guides. (See‘Appendix A.) These guides, created to
gather qualitative data to explore the relationship between policy
and practice, provided me with broad analytic categories. I used the
classroom observation guides for not only the classroom

observations but also for meetings between and among adults, in

47

keeping with my desire to capture interactions that might be
opportunities for learning about or from the policy. The broad
categories in this observation form included groupings of pe0ple,
instructional materials, discourse patterns and conceptions of
knowledge, coherence of instruction, and others.

I used the interview guide to begin to understand the meaning
participants brought to the policy. The guide included several
categories including the process of learning from the policy, the
respondent's history with the policy, and others.

As the data collection progressed, I developed a separate
interview guide for principals and teachers. (See Appendix B.) I
made this guide in part because I wanted to learn if the principals
and teachers perceived that the policy was asking for changes in
classroom practices in addition to school practices and if they had
opportunities to see or observe reformed teaching.

Me. I also gathered from the central office and each
school documents that they used to plan for or enact Schoolwides.
These varied from formal documents such as the guidebook for the
National Association for the Education of Young Children (1987) to
notes shared with me by instructional leaders. I collected each

school’s final application to become a Schoolwide program.

48

Iimieg ef interyiewe and eeeervatieee, In the late fall of

1995, I interviewed central office staff to ensure I understood the
LEA’s approach to Schoolwides.

In February of 1996, the central office began to work with
schools that were to start their year of planning to become a
Schoolwide. I attended all meetings each school had concerning
Schoolwides.

I wasn’t able to capture all the opportunities schools had to
learn about the policy for a variety of reasons. Some opportunities
were too informal, happening between classes. Some opportunities,
such as Ieaming about the MEAP, were not always viewed by a school
as a Schoolwide Ieaming opportunity, perhaps because the MEAP was
in place before the policies. In one school learning about the MEAP
was viewed as learning about the policy only in retrospect. Other
opportunities were viewed as part of the policy, but weren’t
referred to as Schoolwide planning time.

In each school, I interviewed the principal, the Title I reading
teacher, teachers who appeared to be instructional leaders, and the
chair of the School Improvement Team (SIT).

I continued to interview central office staff, sampling widely
as I was told that Schoolwides would mean involvement and decision

making on the part of many central office administrators. To get

49

 

other views of the district‘s approach to Schoolwides, I interviewed
two people who did not work within the district, but worked closely
with central office staff and in the schools, one a curriculum
consultant at the intermediate school district and one a strategic
planning consultant.

In March of 1997 I returned to each school to learn how their
Schoolwide programs worked and to observe classrooms. I
interviewed teachers about if and how their teaching had changed
due to the Schoolwide program. I interviewed the same people I had
originally (the principal, the Title I staff, the SIT chair, and lead
teachers), and observed at least three teachers in each school. I
selected these teachers by asking others in the school to identify
three teachers: one who had struggled with the changes, one who
was doing what might be expected, and one who seemed to have
developed new teaching capacities during the first year of
implementation.

W

To begin data analysis, I examined and read the data both
deductively and inductively. One deductive strategy I used was to
read the data for instances of teaching and learning between and
among those I chose to interview and observe.

As I continued with the data analysis, I developed the

50

categories for how schools coordinated, using three categories I
found in the school effectiveness and school restructuring literature
and two I created from my data.

An inductive strategy I used was to examine the data and code
it by what Bogdan and Biklen (1992) call “coding categories,“ or
topics and patterns. I gathered frequently used words, phrases and
ideas and categorized them under topics and patterns.

After determining a first set of tentative themes from these
three processes, I then examined the data again in a second inductive
process. I read the data for recurring words, phrases and ideas,
which my themes did not encompass. This process led me to further
insights that reshaped and sharpened my themes.

l sketched tentative school stories. In sketching these
stories, I continued to describe the patterns I observed across
organizations, and made sense of these patterns. As I wrote the
chapters, the themes were refined.

Before turning to each school’s case study, the second chapter
is background on the district’s lack of attention to the Schoolwide
process. It is an important piece because it shows that the schools
were embedded in a decentralized and fragmented formal
educational system. This is particularly important for Title I

schools because Title I is a categorical program -- a virtual

51

 

entitlement for states and districts. It shows how each school was
left to its own devises to enact Schoolwides, in part explaining how

and why schools have widely varying interpretations of the policy.

52

 

CHAPTER TWO
THE DISTRICT AND CENTRAL OFFICE BACKGROUND

The central office was largely passive during the enactment of
Schoolwides in the spring of 1996 and the 1996-97 school year. The
policy was not mediated by the central office, meaning that the schools
had wide latitude for interpreting the Title I reforms that were to be
embodied in Schoolwide programs. Though the IASA (p. 3530)
encouraged central offices to inform schools of Schoolwide authority, to
provide assistance in planning Schoolwides, and to work in consultation in
enacting Schoolwides, this central office did none of these. The central
office did not allow any schools to enact Schoolwides between 1988 and
1995.

Researchers have characterized the educational system as a
fragmented and decentralized system (Cohen, 1982; Cohen and Spillane,
1993; and Cusick, 1992; Meyer and Rowan, 1983; Weick, 1976), and
Mapleton’s central office shows one way in which this is so. This central
office was loosely coupled from the Title I state and federal programs,
from Mapleton schools generally, and from the schools in this study as

they enacted Schoolwides specifically.

53

At a time when the federal legislation was encouraging various
levels of education governance to focus on the core technology of
schools, classroom teaching and learning, this central office was divesting
itself of providing instructional support.

Slafiflaclsgmund

Before telling Mapleton’s central office story, I include a bit of
background on Michigan’s Title I program and Goals 2000 developments.
Michigan was a state of 9 million people with 84,000 public school
teachers, and 1.5 million public school students (Poppink and Lanier,
1994)

At the state department level, Goals 2000 and Title I Schoolwide
programs fell into rich soil.‘ The state had sought to provide technical
guidance for schools long before this federal legislation. Though a local
control state, it had produced since the early 19703 a form of student
content standards referred to as the “Essential Skills and Objectives” and

set of statewide tests referred to as the Michigan Educational

 

I Much of the information concerning the state’s response was taken
from a report by Cohen, D. K., T. Corcoran, et al. (1998 Unpublished
Manuscript). W

W Report to
Policy Studies Associates.

54

 

Assessment Program or MEAP. Though not updated in tandem, the two
have continued to be updated through the 19803 and 19903.

In 1990, Public Act 25 put into legislation what could be thought of
as district and school coordination strategies that encourage social
interaction around the state’s technical guidance system. These included
requiring districts and schools to: (1) adopt a core curriculum; (2)
develop and implement individual school and district-wide school
improvement plans; (3) report students' progress annually to the public
and the state department; and (4) seek school-by-school accreditation on
the basis of adequate performance. Other legislation followed that
mandated the use of the state’s core curriculum. Though this mandate
was later repealed, the Mapleton district counted the state’s core
curriculum as the district’s curriculum. Taken together, these strategies
can be viewed as the beginning of a state systemic reform package.

Therefore, the state was in some ways moving toward systemic
reform providing technical guidance and enabling social guidance before
the IASA and Goals 2000. As Goals 2000 was enacted into law, the state
continued to be responsive to federal systemic reform requests. As of

January 1998, Michigan was the only state that had received federal

55

 

grants to support the development of curriculum frameworks in four
subject matter areas.

As to Title I, the state education department interpreted the 1994
legislation to mean that schools should integrate Title I instruction with
regular classroom work. So they encouraged Schoolwide programs and
discouraged pullout programs. If schools wanted to continue with pullout
programs, they were to show they were successful.

The policy was mediated, at least technically, through the state for
the three schools. All of the schools had School Improvement Teams
(SIT) because of PA 25 of 1990, and two (Knightly and Brooke) of the
three used the SIT teams as the basis for their SchoOIwide program
teams.

Two of the three schools in this study used the state’s MEAP tests
to mediate the policy. The Strether mathematics teacher attended an
intermediate district workshop on the MEAP and shared the information
with the other teachers and the principal. Knightly used the MEAP for
guidance strongly. In addition, the state chose Knightly for extra support
to understand the MEAP, and the entire Knightly staff attended at least
one workshop on understanding how students could improve their MEAP

scores. At least one teacher attended more than one workshop.

56

 

The state’s approach to Title I also influenced at least one of the
schools’ enactments of Schoolwides. The Title I state director initiated a
presentation on Schoolwides to Mapleton Title I teachers because she
understood the district had none. Strether Elementary, one of the three
schools in this study moved toward becoming a Schoolwide because the
school’s Title I reading teacher attended this presentation and thought
Schoolwides sounded like a good idea.

None of the schools looked to the state’s content standards for
guidance. However the state did provide some mediation of the policy in
different forms. They provided at least rudimentary social support by
encouraging the formation of SlTs. They provided agents who were able
to work with schools in understanding a technical of the policy -- the
MEAP tests. One policy agent, the state’s Title I director, sought to
increase knowledge about the Schoolwide option with the Title I
amendments, at least in this district and perhaps others.

II'I [SI I'IE 'II'IJ'I'I

Mapleton was a midsize district situated in an urban area of almost
a quarter million people. Together, heavy manufacturing and public
sector employment formed the principal economic base, and although

unemployment skyrocketed in the early 19803, as it did in other rust-belt

57

cities, unemployment at the time of this research was 6%. About one in
five of the city's residents was African-American, approximately 5% were
Latino. With 20,000 students, Mapleton was one the state’s 10 largest
school districts. Approximately a third of the students were African-
American, over a tenth were Latino, and about half were white (P0ppink
and Lanier, 1994). A small percentage of the students spoke English as a
second language; their primary languages included Hmong, Spanish, and
Vietnamese. While the district was primarily middle class, as many as one
third of the families lived in poverty.

In the 1995-96 school year, this district had 34 elementary
schools, 27 of which were Title I schools and 20 of Which were eligible to
become Schoolwide programs. In the 1996-97 school year, four more
schools were eligible. In other words, 80 percent of the 34 elementary
schools were Title I schools, over half of the 34 schools had poverty rates
of greater than 60 percent, and 65 percent of them had poverty rates of
greater than 50 percent.

Schoolwides were first created as an option in 1988 when Title I
was reauthorized through the Augustus F. Hawkins - Robert T. Stafford
Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments of1988.

Given Mapleton’s high number of Title I schools and schools with high

58

poverty rates, it is somewhat surprising that this district had none. This
was a decision the central office had consistently made since 1988.

Though the Schoolwide policy stated that schools and not the
central office were to determine whether or not schools were to become
Schoolwide programs, this central office had not yet “allowed” any
schools to become Schoolwides. Two people I interviewed suggested this
might be because Schoolwides would require more coordination among
central office staff. That is, the offices of transportation, food services,
Title I, special education, purchasing, and others would have to agree on
how to treat these schools.

Soon after the 1988 legislation, the three highest poverty schools
in this district, all with an 85 percent poverty rate or higher, had planned
closely with Mapleton’s Assistant Director of Title I and another
professional in the district’s Evaluation Services to become Schoolwide
programs. But the then Director of Title I told the Assistant Director the
timing wasn't right. A few years later, the Director asked the Assistant
Director and the same schools to prepare to present to the board of
education proposals for becoming Schoolwide programs. After they
wrote the proposals, the Director told the Assistant Director that the

timing was not right. Thus, the central office withdrew political support

59

from these schools twice. In addition, they withdrew both technical and
social support by withdrawing two policy agents, the Assistant Director of
Title I and a professional from Evaluation Services. These two had helped
the schools interpret the policy and prepare to make the transition to a
Schoolwide program.

By the summer of 1995, Mapleton still had no Schoolwides.
However, Sharon Wellborn was hired as co-supervisor of Title I, specifically
to work with schools on becoming Schoolwides. Sharon (SW 8/8/95)
was eager to work with schools in this capacity explaining Schoolwides
would require “staff development,” which was her area of expertise. She
also explained that Schoolwides were a philosophical shift for Title I with
less emphasis on remediation and more emphasis on “a richer learning
experience.” Coupled with this was more “leeway” in content, expanding
content “beyond math and reading.”

But after starting this work in the fall of 1995, she was told by the
former Director of Title I who was now the Deputy Superintendent of
Instruction, that the timing wasn't right. Yet, through some fancy
political footwork, the person who had replaced the Deputy as Title I

director encouraged schools to become Schoolwide programs.

60

The three schools that had started their planning processes in
1988 chose not to start the planning year in 1995-1996. Many reported
that when told they could now become Schoolwides, the principals said,
"No way,“ reasoning that they could not trust central office to support
them in this effort.

Many in central office reported that the personnel in those three
schools had thought about the elements and processes of Schoolwide
programs, and had upgraded the entire educational program as suggested
by the legislation. So, while it is true that this district had no formal
Schoolwide programs, it did have schools that had thought seriously
about and planned for Schoolwides, and they might have been
Schoolwides in spirit if not in name. None of the schools I investigated
was among those that had done this preparation work.

So, though the legislation stated that the decision of whether or
not schools were to enact Schoolwide programs was up to the school, in
this district it did not work that way. The central office actively
prevented Schoolwides for a time.

In February 1996 schools were given the option to become

Schoolwide programs, with a shortened planning year of one semester --

61

spring of 1996. They would receive an extra $5,000 for the semester.
Schools that chose to wait until the following year would go through a
Schoolwide year of planning with Larry Lezotte, who had been officially
designated by the state to help schools. Four schools conducted a year
of planning. Their reasons varied, and while they self-selected into the
process, they were not necessarily the schools that were the furthest
along in becoming Schoolwide programs. As mentioned above, three
other schools had planned to become Schoolwide programs soon after
the 1988 legislation, and chose not to plan again in the spring of 1996.

During the planning time in the spring of 1996, no one in central
office was actively involved with the schools planning Schoolwides.
Sharon Wellborn, the co-supervisor of Title I programs attempted to keep
track of what the schools were working on, and the schools appreciated
her input. She met with each school except one during the semester.
But she, like the rest of the central office staff, was busy cutting the
budget. Sharon was kept busy with providing information about the Title
I office to make decisions about the budget.

Winn
In a 1993 article, Elmore argued that there is “little evidence that

districts have played a constructive role in instructional improvement in

62

the past.” This district lends weight to Elmore’s suggestion at the time
of data collection.

Elmore also pointed out in a 1996 article that there are reasons to
believe that central offices can be helpful in improving instruction. By
using District 2 in New York City as a case, Elmore argued that there may
be natural reasons why districts are in a position to support sustained
instructional improvement. As he wrote,

Furthermore, the case demonstrates that local districts may have

certain ”natural“ advantages in supporting sustained instructional

improvement through professional development: Districts can
achieve economies of scale in acquiring the services of consultants,
they can introduce strong incentives for principals and teachers to
pay attention to the improvement of teaching in specific domains,
they can create opportunities for interaction among professionals
that schools might not be able to do by themselves, they can make
creative use of multi-pocket budgeting to generate resources to

focus on instructional improvement (p. 36).

Central offices might have at least two more advantages. They
may be able to influence the culture of the district and to provide
incentives in the form of recognition. Just as Purkey and Smith (1983)
argue that the culture of a school can affect the classroom, the culture of
a district, and its central office, might be able to affect the schools. If

the central office message is that instruction is important, this could

permeate the district.

63

In addition, though this central office and its schools were loosely
coupled, the three schools I studied seemed to look to the central office
if not for guidance, then at least for approval. This might be because of
the traditional view in this district that the central office has control over
schools. It appeared that even a little direction from central office could
have influenced the schools’ instructional decisions, especially in two of
the three schools.

There is strong evidence that this district once focused on
providing technical and social instructional support, but was withdrawing
that support. For one, the district had in place what Archbald and Porter
(1994) call “central curriculum control.” Their model -- based on most
systems with central curriculum control policies -- Includes textbook
adoption policies, curriculum guidelines, and testing. This district had
technical supports in place for classroom guidance, including a district
test, the Curriculum Monitoring System, and a standardized test, the
Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT).

Archbald and Porter note that these policies can be highly or little
specified, and that it is unclear how they apply to practice. The three
schools I studied did not use these for technical guidance. This might

have been for lack of social support in using these technical tools. That

64

is, I heard neither schools nor central office speak of their importance.
However, one person in the Title I office who had joined the office from
the Evaluation Services office thought that the scores on the
Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT) could be a helpful guide for
teachers to improve their practice (TH 8/8/95).

Though the district had a textbook adoption policy, one school
bought curricular materials that they felt were aligned with the MEAP.
Another school added objectives to the district curriculum, but did not
use it for guidance. The district test was not used as part of the baseline
knowledge in any of the schools, though one instructional leader referred
to the MAT when making the case that the school’s students needed
more work in communications. If these three cases are any indication,
the relationship between having these control policies in place to school
and classroom practices is weak, if the central office doesn’t provide the
social support for using them. Perhaps having these policies in place
could have made a difference if the central office had been using them for
either pressure or support, but it wasn’t.

The only technical tool the central office did use was the MEAP.
The superintendent informed the principals that they were responsible for

MEAP scores. But no support for understanding the MEAP or how to

65

 

instruct students so that they might achieve on the MEAP was
forthcoming from central office.

Simultaneous with the adoption of Schoolwide programs in the
spring of 1996, the district cut from its budget nearly all instructional
support staff from the central office. Though at one time there was
instructional staff in central office, during this budget cut, those positions
were cut first. In the few years surrounding this study the curriculum
director; elementary school director; language arts, reading, mathematics,
social studies and science specialists; the effective schools specialist, and
the staff development specialist positions were eliminated. A teacher
center located in one school near central office was eliminated. This
might not include all cuts. Thus, technical and social support in the form
of instructional agents were cut, and in the form of a teacher center.

What remained was the Secondary School Director, and he picked
up the title of Elementary School Director as well. Principals with the
smallest schools were assigned the administrative functions of the
curriculum specialists -- especially the ordering of materials. All three of
the principals in this study wondered aloud how principals could possibly

serve in both positions. Several people mentioned that the principals

66

were letting their anger be known, one describing their expressions of
anger as an ”open rebellion.“ (SW, 3/29/96).

Though the district had gone through a series of budget cuts since
the early- to mid-19803, it had never cut resources from the central
office. The central office and school board argued that this Is what they
were now doing. One principal pointed out to her staff that the cuts
made by the school board, as recommended by central office, were not
cuts to administrative positions. That is, though the positions cut were
central office positions, they were instructional support positions rather
than administrative. She argued this showed that they ”devalued
teaching.“ (LO, 3/15/96)’

The central office was also going beyond cutting instructional
support. It was also sending the message that the schools were site-
based managed and principals were to be held responsible for students'
MEAP scores. Yet, more than one person in the study thought the site-
based management was a way for the district to take less responsibility
for the schools’ actions. The principal of Brooke Elementary School

pondered this with me and said,

 

2 As the budget cuts continued into the summer of 1996, the board cut
some administrative positions.

67

 

I can't help thinking that, yeah, it’s (site-based management) the
best way financially. It’s the way out for them. I really think that.
When I sat there and realized that they're actually meaning this, I
also felt it was almost a cop-out, really, because then there has to
be no central direction, no central vision, no central philosophy.

(GR. 3/18/97.)

Many respondents discussed ways in which the central office
hampered not only instructional innovation but also strong relationships
with the schools more generally. A clear case of this is the lack of
Schoolwide programs until the 1995-1996 school year.

In another example, one professional in central office tried to create
a flow chart for schools to show them who to work with in central office
and how to obtain guidance on programs, changes in programs, materials,
and budgeting. He began with the simple task of how to requisition a
desk. After several months, and several meetings with various
professionals in the transportation, food services, Title I, special
education, purchasing, and other offices, he could not create the flow
chart. The difficulty, he reported, was because most of his colleagues
wanted to point fingers at one another for any problems rather than
discuss the process, or what the process should be. He concluded that if

the schools felt they were treated inequitably and in an almost whimsical

manner by central office, they were right.

68

We’ve [central office] got major restructuring to do is what it

comes down to. I think we're in a crisis, is what I think. I think

we're in a serious crisis. (TH, 12/15/95).

As a second example, one of the schools in my study had asked
central office for a waiver of the school schedule to enable teachers to
meet on Wednesday afternoons. It was sent in one year and the request
was denied. The principal sent in the exact same request the following
year, not even changing the date of the original, and it was approved.
She was given no feedback as to why one year it was rejected, and the
next accepted.

This central office gave no direction to schools about the policy
more generally. Not only were they not supporting Schoolwides, but they
also pressed all responsibility for the MEAP onto the schools’ principals.
Also the policy asks that they “provide high-quality professional
development that will improve the teaching of the academic subjects,
consistent with the state content standards in order to enable all children
to meet the State’s student performance standards” (p. 3555). This
district had an active summer professional development program that
teachers could take part in voluntarily. During the summers of 1995,

1996 and 1997, there were no workshops about state standards or the

MEAP.

69

So while the federal, state and central offices were increasing
demands on schools, schools were receiving less and less technical and
social support and guidance from the central office in general and
instructional support specifically.

Leadership

Interviewees offered many conjectures as to why the district
offered little instructional leadership. Not one respondent offered that
the district did provide such leadership. I tried to find someone in the
central office, or the schools, or in positions able to observe the district
from the outside such as the intermediate district, to say something
positive about the central office involvement with curriculum or
instruction, and couldn’t.

They offered wide ranging explanations. Some thought no one had
created a long term budget strategy in more than a decade. They
pointed to a series of budget cuts that had taken place since the early
19803 and felt no one had looked strategically beyond then. One
teacher, in talking about how the budget problems surfaced, said when
referring to central office staff, “They just - they're reactionary. They're

too big, they’re cumbersome, they're - they're sloth.” (KS, 6/26/96.)

70

Others thought the superintendent no longer had the will and
capacity to lead the district. Some thought that there was no pay off for
the superintendent to pay attention to instruction -- instead he
understood that keeping his position required good relationships with
board members. Some believed that the knowledge base around
instruction had changed and the central office had not changed with it.
Some thought that no one in central office had a vision of what the
district could be.

Many laid these issues at the feet of the superintendent. Some
quickly qualified their statements by mentioning that he had diverted the
district from a crisis as it enacted a court ordered desegregation plan
many years earlier. One of his sharpest critics at the time of my data
collection said that during desegregation he was a “visionary.“ The
former US. Congressman regarded him highly, as did the mayor, both of
whom, like the superintendent, had cut their political teeth on civil rights
issues, and had a history of working together well.

However, the mayor was losing patience with district leadership as
he began to perceive that the quality or perception of the quality of the
schools was a major issue for the city as he tried to keep and attract

residents and businesses. The mayor asked aloud of those who worked in

71

the district why central office leadership didn’t see or prepare for the
changes coming. About the time I was studying this district, the mayor
instituted a Blue Ribbon Panel to examine the city’s schools.

Some thought the superintendent had been blind-sided by a series
of events that he didn’t know how to manage. Therefore, he put all his
energy into saving his position by maintaining good relationships with
board members. During the early 19803 this city’s unemployment rate,
like many rust-belt cities, began to skyrocket, putting the schools in a
budget bind. At that same time, the district began to experience what
many observers called ”middle school flight.“ During this period, rather
than during the earlier desegregation period, the following pattern
emerged. Middle or upper-middle class students who attended the
elementary schools either moved to other school districts, or enrolled in
parochial or other private schools when they reached middle school.

The 19903 might have held more surprises for this superintendent.
For one, in the spring of 1994, the state sales tax increased from 4% t06
%, and capped the districts’ abilities to levy local millages. This formula
changed the balance of who funded the schools, so that the state
controlled more than 50% of school aide. In addition, in the spring of

1995 charter school legislation passed and soon thereafter countywide

72

schools-of-choice legislation passed. These made two more options open
to parents and students of Mapleton schools. There were more charter
schools in Mapleton than in any other district in the state.

Despite these blind-siding events many continued to marvel at how
this central office took a somewhat difficult situation and made it worse.
The city was a unique demographic blend socially, economically and
ethnically. Though nearly a third of the families were officially defined as
“in poverty,” the city was middle class. The employment base was
diversified. It is surprising that no visible effort was made to stem the
flow of students out of the schools at the middle school levels.

The central office did not grapple with the policy much at all, nor
did it mediate the policy for the schools. It did not determine a district-
wide approach to Title I that could have specified Schoolwides for the
schools. It did not provide scaffolding to learn about the new Title I or
Schoolwides through providing an agent. Nor did it encourage schools to
learn about Schoolwides by providing information about the Schoolwides,
though each principal was given an Idea (1994) book. The central office
also did not create between and among the schools ways of sharing
information about how they were responding to the changes in Title I

generally and Schoolwides specifically.

73

S C [III IEII'! ’E"

This passive response to the policy on the part of the LEA had
consequences for the way the policy played out in the three schools in
my study. It enabled these three schools to use their own resources for
the development of Schoolwides. It allowed two schools that did not
want central office help to put into place their program and curriculum
based on their beliefs concerning their students, curriculum content, and
teaching. One of these two schools had already put their program in
place, but felt they needed to protect the program from outside
interference. It enabled a teacher in the third school, who had had
extensive experience writing curriculum in private schools and working
through the pilot of the Michigan accreditation program to step forward,
at least for a short time, as an instructional leader.

The flip side is, the policy played out in largely idiosyncratic ways in
these three schools. These idiosyncratic moves might have made the
curriculum the students experienced, more, rather than less, idiosyncratic.
It also meant that one of the schools could misinterpret the policy to be
only about one social aspect of the reform, school coordination, and not
about state content and performance standards. Therefore, while this

school took seriously the school coordination strategy, it did not do so

74

with the technical and social aspects of state standards. Both the
varying curriculum and the lack of attention to the standards raises issue
of the equity of Ieaming opportunities among students across schools.

The district's actions also raise a larger question of what districts'
responsibilities are to schools, particularly as schools are asked to assume
more and more responsibility for direction and management.

This central office exists in a decentralized and fragmented system
and behaved as such. Particularty, Title I is a categorical grant, a virtual
entitlement for states and localities, meaning districts and schools receive
funding regardless of their responsiveness to federal and state policy
makers requests.

How Schoolwides played out in three schools will be explored in the

next three analytic data chapters.

75

CHAPTER THREE
THE CASE OF LAMBERT STRET HER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL:
MEDIATING THE POLICY THROUGH THE TITLE I READING TEACHER

Researchers have noted that the Title I system is not as
loosely coupled as the system writ large (Cohen, 1982; Cohen and
Spillane, 1993; Cusick, 1992; Kirst and Jung, 1981), and this school
is an example of that. The Title I reading teacher in this school
exerted strong leadership, acting as the policy’s agent while moving
the school toward a Schoolwide program. She pressed the technical
and social changes in the policy in ways mentioned in the legislation
and other policy documents such as one by the Commission on
Chapter I (1992) and the one released by the US. Department of
Education (1993). She encouraged social interactions between and
among the staff as they enacted the school coordination aspect, and
she hoped that social interactions in classrooms would change as
the teachers used “applied learning” (IASA, p. 3540). She and the
principal pressed technical changes as they encouraged teachers to
understand the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP)
tests, especially fourth grade reading and mathematics.

Ann DeBoer had been a Title I reading teacher for at least 15

years, the number of years she had been at Strether, and the school’s

76

enactment of the policy was greatly influenced by her knowledge of
Title I and language arts curricula and pedagogy. The goals she
discussed included grouping students heterogeneously, putting an
end to remediation, encouraging interactions between and among
teachers and Title I staff, using applied learning opportunities in the
communications room, and focusing the school on students’
communications skills -- reading, writing, speaking and listening.

This case shows the power of a knowledgeable and trusted
leader, and her ability to quickly begin to move a school toward the
technical and social aspects of the policy, within a relatively
passive school district.

II s H. . I l I. 5| T I E I. I.

Strether Elementary was the largest of the three schools in
this study. It served approximately 400 students, with a staff of 27
including 18 general education and 2 special education teachers. As
the largest, it had more Title I funding than the others. In addition
to the staff mentioned above, Title I funded a reading teacher, a 1/2
time mathematics teacher, 3 instructional assistants, a counselor
and a nurse.

The school was located on the north side of town, a side known
as the lower income side. Seventy two percent of the students were

eligible for the federal lunch program. Strether was a

77

majority-minority school by 1%, just as the district was. That is,
49% of the students were white. The largest minority group was
African American at 32%. Hispanics made up 20% of the population,
and Asian Americans 13%.

Like the other two schools, this school had recently changed
principals. Genevieve Peterson was serving her second year as
principal. She was a vivacious, African-American woman of about
44 years of age. Like the principal at Knightly, she had taught in the
district for 19 years before she became a principal. In fact, she had
taught with the Knightly principal for several years in a school that
was not in this study. In reflecting on the principals that were
planning Schoolwide programs, she made the observation that they
were a ”new breed” of principal. Teachers knew that these
principals would “go to bat for them,” and that they were interested
in “trying new ideas.“ (GP, 2/21/96).

She had introduced some changes in the way the school
conducted its work (GP, 6/21/96). Her goals were both social and
technical. She wanted to influence the way that teachers interacted
with one another so they were not in cliques, and align the school
around grade level goals and the MEAP. She explained that in talking
about the Schoolwide planning time with the reading teacher, Ann,

they had decided that the Strether teachers didn’t have the time or

78

the inclination to talk with one another about the school’s program.
Genevieve remembered that as a fifth grade teacher, she felt she
was in a team of fourth and fifth grade teachers who shared
information about students and thought Strether’s teachers ought to
have the same opportunities. She felt teachers at Strether needed a
safer social environment to enact the alignment piece of the policy.
As she said, “I just felt that how can you talk about improving your
test scores and making some things happen at your school, if the
teachers never have time to talk?” (GP, 6/21/96.)

She thought that part of the teachers’ lack of inclination to
work together was due to the cliques in the school, and that their
formation might have been influenced by the way the previous
principal had made student classroom assignments. The previous
principal’s policy was to allow parents to choose their children’s
teachers. Beyond this, he shared the letters of request with the
requested teachers. Genevieve believed that teachers shared with
each other the number of requests each received and judged one
another by this.

She stopped this practice. She allowed parents to request
teachers, but she made requests one factor in placement, and made

no promises to parents. She did not share letters of request with

79

teachers. She wanted to send the message that all of the teachers
at Strether Elementary were good teachers.

She also reported that in a meeting with the superintendent,
principals were told that they were responsible for MEAP test
scores. As will become clear in this chapter, she wanted to align
the school around grade level goals and around the MEAP, though she
did not lead this effort.

’ AA i i

While Genevieve encouraged teachers to become a more
cohesive group, Ann DeBoer, the Title I reading teacher, saw a way
to address and change the entire school’s program through
Schoolwide programs. Ann’s leadership capabilities and her
knowledge of instruction and instructional programs served her well
to lead the school through the changes it would undertake to become
a Schoolwide program.

A reading teacher in this school for 15 years, Ann was always
friendly, upbeat and excited about what the school would be able to
do with a Schoolwide program. About 40 years of age, she was
married and had two teenage daughters. Ann was 1 of 27 Title I
reading teachers in the district. Of the 34 elementary schools in the
district 27 received Title I funding and each had a Title I reading

teachen

80

r n A h ri

Those with whom she worked trusted and respected her
leadership. Ann explained that she had decided to press the school
to enact a Schoolwide program in part because Genevieve delegated
work. The previous principal had been a strong presence in the
district and in the school. He had worked in central office for
several years before becoming a principal, so he was able to use his
relationships there to help the school. He was seldom in his office
because he spent most of his time in the hall, talking to the
teachers. In contrast, Genevieve was absent frequently due to health
issues and she delegated enough work to cause concern among the
staff. By the time I observed the school in the ‘spring of 1996, they
had overcome this concern in part because of Ann.

The staff knew and trusted Ann, and she was willing to help
provide instructional leadership. Genevieve didn’t give up all
instructional leadership. She continued to conduct teacher
evaluations, which could be used as a lever for instructional change
by leadership (Heller 8. Firestone, 1995). But she did allow Ann to
press the staff to enact a Schoolwide program. Ann needed to
encourage Genevieve into planning a Schoolwide program. Genevieve
explained that at first she was reluctant to enact a Schoolwide

because she thought planning the new program at the same time the

81

0

school was enacting the present Targeted Assistance program -- the
Title I program for those schools not enacting Schoolwide programs
-- would be too difficult.

Genevieve was completely comfortable with Ann’s
instructional leadership of the Schoolwide program during the time I
observed. During nearly every observation or interview she said, “I
don’t know what I’d do without her” (GP, 2/23/96; 6/21/96;
5/22/96) in reference to Ann.

That Ann was able to convince the teachers to enact a
Schoolwide program is a testament to her instructional leadership.
Every time I came to the school she was talking to teachers either in
the hall or in one of their rooms. She wasn’t interested in becoming
a principal. That required too many meetings, too much work on
budgets and other tasks that she saw as a distraction from working
with the teachers, in the school, on student learning. She wanted to
champion the teachers. She viewed Schoolwides as a chance for
teachers to define how they were going to shape the school -- a
refreshing change from having central office tell teachers and
schools what to do.

The teachers returned her respect. Perhaps Ann’s upbeat
attitude was infectious, because the teachers were upbeat also. I

observed three after school Schoolwide planning meetings. Everyone

82

appeared engaged in the activity at hand. During the first year of
enactment, I interviewed several teachers and while they had some
concerns about the program, they were all committed to making
changes in their practices if those changes would help students.
During one of the Schoolwide planning meetings teachers were
working in grade level groups and Ann was walking from group to
group, helping them work on the task before them. As Ann and
Genevieve were talking in the corner of the library, one teacher
shouted across the room to the principal, “If we lose Ann, all bets
are off” (5/22/96) showing her confidence in Ann’s leadership.

Ann was also well respected in the district. A principal at
another school in this district, Brooke Elementary, told me her
understanding was that Ann was Strether’s instructional leader. As
mentioned above, Ann was one of two people that the central office
initially chose to be trained in Reading Recovery, though there were
many applications. She mentioned more than a couple of times
central office decisions she had influenced, including when to
choose the reading series for the district and the budget allotted to
each school for a reading teacher.

Ann was well positioned to lead the school through a
transition from the Technical Assistance program to the Schoolwide

program. She was well respected and trusted within the district and

83

the school. Her principal trusted her judgement and partnership In
instructional leadership. She was knowledgeable about a number of
school programs and instructional innovations that could help the
teachers to plan and enact the program.
WWW

Ann first learned about Schoolwide programs from Michigan’s
state director of Title I. The director had organized a talk with the
Mapleton reading teachers because she understood that Mapleton had
no Schoolwide programs. Ann credited this talk for her knowledge of
Schoolwides and desire to create one at Strether.

Generally, Strether’s Title I program changed from a pullout
program in reading and mathematics to one that encompassed the
entire school and was not remedial in nature. Title I became an
enrichment program based in encouraging teachers to create
heterogeneous groups of students, to interact with Title I staff, and
to focus on students’ communication skills. Ann pressed the
message that children should be working in heterogeneous groups in
the classrooms, and the school created a communication center in
which homogeneously based groups of students from each classroom
worked with Title I staff who used authentic pedagogy.

The state had been discouraging pull-outs since the 1988

legislation (Cohen, Cocoran, et al., 1998), and perhaps Ann’s press

84

for heterogeneous groups was based on the idea of eliminating
pullouts. She might have learned about this in her meeting with the
other Title I reading teachers and the state director of Title I. But
there were other ways Ann could have learned about options within
Title I as she was knowledgeable about Title I in ways that the other
Title I reading teachers in this study were not. Not only had she
been the Title I reading teacher for at least fifteen years, but also
her husband was the reading and language arts coordinator, and
director of Title I, in a neighboring district. Oddly, she didn’t credit
her husband with introducing her to the idea of Schoolwide
programs, though she credited him for her knowledge of Title I more
generally. He kept her abreast of what the state Title I office and
other Title I programs in districts around the state were doing. As
she explained, Mapleton central office staff could have been familiar
with changes that were taking place in Title I, but school people
often didn’t keep abreast because information “didn’t sift down.”
(AD, 10/05/96).

She was also knowledgeable about language arts curricula,
particularly reading instruction. Other members of her family
shared this interest. Her husband was a language arts coordinator as
mentioned, and her father-in-law had been a reading professor for

many years at a state university. Beyond this, also as mentioned

85

above, she was one of two teachers to be the first trained in Reading
Recovery in this district.

Being steeped deeply in the Title I program and reading
instruction helps to account for her knowledge base and the
multitude of changes that Ann initiated within this school. But the
changes she initiated seemed to be more than what can be accounted
for by this background. She also pressed for “interactions” among
staff and instituted what might be thought of as “applied learning”
as called for in the legislation. Both of these are explained below.
Ann routinely perused at least one teacher magazine. In explaining
how she had Ieamed about Reading Recovery, she mentioned the
Beaejrtg_]’_eaen_er magazine. She also said that she paged through
catalogues to get ideas.

When pressed, she insisted that she had learned all she knew

about Schoolwides at the talk. She had access to what she called

the “green manual” which was An_ldea_B_e_elg_lrnetementjng
WUQM) published by the US. Department of

Education. She used it as a reference book -- glancing through it
when she had a particular question. She said her approach was
eclectic and she wasn’t sure how she learned about the changes she
hoped the school would and did enact. She explained that she didn’t

have time to sit down and read anything. She was busy at school all

86

day and in the evenings was busy with her family. Nonetheless, Ann
was a learner.
D' | I I I . S I

Ann expressed the idea more than once that Schoolwides were
an opportunity for teachers to create a program for the students.
She was sure that the changes would not go as smoothly if they were
viewed as a central office intervention. Though she claimed the
program belonged to the teachers, and the teachers appeared to
embrace the changes, she was the policy’s mediator and a strong
mediator.

She encouraged changes in both formal and informal ways.
When not teaching, she was either in the halls talking with the
teachers, or in a teacher’s room. Ann was the leader of both the
technical and social changes that took place in the school. She
orchestrated professional development days, grade level meetings at
her house, and three after school meetings to plan the Schoolwide
program. These activities were determined and selected by Ann.
Though she didn’t lead the professional development activities, she
selected the leader. She led the grade level meetings and the
Schoolwide planning meetings.

She wasn’t afraid to turn conversations away from topics that

weren’t within her vision. The school held three meetings after

87

school to discuss the new Schoolwide program and paid teachers to
attend out of the $5,000 grant central office gave to those schools
planning Schoolwides. These meetings ran a total of about 5 hours.
Half that time was used studying the MEAP as will be discussed
below. The other half time was used discussing the Schoolwide
program more generally, or breaking into groups to work on grade
level goals.

Each time they met in the library, a large room that was half
filled with books and long tables, and half filled with what looked
like stuff they didn’t know where else to put: a desk, an overhead
projector, an easel, a rack of books. The meetings had a somewhat
formal feel in part because the group was larger than those at the
other two schools -- between 20 and 25 staff members usually
anended.

Ann created a sense of formality not only by keeping the staff
on task but also by directing the meetings from an overhead
projector. She started each meeting by presenting something about
Schoolwide programs -- though each time she appeared to be
reviewing information, rather than presenting it for the first time.
She never defined a Schoolwide program, but talked as if she was

filling the staff in on the details.

88

One session (5/6/96) she opened with the following on her
overhead: Expect (and do things that enable) _aIl children to meet
state standards. She explained that in Title I, “Our goal has been to
do remedial work to catch students up to grade level. Now, we
expect all children to do well.“ She continued by saying, “You need
to be ready to change roles, to be retrained, to try new things. We
had one idea in the past and now we must move on.” The teachers did
not seem confused or surprised with this Opening.

In these meetings she often asked for input on decisions
concerning what professional development strategies teachers
would find helpful, such as inservice programs, but she didn’t ask
about what direction the school should take. If teachers suggested a
new direction, she would listen to their opinions and move on.

During this meeting (5/6/96), she asked teachers what
materials and equipment were needed to supply the communication
center. One teacher argued that what the school needed was an
Asian bilingual teacher, rather than equipment. She continued by
explaining that the Hmong population was going to increase in the
school. Ann suggested that an inservice on Asian, or perhaps
specifically, Hmong, culture, would be helpful.

But the teacher did not want an inservice. She responded, ”The

thing of it is, to speak their language.” Ann repeated that perhaps an

89

inservice would help them understand the Hmong culture. She then
closed the conversation by saying, “Thank you for bringing that up.“

She handled other situations similarly. She believed that she
needed 70% of the staff to agree to become a Schoolwide. She
mentioned this once to the teachers in a planning meeting and asked
if everyone agreed. One person said yes, and that was the vote.
Later, she mentioned to Sharon Wellborn, the central office person
responsible for Schoolwides, that she didn’t take a vote. Sharon told
her as long as there were no objections, then she should proceed.‘
She didn’t seek out objections and she seldom entertained them for
long.

Ann was in a strong position to lead the school through both
the Schoolwide Planning process and the first year of enactment.
She had the trust of those she was leading, was knowledgeable about
Title I and language arts curricula, and had a direct style of
leadership.

Below is a section on internal coordination that shows how the
school took up the technical and social aspects of the policy as they
interpreted and responded to it in the planning year and first year of

enactment. First I briefly explain one of the school’s innovations,

¥

‘ The legislation doesn’t specify that a percentage of staff must be
in agreement.

90

the communication center. I explain this first because it shows a
change in structure of the school’s program that affected the entire
school and an innovation that responded to three goals that Ann
spoke about at length: heterogeneous based groups, more
interactions among all staff and a focus on student communication
skills. I then discuss other innovations the staff enacted to show
how these strategies involved both technical and social changes.
n rn r i ' n

Ann led what on the surface could look like an almost dizzying
array of planning activities and programmatic changes. This could
be in part because Strether was so little coordinated at the
beginning of the planning year that all activities were new. Strether
was in the beginning stages of any type of coordination and it
undertook many activities.

01111120! ‘n‘u“u ..1| 0,0 h on 1'

InstructionaLEmram

The communication center the school created was a structural
change that enabled the school to address three goals that Ann
discussed frequently. In the center Title I staff worked with
students on communication skills in heterogeneously based groups
using what some call authentic pedagogy. To create the center, they

created a big, long narrow room out of two small rooms. At one end

91

was a stage and the room was outfitted with a video camcorder,
tripod and big-screen TV. Students worked on plays, presentations,
speeches and read-alouds. Some of these activities were recorded
on videotape so students could watch and evaluate themselves.

This room was staffed by Title I instructional aides, and Ann
at times. They worked with a group of four or five students from
each classroom. The groups of students were not based on ability.
Instead, each teacher divided his or her classroom into three or four
heterogeneously based groups. Some teachers deliberately balanced
the groups with high and low achieving students and some simply
grouped students in alphabetical order.

This made at least three changes in the instructional program.
One is that students were grouped in heterogeneous groups at least
once a week, a change the policy encouraged. No longer were Title I
students pulled out for remedial instruction. Ann pressed teachers
to follow this lead within the classroom. This seemingly simple
technical change might have required social learning on the part of
teachers so that they understood the reasoning behind the change,
and learning on the part of students to work in heterogeneous rather
than homogeneous based groups.

Another is that Title I staff was used differently. Prior to the

first year of enactment, they had worked individually with students

92

identified as Title I students. In the communications center they
worked with all students in the school. Ann pressed the Title I staff
and teachers to interact around the children’s time in the center.
The policy encouraged this kind of social change. The reasoning in
the policy is that the entire school staff is responsible for Title I
students and not just Title I staff. One way of showing this
responsibility is to integrate Title I into the general education
staff.

Three, this arrangement meant that all teachers had a
different subset of students in their classrooms at least four or five
times a week and needed to think through how they would work a
curriculum around these pullouts. Ann thought this would give
teachers a chance to know all students better.2 Again, this is a
social change the policy encouraged, to ensure the entire staff was
responsible for all students.

HeteregerreeeeILBaeeejreeee. The communications center
was viewed as an enrichment opportunity for all students. Ann’s
interpretation of what the policy meant by serving all children was
unique among these case studies. For example another school,

Brooke Elementary, interpreted all children to mean focusing on low

93

achieving students who had not traditionally been served by the
educational system, particularly those who were attending high
poverty schools. Strether’s staff interpreted all children to mean
high as well as low achieving students. Ann understood Schoolwides
to focus Title I funding less on the lowest achieving students or to
be less concerned with remedial instruction. Funding could be
focused on “everybody,” as she described the difference. (AD,
4/15/97). She explained that the purpose of the Title I Technical
Assistance program was to help those in academic need to achieve
more in various subject matters. Schoolwides, in contrast, were
less remedial in nature and focused on all children -- meaning
children who were not among the lowest achieving.

More than one teacher in this school reminded me, when I used
the phrase “Title I student” that the school no longer had Title I
students, that all students were the focus of the program. One
kindergarten teacher asked, “Why shouldn't top children get some
attention? So often in school these days it’s only the at-risk kids
that really are targeted” (JB, 5/2/97).

Ann’s strategy of ending Title I as a remediation strategy and'

instead having the program lead the way for the rest of the school

 

2 Ann reported the teachers liked this arrangement, because it
allowed them to work with smaller groups of students four or five

94

was one purpose of the federal policy. The policy also discouraged
pullouts, and encouraged heterogeneously based groups. Title I
schools are to move toward “an accelerated, high-quality
curriculum” and are to minimize “removing children from the
regular classroom during regular school hour for instruction” (IASA,
p. 3540).

leteraetjeee Between and Ameng Start. Ann hoped that this
structural arrangement would help teachers and Title I staff go
beyond having students pass between classrooms. She wanted the
Title I staff to interact with students in new ways. When she
discussed the way she envisioned the school, she talked about the
role of Title I much more broadly than only in the communication
center. She once said,

And I guess I see lots more of the Title I staff in and out of

classrooms as the classroom teachers have their children

doing reports and working in small cooperative groupings and

speaking in small groups and then coming back and reporting to

the class. I see us [Title I staff] being a part of all that. You

know, having the extra personnel and the resources. (AD,

5/10/96).

She frequently used the words “interactions” when referring
to students, teachers, parents, Title I staff. When I asked who in the

school and how the school would have more “interactions,” she said,

“Within a classroom, between the classrooms, teachers going back

 

times a week.

95

and forth between rooms, bringing kids together, sharing.” (AD
05/10/96). The changes she mentions here could take considerable
social and technical learning for teachers. First Ann mentions
social classroom changes that some teachers might not have tried
before. Enacting cooperative learning would at least in part mean
that students would work together sharing ideas. This might take
considerable learning on the part of students, and of teachers who
are responsible for teaching students how enact such sharing. The
interaction of the Title I staff with the general education staff and
working alongside teachers in classroom could also mean social
changes. Title I staff might have to learn how to work along with
teachers with quite different classroom practices, and teachers
might have to learn how to effectively use a second teacher in the
classroom.

This integration of Title I staff into the entire instructional
program, and away from pullout programs was also encouraged in the
legislation. The IASA states that one purpose is “to promote the
integration of staff supported with fund under this part and children
served under this into the regular school program” (p. 3541). So
staff as well as students were to be integrated into the larger

program.

96

m ni i n It is unclear how much input the
teachers had in determining the school’s focus of communications.
In the early 19903, the central office had encouraged a small set of
schools to become “focus” schools. In the mid-19903 the central
office requested that all schools develop a focus with the
explanation that they needed to do this for the inter-district
schools-of-choice program. At that time this school chose to focus
on communications which in this school included reading, writing,
speaking and listening.

Ann conducted a needs assessment as required by Schoolwide
legislation by surveying the staff about the school children’s needs.
The need staff identified was “academic” which was not defined.
Perhaps because of this lack of definition, Ann decided that because
the school’s focus was already communication skills, the school
would continue to have this focus.

Part of her rationale for communication skills was that they
could be integrated across the curriculum and day. Perhaps Ann was
referring to the idea of “writing across the curriculum” to use
writing to learn across various subject matters. If so, this kind of
intensive writing across subject matter would require considerable

technical and social knowledge of the various subject matters and

97

writing, and of how to critique such writing as Zinsser’s (1988)
bookmLeam indicates.

Another part of her rationale was that students scored low in
reading on the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT) -- a test
required by the district -- and the MEAP. Focusing on
communications was not a part of the legislation, in fact, the policy
encouraged a focus on all subject matters as encouraged through
Goals 2000, but the IASA required tests in at least reading and
mathematics. But historically Title I has been focused on reading,
which is part of the reason why every Title I school in the district
had a Title I reading teacher. Perhaps that is another reason Ann
focused on communications, because of the history of Title l.

W Ann was the
guiding light behind this innovation. She wanted the school’s
instructional program to be less remedial and less directed at a few
students; and to use Title I staff across the full spectrum of
students, not just in pullout programs with a few students. She also
wanted more interactions between and among school staff.

At the same time, she was concerned about how creating a new
organizational arrangement -- one with fewer pullouts and less time
for Title I staff to work with students one-on-one -- could have

drawbacks. She bemoaned the fact that the Title I staff couldn’t do

98

everything and would no longer have as much one-on-one teaching
with students who really needed that type of attention. She
reflected on what could be the drawbacks of the new program,

...you can't do pullout all day [as we do now]. If there are some

children who come in and there always are, who lack... You’ve

got a 4th or a 5th grader who is at the tst grade level. And
they really need somebody to pull them out and go back through
some of the math or some of the reading skills that they lack.

And part of that needs to be done in a pullout that Isn't part of

that classroom. (AD, 5/10/96).

Nonetheless, Ann moved the school toward heterogeneously
based instruction and eliminating pullouts together with using Title
I staff to enrich the entire school program as a way of moving
toward the policy. In addition, the Michigan Department of Education
pressed schools to eliminate pullouts as well as the Title I
legislation.

D I' . C I .

One way to examine internal coordination is through the goals
Ann set for the school, which I did above in discussing the
communications center and how it addressed Ann’s goals, which
were one and the same with the policy’s goals.

Another way to examine internal coordination is to use ideas
from the research literature on school coordination. As I have

mentioned in the first chapter I used five ways to examine internal

coordination. One was a common focus or vision. As I explained, the

99

school’s focus was communications. Another two internal
coordination strategies were two types of staff relationships:
interdependent and professional relationships. Another one was
images or opportunities to observe teaching in ways that the Title I
reforms encourage. And finally, is internal coordination, a category
I created in response to this school’s new organizing strategies.

W The
coordination literature discusses two kinds of interactions. Those
that are created by the instructional program or school structure
(Newmann, 1996), I refer to as interdependent relationships. Those
that are created by teachers and other school staff as they develop
shared norms and values around learners, learning, and teaching, I
refer to as professional relationships.

The change in structure due to the communications center is an
example of interdependent relationships between Title I and general
education staff that Ann hoped would foster social change within
the school. She hoped staff would interact around students’
learning. There was no guarantee in deveIOping this structure that a
change in social relationships would take place. That is, general
education teachers could simply run their classrooms without paying
much attention to the communications room. But Ann was

encouraging the staff to take responsibility for all students’

100

learning. Her desire for more interactions between the Title I staff
and the general education teachers was a move in this direction.

Ann helped to foster potentially stronger social relationships
through creating opportunities to enhance professional
relationships. This building of professional relationships had the
potential to make the school less of a collection of individual
teachers working with individual students and more of an
opportunity to think about how the whole school could enhance the
achievement of all students. She orchestrated professional
development days, grade level meetings and Schoolwide planning
activities. During these activities school staff came together and
had the opportunity to develop their expectations concerning
students, learning, and teaching. The Schoolwide planning meetings
were an instance of this, though the grade level planning meetings
and professional development activities probably were too.

In the Schoolwide planning meetings, the staff worked with
three different sections of the MEAP in their time together. They
worked with the informational and story sections of the reading
MEAP for about two hours, and the mathematics MEAP for about half
an hour.

The work conducted on the MEAP can be viewed as an

opportunity to develop common understandings about children’s

101

abilities and children’s learning. It can also be viewed as an
opportunity to align instruction around the MEAP. Therefore, these
meetings are an example of a school working on both the technical
and the social aspects of the policy, as they worked together to
improve their knowledge of the MEAP.

I use the work the staff conducted on the MEAP reading tests
as examples of staff developing common understandings. I use the
MEAP mathematics tests as an example of staff aligning with the
state student content standards. I do this in part because the
purposes for reviewing these sections of the MEAP were different.
The purpose of reviewing the MEAP reading tests was to explore how
all students could perform better on the MEAP. The purpose of
reviewing the mathematics MEAP test was to improve the scores of
those students who performed well, but had not yet scored
“satisfactory.” But, in fact, the review of both the reading MEAP
test and the mathematics MEAP test were both social and technical
in nature, as staff worked together to understand how students
could interpret the MEAP.

Ann administered to the staff the fourth grade reading MEAP
including the informational or expository selection, and the story

selection on May 29, 1996. Atypical of her style, she left the

102

questions and answers that came up during this session on the table,
without addressing them -- though she provided leadership.

In studying these tests, the staff addressed ideas concerning
student thinking, understanding and learning as they are implicitly
defined in the MEAP tests. Thus, they began work on developing
shared norms and values around these Ideas. The two vignettes
below show how Ann orchestrated this social and technical learning
opportunity and how the teachers used the MEAP to think about
students’ understandings and learning.

The first example shows that staff discussed how students
and adults might best read and understand a selection. The second
example shows that the staff tried to determine how students might
fail to understand a selection.

Ann had only enough tests to administer to half the teachers at
the time, so half took the informational test while the other half the
story selection. As Ann passed out the tests, she encouraged the
teachers to share answers, not to see who got them right or wrong,
but to see if they could figure out how students could interpret
them.

The teachers took the tests and immediately began to discuss
their answers. Some seemed confused as to the correct answers and

others said that some questions were ambiguous -- that one answer

103

was just as good as the other. On completing the two sections, one
third-grade teacher said, ”I'm not going to say it’s a terrible test or
anything.“ No one argued that the test was not a good measure of
what children should or could learn.

Ann called the entire group together and distributed answers
to some questions. On the answer sheet she had marked the answer
most frequently chosen by children who marked the incorrect
answer. For example, using the story selection, she used the
following example.

3. What important idea does this story tell about?

A. To be a success, you must practice and take control of
the shuafion.

B. To get something you want, you must show
responsibility.

C. Everyone needs someone or something to take care of and
love.

D. When someone says no, you should accept his/her
decision.

The correct answer was B. Of the students who did not choose
B, they most frequently chose C. So, the teachers were to figure out
why students didn’t choose B and did choose C.

Also on the answer sheet was the percent of Strether students
to answer correctly, the percent of students in the district to

answer correctly, and the percent in the county.

104

Strether QLSJLIQI Qoumx
70% 71% 80%

They discussed a number of items and how students could have
misinterpreted them.

Then one teacher brought up the idea that there could be a
better way to read these kinds of selections, a way which might help
students comprehend the answer better, though the teacher herself
was not settled on what the way might be. The teacher said,

This is a question. I mean, I just want your reaction to it.

How about if we taught the kids to read the questions first?

How about reading the questions first and the selection

second?

Genevieve, the principal, said, “Yes,” enthusiastically.

Another teacher nodded her head expansively in a yes motion
and said, “Purposeful reading.“

Others though, didn’t appear to like the idea. The same teacher
who said she wasn’t going to criticize the test said, “That works on
the CMS (the Curriculum Monitoring System, a district test), but
here there are 34 questions” -- implying that 34 questions were a
lot to read through before hand.

A male teacher said, “I'd have them read the selection first,"

though he didn’t elaborate.

105

Genevieve said loudly, “I always read the questions first.” She
was the only person in the discussion to discuss how she read text.
No one in the discussion mentioned that they could read differently
for expository and story questions.

As they examined the other questions, they continued to ponder
the idea of reading the questions first. One teacher pointed out that
many of the questions were about the meaning of the story. She
said, “But a lot of the questions are about the main idea. You need
the big picture to answer them. But, there is something to test
taking skills.“ She appeared to have not made up her mind as to
whether the teachers should encourage students to read the entire
text for meaning, or read the answers first to improve their test
taking skills.

Here was an opportunity to discuss how children might better
understand the selection and its questions. In exploring this item,
the teachers questioned the way students might read and understand
an item. The principal, Genevieve, brought up a way that she would
read and understand the selection, though others did not follow suit.
This opportunity created discussions for teachers to think about
different approaches to these MEAP selections.

Working with the MEAP together as they did, contributed to

developing in this school more social interaction around the

106

children’s curriculum and around a technical aspect of the policy,
the MEAP.

In this second example, they explored how children could
misunderstand or misrepresent a test item. The potential answers
to the fifth question from the expository reading test were,

5. Many forms of transportation have developed because

A. People need easy ways to carry goods.

B. People are unhappy with automobiles and traffic
conditions.

C. Countries have not been able to agree on the best way to
move products.

D. Each country or area wants its own form of
transportation.

The correct answer was A, and most students who marked an
incorrect answer, chose D. The percent correct by various levels of
aggregation were as follows.
51mm 12mm $201101!

52% 64% 79%

At first, no one could think of a reason why most of those who
got the answer wrong, chose D. Finally, the same teacher who asked
if they ought to have students read the questions first said,

“Because the question and the chosen answer contain the same

107

words.” The words, 'form(s) of transportation” were in both the
questions and the answer.

Around the room there was a nodding of heads, agreement and
some gasps of “ah ha.” Here was an opportunity that allowed
teachers to think about miscues children could have when taking this
test.

Ann did not suggest what she wanted to achieve or know or
understand from taking the test. She only added that when she was
taking the test there was one question she didn’t want to answer.
But as she thought about it she realized she might be embarrassed in
front of the teachers not to have answered it. She said that
students might feel the same way. Thus she implied that the social
nature of the test might be important to student and adults. Beyond
this, she closed by asking them to think about how they could use the
MEAP.

This discussion concerning the reading MEAP tests allowed the
teachers to form tentative questions and answers to how students
might best read test selections, and to how they might interpret
reading materials. It also enabled them to share with one another
ways they thought about how students might interpret the text and
test questions.

The policy encouraged programs to become

108

“...even more effective in improving schools in order to enable
all children to achieve high standards and in order for all
students to master challenging standards in core academic
subject...”(lASA, p. 3520)..

To the degree that the story and informational MEAP were
aligned with the state student content standards, this school was
moving toward the policy while conducting this work. The Michigan
Department of Education at the time was working to align the MEAP
with the state student content standards. The Department’s official
stance was that following the high state student content standards
would not adversely affect achievement on the MEAP (Rodriguez,
1998). The Department did not state whether or not following the
MEAP would adversely affect achievement on the standards.

This work moved toward the policy in that school personnel
were sharing their ideas and perhaps becoming more cohesive in
their delivery of instruction for all students. They also were
attending to ambitious state content standards as represented in the
MEAP. Thus, they were attending to the social and technical aspects
of the policy.

This exploration of the MEAP seemed tentative in contrast to
the work that another school, Knightly Elementary, did with the

MEAP. Nonetheless, they began to understand a piece of the state’s

framework concerning high student content standards. Beyond this,

109

the act of discussing how students could best read the selections,
and how they could interpret or misinterpret selections moved the
school toward a more coordinated effort in teaching students. This
exploration of student ideas, tentative though it was, was the
beginning of shared norms and values concerning students’
capabilities and learning. And show one way the school dealt with
the social changes in the policy.

Applied Learning; Images ef the Beterme? Several activities
undertaken during the planning year and first year of enactment
moved the school in the direction of providing guidance for
classroom practice in what might have been images of the reforms.
In particular, Ann introduced activities that could be viewed as
representing applied learning. Newman and Wehlage (1995) offer a
definition of “authentic pedagogy”3 based in realistic problems that
might be helpful in understanding what the legislation means by
applied learning. They write authentic pedagogy is “...teaching that
requires students to think, to develop in-depth understanding, and to
apply academic learning to important, realistic problems” (p. 3).

The communication center was an example of pedagogy that

creates “realistic” problems for children to solve. Students were to

 

3 This is Newman and Wehlage’s summary of the definition. The full
definition is quite detailed.

110

work on plays, presentations, speeches and read-alouds. Some of
these activities were recorded on videotape so students could watch
and evaluate themselves. Ann suggested that children often saw
something they could improve in their performances. As she said,
“Every child tells something that they did well, something they want
to improve on the next time, and then we’ll refer back to those
before the next speech” (AD, 4/15/97).

These activities can be considered applied because a speech,
and presentation and a play are activities one might perform outside
of school. They demonstrate more than a textbook knowledge of the
subject matter or discipline. They also show that the school was
moving toward the changes in social aspects of the classroom as
children learned to critique their own work.

There were other authentic tasks added to the curriculum.
During the professional development days, the staff learned about
portfolio assessments and added it to the instructional aspects of
each classroom. Students participated in portfolio assessment by
examining their writing samples and selecting those that showed
growth to place in their portfolios. Students were to learn to
analyze their writing skills through the use of rubrics.

Ann and Genevieve bought each child in the school a bound

journal. Each teacher used the journals differently, depending on the

111

grade level of the students and the teacher’s interests. One
kindergarten teacher had the students create an A-B-C journal, in
which students drew and labeled various animals.

They created an internal postal service, used by students,
teachers and parents to write back and forth to one another.

In the first year of enactment they also created a publications
center. A3 Ann said when discussing the communication center,

We’re doing the same thing in terms of the publishing center.

Everybody can create pieces, and we're going to publish them,

and we're going to put them out for each other and read each

other’s work. (AD, 4/15/97).

Ann and the half-time Title I mathematics teacher were
available to model classroom practice, thus adding to the images of
the reforms that could have been available to the teachers.

It isn’t hard to imagine that these activities had social and
technical learning components as students learned to critique their
own work, share it with others, and use the post office for sharing
their written work.

Gun} v... ill' 0 inc-1 incl 0 Apr" 0‘- in
an_d_Lj§_tenjng, In the communication center, as mentioned above, the
aides and students worked on plays, presentations, speeches, and

read-alouds. This was one of many ways in which the school focused

on communication skills for students. In addition to the

112

communication center, staff created grade level goals, an internal
post office and a publication center. They participated in five
professional development days focused on communications
activities for the classroom. They used portfolio assessments and
journals in their classrooms. Finally, Ann, the reading teacher, was
available to model lessons in their classrooms.

They met by grade level during the planning year in Ann’s home
to create communication goals, and -- though spending less time on
them -- goals for mathematics, social studies and science. They
also created grade-level evaluations for teachers to send to parents
monthly concerning children's communication skills. Finally, they
discussed grade level instructional activities for communications.

They spent their professional development days during the
planning year and first year of enactment with the district’s former
language arts consultant. During these five days, they developed
literacy portfolio assessments and writing activities for children.

Again, Ann led this aspect of the Schoolwide program, and
pressed on those aspects of communication skills she felt
important.

The focus of communications expanded the traditional focus of
Title I from reading to include speaking, spelling and listening. In

choosing “communications” as a focus the school developed a

113

decidedly different kind of focus than the other schools in this
study. Brooke’s focus was “developmentally appropriate practice”
which covered all academic subject matters, and Knightly’s focus
implicitly became the MEAP which also covered most subject
matters; the fourth grade tests were reading and mathematics, the
fifth grade were writing and science, and the state was creating a
social studies test. But Strether Elementary chose one subject
matter as the focus, which became a concern of some teachers as
discussed below.
n Ii ' ' i

The school paid attention to both internal and external
alignment strategies. By alignment, I mean taking measures to
ensure that what is taught is what is tested (S. A. Cohen, 1987).
Others have included instruments that need to be aligned such as
professional development, curriculum, standards, texts, and others
(Smith and O’Day, 1991).

This school aligned internally with Reading Recovery
strategies in the K-2 curriculum, and created grade level goals to
align between and among grade levels. They also conducted work to

align externally with the MEAP.

114

n -. ’ol' 11‘ L' rr' l wi 3.1.1". 3‘ ovr

This discussion of the Reading Recovery program is included
because Ann used it within the school to align reading strategies in
the early grades.

Ann was enthusiastic about Reading Recovery. She explained
that, “The goal of Reading Recovery is to bring the lowest children
up to level with average readers.” (AD, 96/05/10). She was
enthusiastic about the program’s success. At some point during
every interview or observation, she talked about the results of the
Reading Recovery work. Each time she showed me a particular
student’s work, the number of students who had finished the
program, or another indicator of the program’s success. She
expressed excitement that every teacher in the school with one
exception, and many in the district, had made arrangements to
observe her teaching through the Reading Recovery method.

She spoke at length about Reading Recovery and its importance
to her thinking about and understanding of children’s learning and in
particular learning to read (AD, 05/10/96). She explained that the
purpose of her teaching was no longer to help students throughout
their academic career at Strether, but rather a way to enable them

to become independent of her.

115

I guess in the past my experience would be you usually started
with a child who looked like [a] remedial reader and writer in
the lower grades and most of the time, followed all the way
through.

Prior to Reading Recovery she didn’t know how to teach
children in ways that helped them learn independently of her.

You always had those kids. I felt there were some good
lessons I had taught. They learned a lot of neat things. I saw a
growth, but always somehow, there was a dependency on me to
provide the growth....They were always dependent on me - you
learn it from me, you make this growth but now you're
dependent on me for the next step.

By using Reading Recovery, students learned to use strategies
and problem solving that enabled them to learn to read
independently. As she said,

And the thing that's different about Reading Recovery is you're

training children to be independent problem solvers, so it isn't

like I'm teaching a reading curriculum...What you're training
them to do is [to] be problem solvers and you’re giving them
strategies that are useful.

As an internal alignment strategy, Ann worked to coordinate
the early grades so that all teachers were teaching students to read
through Reading Recovery strategies. As she explained,

We have looked at a lot of different issues in terms of reading.

What we're looking for [is] more strategy based than skill

based and more problem solving and skill item analysis type of
thing.

116

 

She thought this alignment strategy a success. She continued
by explaining how the kindergarten and first grade teachers are more
“in line“ with one another,

...The way the early reading skills are taught, they all of a

sudden are more in line, because I shared with the kindergarten

and first grade teachers, “This is what we're looking for. This
is what I'm checking on with these kids. How do they compare
to the other kids in the room?“

She thought that by sharing with the teachers, they were
thinking differently about their teaching. As she said,

And all of a sudden they're thinking, “Am I looking at these

skills? How do the other kids do on these skills? Maybe I

better check these skills.“ And there are some adjustments

and shifts in what's being done. (AD, 5/10/96).

Reading Recovery is a program that enables students to learn
to read by continuous interaction with text and word-solving
strategies. The job of the teacher is to,

...help children become interested in words, become effective

and fast at solving, and be able to use word-solving skills

while reading and writing meaningful messages, stories,
informational pieces, and other kinds of written language.

(Fountas 8. Pinnell, p. 13)

As I discussed in the first chapter, many researchers argue
that learning comes from constructing and reconstructing knowledge
(Resnick, 1987). To help students accomplish this, teachers enable

children to grapple with complex problems which allow them to

problem-solve and learn skills within applications (Lampert, 1990).

117

The kind of work Ann hoped to enable students, particularly
formerly Title I students, and teachers to undertake moved this
school toward the policy. The legislation stated that schools should
“encourage the teaching of advanced skills” (IASA, p. 3524).

l' h v I

As mentioned above, staff met by grade level during the
planning year to create communication goals, as well as
mathematics, social studies and science goals. By all accounts they
spent more time on the communication skills. In addition, for
communication skills they developed evaluations to send home
monthly to parents and worked on instructional activities for these
goals. During the first year of enactment, the evaluations were
taken seriously by all of the teachers and were sent home monthly.
The teachers were to get one hour of release time a month to work
on these evaluations, but they learned that to do them well took
much longer.

Genevieve Peterson was proud of this internal alignment
strategy and mentioned that the idea to write grade level goals for
the school was not something the district required of the school, but
an internal decision.

They [the teachers] are planning on using all the objective
sheets that they have by grade level. Each grade level has

118

made up this. This is not something the district has made for
us. We are talking about what we see as a problem. (6/26/96)

This, too, was a movement toward the policy, helping teachers
and other staff to understand what students were to achieve at each
grade level.

Internal alignment is unusual in schools in the United States
and a key goal of the policy. I created the category of “internal
alignment” when I realized this school had gone beyond what the
other two schools in this study did to align. This school aligned
across classrooms within grades through grade level goals and
across the early grades through the Reading Recovery program. This
not only as a technical change in the school’s program, but also as a
social learning process which Ann DeBoer led.
W

In addition to studying the two reading MEAP tests, the staff
also spent about a half an hour studying the fourth grade
mathematics MEAP test. The purpose of this session was quite
different than was the session on the reading MEAP, though the staff
went through the questions in similar ways. The purpose was to
increase the scores of a few students and to align language in the

classroom [with language in the MEAP.

119

Jill McNamara, the half-time Title I mathematics teacher and
half-time general education teacher, led this occasion. She
explained the purpose of the meeting was to ensure that more
Strether students scored “satisfactory” -- the highest level of
proficiency-- on the MEAP. This MEAP session was “not about
remedial students, but the high achieving students (JM, 5/6/96).

At an intermediate school district conference,“ she learned
how the MEAP, a criterion-referenced test, was scored. For students
to attain a “satisfactory” score they had to answer a certain number
of items correctly. For example, if a student attained correct
scores on 16 out of 20 items, the student received a “satisfactory”
for one strand of the mathematics MEAP. But 15 out of 20 would not
merit a “satisfactory.”

The goal of the talk was to discuss a few test items that if
answered correctly, would mean students would attain
“satisfactory” scores. She told the teachers that Strether
Elementary students might be able to catch up with the other
schools in the county by increasing correct answers on a few
problems. She then showed the satisfactory scores of Strether

students and the students countywide.

120

Percent of Students with “Satisfactory” Score on the 1996-97
Fourth Grade MEAP

Strether Cermty
Mental Arithmetic 45% 82%
Calculations with No Calculator 47% 67%
Problem Solving 12% 62%

They discussed a few problems that would change the percent
of students who scored a “satisfactory.” These problems led to
discussions about how students use manipulatives and rulers and the
use of the metric system.

She mentioned throughout the session that the teachers needed
to use the MEAP vocabulary in class. In one case she explained that
some time during the students’ school careers the vocabulary and
problem solving process would click with students so that they
would do well on the MEAP. In closing she said, “I know it is
discouraging, but keep using that vocabulary.” Though this school
approached learning about the mathematics MEAP as a technical
activity, they used it as a social activity by discussing how students
understand the questions, how they use manipulatives, and how they

might understand the language of the MEAP.

 

‘ Intermediate districts in Michigan are roughly county districts.
They do not have oversight of the entire local school districts’
curriculum.

121

WAR. Ann felt that students needed
to perform well on the MEAP (AD, 4/15/97) and thought it was a
good indicator on how well students understood expository readings.
In fact, when she received the expository reading scores, she re-
tested some of the students to understand more about why they
didn’t do as well as she expected. However, she said that the
“bottom line” was that students were getting the skills they needed,
such as the Reading Recovery strategies.

Qeneyieye’e Stanee teware the MEAE, Genevieve Peterson
thought that administering the MEAP to the staff was an important
part of becoming a Schoolwide program, in part because the
superintendent had told the principals that they were responsible
for MEAP scores.

She also saw the MEAP as an alignment tool, though she didn’t
use the word “alignment” (GP, 6/26/96). She explained the
teachers' reactions to testing themselves on the MEAP.

I think when they took the MEAP test it really showed them.

They're still buzzing about that. They're still -- they couldn't

understand at first -- why in the world is this woman making

them take this test?

In particular, she discussed how a kindergarten teacher could

have reacted to taking the MEAP and what she might have learned

about the wider school curriculum.

122

[One] of the kindergarten teachers, Jane Barnes, one of them
who thought that she had her own agenda. And now Jane's
thinking “OK, I really have to look at my kindergarten
curriculum”. And, ”Yes, I do some of these things, but am I
doing them in the sequence I should be doing them in?“

And, she argued, Mrs. Barnes was thinking about what she
should be teaching in kindergarten to fit in with the school's
program.

”Am I just randomly pulling from the air?“ And I think she's

really thinking now about how she's teaching kindergarten.

She's a good kindergarten teacher, but [I hypothetically ask

her], “Are you cognizant of all of the skills that we need to

teach?“ And [Jane might ask] “Are my kindergartners really

ready when they leave me to go to first grade?” (GP, 6/26/96).

The series of questions the principal hypothetically asked the
kindergarten teachers and suggested the kindergarten teacher could
ask of herself are important questions for a school attempting to
provide a Schoolwide Program. That is, for kindergarten students to
be prepared for the fourth grade assessments: (1) What is the best
sequencing of lessons? (2) What activities should be in the
curriculum? (3) Are those activities now in the curriculum the best
ones? (4) Are students learning skills they will need? This series
of questions shows how teachers are dependent on one another for

ensuring that students achieve to high standards, and how

coordinating the entire school is a social activity.

123

However, this series of questions was not the focus of the
after school session, nor were they at any time made explicit while
I observed. When I asked Mrs. Barnes, the kindergarten teacher, if
taking the MEAP had changed what or how she taught, she said that it
made her more aware of the areas the MEAP covered.

The staff had two opportunities to examine the MEAP together.
During one they took a couple of hours to administer to themselves
the story and informational MEAP tests. During another they took
half an hour to discuss how students could interpret the
mathematics test. Ann and Jill suggested they were attending to
reading and mathematics MEAP test for different purposes; though
some of the same types of issues came up in both sessions. In
particular they discussed how students were interpreting the
questions and answers concerning the reading MEAP tests and the
mathematics MEAP test. When discussing the reading MEAP, they
discussed the best way to encourage students to read the story and
quesfions.

The principal found this work on the MEAP very important and
Ann thought it important, though not the most important issue
facing the school. Though I had the opportunity to observe as this
school worked with the MEAP, it is important to note that the staff

spent only two and a half hours on the MEAP. Another school in this

124

study, Knightly, attended at least one workshop and analyzed every
MEAP item in staff meetings, which was a stronger alignment
strategy.

Nonetheless, the teachers in this school believed the time
spent on the MEAP was important. I observed and interviewed four
teachers in this school. Of the four, three thought the MEAP was
very important, including the kindergarten teacher who claimed she
did not align her teaching with the MEAP as Genevieve had hoped.
She said the most important part about it was understanding the
position the kids were in. A third grade teacher told me that he
thought reviewing the MEAP to be very important for understanding
how children might interpret it. He also thought it influenced his
work in his classroom, and showed me some mathematics problems
he used that he thought resembled the MEAP questions. A third
teacher thought the MEAP was important, and a fourth teacher
thought it to be somewhat important.

This school’s MEAP scores reflect the school’s time Spent on
the MEAP in comparison to the other two schools. Over a four year
time period -- the year proceeding the planning year, the planning
year, the first year of enactment, and the year following, or the
school years 1995-96 through 1998-99 -- Knightly scored the

highest, Brooke the lowest and Strether between the two. Knightly

125

spent much time on the MEAP, Strether two and half hours, and
Brooke not much time at all.

To coordinate internally and externally, then, in the early
stages of planning and enacting the policy, Ann swiftly introduced
many internal coordination strategies. She hoped the school would
move toward heterogeneously based groups of students in both the
communications room and classroom. She hoped to focus on
communication skills. And she hoped for more interactions between
and among teachers, Title I staff. She led the movement toward
these activities by encouraging teachers to work together under her
guidance, utilizing a full staff social strategy for learning about and
from the technical changes.

The Title I staff and teachers worked interdependently in their
work relationships, if only because of scheduling. Teachers and
others had more opportunities to develop interpersonal relationships
through sharing ideas about children and children’s learning. The
school’s new instructional program featured applied learning in
communication skills, the school’s focus. They also aligned
internally through Reading Recovery strategies and schools goals,

evaluations and activities.

126

They used the MEAP, the policy instrument that is most closely
associated with state student content standards, an important piece
of both the IASA and the Goals 2000, for an external alignment. This
work probably helped them to be aware of what was contained in
those two tests. The Title I mathematics teacher encouraged them
to align themselves with the language of the mathematics MEAP for
students to achieve more correct answers.

’ n i wi P

Unlike the other two schools, in this school, I didn’t hear
teachers mention one another’s classrooms. Perhaps Strether
teachers didn’t talk of one another’s classrooms and classroom
practices because this was the first year they were moving ahead
toward internal coordination. However, they did all mention some of
the same issues when I interviewed them about the Schoolwide
program.

Benefits

All staff I asked believed that mixing students of varying
achievement levels was beneficial to both high and low achieving
students. The kindergarten teacher mentioned that some of her
students had transferred from districts using developmental
kindergartens -- that is, districts that had a kindergarten

preparation program and a regular kindergarten. Her experience was

127

that when students came from developmental kindergartens, they
tended to have a hard time fitting in. She was concerned about how
students from developmental kindergartens were to catch up. She
believed strongly that all students should have a strong academic
kindergarten experience. The fourth grade teacher thought that the
high achieving students were learning as much in homogeneous
groups as in any other groups, including those students that attended
Mapleton’s gifted and talented programs.

All the teachers applauded Ann’s and Genevieve’s efforts to
make the Schoolwide program possible. They mentioned the support
and efforts to encourage teachers to support one another. They also
talked about the open communication they fostered with the
teachers. One teacher suggested that teachers tend to work in
isolation and believed that Ann and Genevieve had worked hard to
make the work less isolating. One mentioned Ann’s availability to
work with teachers. A couple mentioned that the two of them were
a good pair and had worked hard to accomplish the Schoolwide.

When asked about how their teaching had changed, three of the
four teachers said they were trying new activities. One fourth grade
teacher said that she was rethinking how to organize her work
because of the communications focus. That is, how to use

communication skills in science and other subject matters. Another

128

fourth grade teacher said he was trying more activities. The
kindergarten teacher definitely thought her program was more
academic and had many more activities.

W

Despite this, they had two related concerns about the changes.
All the teachers expressed concern about the pace of change and the
number of activities they were undertaking. They wondered aloud
how well they were enacting these changes, and they were concerned
that important pieces of the curriculum were getting lost as they
took on more and more communications activities.

One teacher said that the grade level goals were written in a
couple of hours and wondered if they were the best goals available.
She also Was concerned that though they had written grade level
evaluations in alignment with the goals, she wasn’t sure how she
was to assess if students had attained the goals. She thought that
the pace of change didn’t allow teachers to know what they hoped
students would achieve and how teachers would know they had
achieved it.

The teachers expressed the most concern not about what was
in the curriculum, but what wasn’t. One teacher said that when
teaching science, social studies and mathematics he raced through

or barely covered them due to all the work he and the students were

129

doing in communications. That is, the communication center,
publishing center, journals, and the like were using most of the time
he had during the day. Others echoed this sentiment.

They expressed concern that communications work was the
entire curriculum. One teacher thought that this would take care of
itself over time. Two teachers were clearly frustrated with the
arrangement. And the fourth, the kindergarten teacher, felt that she
had to fit the curriculum in around all the communication work,
though she thought that communication skills were perhaps the most
important part of the kindergarten curriculum.

The focus on communications in the school was a decidedly
different kind of “focus” than the other two schools. Knightly
focused on the MEAP, and used that as guide across subject matters
areas Brooke Elementary focused on “developmentally appropriate
practice,” a way to teaching with particular qualities. Strether
chose to emphasize one subject matter, which might have been due
to the Title I program’s historical press on reading skills and Ann’s
knowledge of the reading.

n l i n

Strether Elementary enacted a Schoolwide program through the

vision of one person, the Title I reading teacher, with much support

from her principal and the other teachers in the school. She did this

130

by ensuring that teachers learned the technical aspects of the policy
and using a social strategy for doing 30. Teachers worked together
under her strong mediation as she directed them in what technical
changes they would make and how they would make them. She
provided the learning opportunities in which teachers learned to
change the school’s instructional program and teaching practices.

The reading teacher, Ann DeBoer, was deeply steeped in the
Title I program, she was also deeply influenced by her knowledge of
teaching and learning communication skills: reading, writing,
speaking and listening. She claimed to get her ideas from multiple
sources: her husband who was the reading and language arts
coordinator and ran the Title I program in an adjoining district, the
other teachers, catalogues, talks she attended, and others.

Through having an eclectic way of collecting ideas, Ann
developed multiple initiatives for the school to pursue in their
Schoolwide program. They amounted to a fairly comprehensive
change in the school and used the elements of coordination that are
typically identified in the research literature.

She created a communication center in which homogeneously
based groups of students from each classroom worked with Title I
staff who taught applied Ieaming skills. This change in structure

was well understood among teachers as they explained that there

131

were no longer Title I children, but that the whole school was a
Schoolwide Program. This meant that all children were receiving an
enriched curriculum including the high achieving students. She
encouraged teachers and Title I staff to interact around this new
structure.

A second way Ann encouraged teachers to interact was through
developing and sharing ideas, values and norms around teaching and
Ieaming -- what I refer to as professional relationships. Most
notably, this was done through creating grade level goals,
evaluations and activities. But there were many more grade level
and whole school meetings than the school had ever had before, more
than I probably have knowledge of. They had at least five days of
professional development and three after school meetings during
this time.

Third, teachers had examples of applied learning in the
communication center, but technically they could have ignored this
and treated the activities there as quite distinct from the activities
in their own classrooms. Ann developed other initiatives that kept
the school focused on applied learning, particularly in
communication skills. During the professional development days,
the teachers developed student portfolios and discussed writing

activities. In conjunction with the grade level goals, they wrote

132

evaluations forms to be sent home once a month. These forms were
teacher explanations of student progress, rather than letter grades.
In addition, each student was given a journal.

The school, through Ann’s guidance, focused on communication
skills. These included any number of activities mentioned above
from the communication center to the writing of goals to the
purchasing of journals.

Ann provided leadership for these changes and the principal
supported this leadership. The staff was enthusiastic about her
leadership and ideas. But she was also the source of ideas for this
school to become a Schoolwide. This meant that she could make
changes within the school rapidly.

Though this school was nested in a relatively passive district
and was loosely coupled from the central office and the other
schools in the district, the instructional leader was knowledgeable
about Title I, both its history and it current movements. She was
also knowledgeable about other trends in education such as applied
learning in communication skills, and Reading Recovery. Positioned
as she was and knowledgeable as she was, she could speed the pace

of reform within this school.

133

CHAPTER FOUR
THE CASE OF GEORGE KNIGHTLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL:
ALIGNING WITH THE STATE’S STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

George Knightly Elementary School operated within the same
relatively passive district instructional guidance system that the other
two schools in this study did. Unlike the other two schools, however, this
school activity sought guidance from the central office. They received
none, and leadership in this school passed between two staff members.
The principal and the fifth grade teacher provided leadership at different
times during the planning year and first year of enactment. The principal
tended to look for guidance from within the instructional guidance system
while the fifth grade teacher tended to look both to the instructional
guidance system as well as her own history of school coordination.

Ultimately, led by the principal’s desire to comply with the letter of
the law and with the fifth grade teacher’s support, this school looked to
the technical aspects of the policy for guidance. They aligned the
school’s curriculum with the Michigan Educational Assessment Program or
MEAP. This school’s efforts was a strong external alignment strategy.

This school’s story is instructive in at least two ways. One is the

strength of leadership. The changes in leadership and of Ieadership’s

134

prior knowledge of comprehensive school reform show the importance of
leadership or guidance in two ways. One, the differences in the two
leaders’ mediations, in substance, style and trust in authority, and the
way the school followed each, shows the strength of leadership. It shows
the importance of the means of learning. That is, the importance of who
guides as well as what guides enactment and how enactment is guided.
The mediator’s prior knowledge and beliefs shaped the interpretation and
enactment of the policy as each assumed leadership. Two, the principal’s
lack of knowledge about internal coordination is important because,
perhaps not surprisingly, the school sought guidance outside itself. In
this case that guidance became the strongest poliCy signal available to
the school: the Michigan Educational Assessment Program.

Second, this school’s story calls into question what it means to
“coordinate” instruction, professional work and school organization. As
explained in the first chapter the policy encouraged schools to align
externally with state standards, and determine how best to coordinate
internal efforts around the students in the school. The research literature
on school coordination presents several means of doing such. At the end
of the first year of implementation, this school displayed less movement

toward any of these types of internal coordination that I used to look at

135

coordination than the other two schools. But they had moved from a
school that tended not to discuss classroom practices to one that did,
and they aligned strongly with the MEAP. By using the MEAP as the focus
and working through what students would need to know and be able to
do to score well the MEAP, this school coordinated.

It scored consistently higher on the MEAP in all subject matter
areas than the other two schools that had either achieved or attempted
to achieve more formal internal coordination.

ASmaILInnerfiitILScbool

Knightly Elementary School was located in what was once one of
the most affluent neighborhoods in this city -- a city that due to its early
entrance into the automotive industry, boomed before the stock market
crash of 1929. This beautiful old school with marble floors, and marble
staircases with wooden banisters, sat on a hill. A split-level school, the
side facing the street sat on the top of the hill, while the backside sat in
the dale. In the back of the school was an acre of yard, which ended in
Knightly River. And in that acre was a round swimming pool that was a
popular spot for young people during the city’s hey day and now. The
nearby railroad depot, defunct and over grown with shrubbery, showed

that it was once a major crossroads of the city. The houses nearby were

136

nearly stripped of paint and had rotting porches; but one could imagine
street upon street of unique turn of the century houses that showed this
city and particularly this neighborhood were once affluent. Not far from
this neighborhood was the most affluent neighborhood in this aging city,
and this pattern of affluent abutting run-down neighborhoods was
characteristic of the older parts of the city.

The reading teacher told me to drive -- it wasn’t safe to walk she
warned -- through the neighborhood to get a feel for the kind of poverty
the students live in. A school of about 200 students, nearly 70% of the
children in the spring of 1996 were eligible for the federal lunch program.
The school was 56% minority, the largest group of which was African-
American at 38%. The principal told me that many students’ parents
lived on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, making it possible for
her to contact a least one parent or guardian most any time.

When entering the front door of the school, there were offices off
to each side. On one side there was a large, glassed-in office with a
second, also glassed-in office behind it. On the other side was a small,
closed-in office. Typically the principal would sit in one of the larger

offices, but in this school the secretary sat in the outer one and the large

137

office behind her contained the teacher’s mailboxes and places for the
teachers to sit.

Laura O’Connor, the principal, occupied the other, smaller office. A
46-year-old white female, Laura was in her second year as principal. She
had worked in the district as a teacher for the previous 22 years. Laura
might have chosen this office so she could easily see and talk to the
students from here. A large woman, she was not as mobile as the other
two principals in this study. From this small office, she could and did
summon students, particularly those who had been sent to her office for
disciplinary reasons, to her as they walked by her office.

This staff was small and the majority of members had less than 5
years teaching experience. Knightly had one teacher for each of the
kindergarten through fifth grade classrooms and one split-grade
classroom. During the Schoolwide planning process, the entire
professional staff sat around the table. This included 11 people, 10
teachers and the principal. The teachers included 7 general education
teacher, one Title I reading teacher, a half-time Title I science teacher,
and one special education teacher. Of these, 7 were white women two of
whom were veteran teachers, 2 black women -- both veteran teachers,

and 1 young black man. Occasionally, a part time French teacher and a

138

part time librarian sat in, as well as the school’s secretary. Though the
custodian did not sit in the meetings, he interacted with the group a
couple of times about the repairs he was making on bicycles donated for
the raffle the staff had created.
EI'IIIEI'E'I

Before the Schoolwide planning year, this school had far less
internal coordination when examined by using the school coordination
literature as described in Chapter 1. That is, the school had no focus; on
the contrary, it had multiple seemingly disparate foci. It lacked an
internally coordinated program with no interdependent work relationships
that I could detect. They had the beginnings of what I’ve defined as
professional relationships through a Wednesday morning staff meeting.
However, the meeting was not used to discuss instructional practices,
though the year before the planning year, they had used some of this
time to create a whole school discipline policy. They had not had images
of classroom practice that were in the direction of the reforms. They
were not internally aligned around goals or in any other way. They had
not aligned externally with the district curriculum or the state student

content standards.

139

At the beginning of the Schoolwide planning period the school was
a traditional Title I school. The Title I program consisted of a full time
reading teacher who taught a pullout remedial reading program, and a half
time science teacher who taught in each classroom at least once a week.
NLEQQIIS

As a bit of context, in the early to mid 19903 the then district
Deputy Superintendent of Instruction asked a handful of schools to
become “focus” schools. Among other foci, one school chose to focus on
a discipline (mathematics), another chose to focus on an educational
philosophy (developmentally appropriate practice), and another chose to
focus on culture (multicultural school). The district had offered a few
schools extra funding to implement these.

Subsequent to enacting these pilot focus schools, the other district
schools were encouraged to develop a “focus,” but Knightly school chose
not to. The principal said that she and the teachers considered having a
health focus, but decided that really wasn’t what they wanted. In one
interview shortly after she notified the central office that the school was
considering becoming a Title I school (LO, 2/3/96), she told me her
desire for the school’s faculty members was not to have a focus, but to

behave like a family. That is, she hoped they would develop amongst

140

themselves a trust that would enable them to create a support group for
one another. This indicated her desire for the school to develop social
support to improve teaching practices.

The number and variety of projects and teaching techniques she
mentioned also suggested a lack of a focus. She named at least 15 ideas,
programs, or teaching techniques, which she and the teachers had
brought into the school or learned about during their two-hour weekly
meetings, from Reading Recovery to peer mediation to the Internet. This
suggested that the school not only was not a focus school but also had
many disparate ideas and activities, none of which were examined closely
or looked to for guidance.

At the same time, however, she talked about three aspects of the
curriculum that could have served as a technical focus or as guidance for
the school. In one case the district curriculum could have been the
school’s focus. She mentioned that the school needed a Schoolwide
program because it had a curriculum -- set by the central office -- but
not a “how to.” She hoped the Schoolwide planning would lead to the
“how to.” Though, as this chapter will show, the rest of the faculty did
not consider the district’s curriculum a source of guidance for

instructional practices or school organization.

141

In another case, academic learning goals could have been the
technical focus. As I was sitting in her office, she COpIed for me an article
from Erinejea] magazine (1996) by Mary Jean LeTendre, the US. Director
of Compensatory Education Programs. The article was bulleted to
highlight important aspects of the new Title I program. Some of these,
Laura explained, she was aware of and understood, while some were new
to her. For instance, she did not know that assessments should address
higher-order thinking skills (p. 30). She did understand, however, that
the program was about “academic Ieaming goals.” Yet, the faculty
members, as I will show in this chapter, did not feel the school had clearly
defined academic Ieaming goals.

Finally, she mentioned the importance of the MEAP, making note
that the school would be judged by it. In the spring of 1996 the MEAP
was gaining prominence in the state. Schools were ranked in one of three
categories based on the MEAP: summary, interim, and unaccredited. This
school, like the other two in this study, had interim status, which was
neither the highest nor the lowest ranking available. Laura noted that the
reason the school’s MEAP scores were not higher was because the

language used on the MEAP was not the language used in the classroom.

142

She suggested that she and the faculty needed to disaggregate student
results to understand where and why the school was weak and strong.

Laura did not mention the curriculum, the MEAP and the academic
Ieaming goals packaged together as they are here. Instead, they were
mixed in with talk of the school’s budget, the attitudes of particular
teachers, the school carnival, and the need for help in evaluation. She
didn’t view any one of these as the school’s focus. On more than one
occasion she told me that the purpose of Schoolwide programs was to
give principals more flexibility in their accounting procedures (LO,
02/23/96, 03/28/96, 03/25/97).

The district curriculum, a set of academic learning goals, and the
MEAP, taken together, or singly, could have been used as a technical
focus for a Title I Schoolwide program. To comply with Goals 2000 the
state was to create student content and performance standards, which
could have been considered academic learning goals. In addition, district
curricula and the MEAP were to be aligned with the state standards. So
not only could any one of these been used a focus, they could have been
used in concert with one another as guidance for enacting a Title I
Schoolwide program. But this school at the beginning of this planning

time did not view them as a focus, nor did they use them for guidance.

143

In the spring of 1996, this school could be characterized as what
Bryk, Easton, Rollow & Sebring (1993) refers to as a “Christmas tree
school.” The Christmas tree image might evoke the idea that the school
had a number of programs and ideas that are ornamental in nature. In
this school there were many programs, each embraced equally, and each
implemented not in depth but rather in a way that made the program or
project ornamental in nature, and not salient to the core instructional
program. The principal endorsed this approach.

She also ran the meetings to plan a Schoolwide program in a way
that contributed to making the programs, ideas and techniques disjointed.
This will be taken up in the section on the first stage cf planning.
W

The school did not have a comprehensive program as in a shared
curriculum or goals by grade. The classrooms worked in relative isolation
from one another. No effort to work in interdependent work relations,
such as team teaching, was evident. In the words of the fifth grade
teacher, who had just arrived at the school that year,

“Earlier in the year, when I first got there, I realized that teachers weren’t

teaming. People were basically working as islands” (SH, 6/11/96).

144

EII' EI . IBI' l'

However, it would not be correct to characterize this school as
having no school coordination, or social resources to start a Schoolwide
program. The faculty had chosen to meet together on Wednesday
mornings for an hour and a half, and had to rearrange their schedule to do
so. Also, they chose the school’s professional and staff development
activities at these meetings. These common experiences and
opportunities could have created some shared understandings that
differentiate this school to some degree from conventional schools.

One subject they had pursued the year before their Schoolwide
planning meetings was to create a shared school discipline policy. They
chose staff development providers who could help them with behavior
and discipline issues and wrote a school discipline policy. More than one
teacher and the principal referred back to this work in talking with me,
indicating that this school had developed some social resources.

The teaching practices could have been somewhat similar, because
the teachers were exposed to the same professional development or
faculty development opportunities. The teachers seemed to have some

familiarity with one another’s practice. Both the second grade and third

145

grade teachers told me with some pride that they ran their classrooms as
Susan, the fifth grade teacher, did. They told me this as l was observing
to assure me that the students’ sometimes rambunctious behavior was
out of character. Neither of them, however, had ever observed Susan’s
classroom, so they might have formed their images of Susan’s classroom
in discussions with Susan about student behavior.

However, these discussions did not lead to talk of classroom
practices having to do with children’s learning academic subjects, at least
not with the group as a whole. This is made clear in the section titled
“Opportunities Not Found.”

Teachers in this school had no opportunities to observe teaching in
the direction of the Title I reforms, or to observe one another.

I I I E I II'

There were no obvious internal or external alignment strategies,
though the principal had mentioned to me the need for the staff to
understand the MEAP better.

In conclusion, the school’s organization was what Lortie (1975)
referred to as “cellular" or the “egg crate” model in terms of the

interdependent work relations. The school did not have a strong

146

academic focus, or a few academic goals that could provide teachers with
at least technical guidance. In fact, their principal seemed to discourage
them from developing shared understandings around their teaching
practices as will be demonstrated below.

At the same time, however, the teachers and principal had been
meeting every Wednesday morning for a couple of years and had most
likely developed some common understandings through the meetings and
their shared staff development opportunities. While these meetings alone
did not necessarily change each teacher’s practices, the fact that they
had talked about a comprehensive discipline policy seemed beyond
discussions that more conventional schools have had, and indicated that
social resources were available in the school to begin a Schoolwide
program.

They were enthusiastic about teaching and saw the Title I
Schoolwide program as an opportunity to enable them to better serve
this high-poverty school.

For this case study, I describe more extensively than in the other
two cases the process the school used in developing a Schoolwide plan. I

do this because this school, unlike the other two, took many twists and

147

turns in its decision making and implementation processes. Examining
these processes shows who mediated the policy and the means she used
to mediate in both process and content. This also shows the school’s
lack of focus and internal guidance and how eventually, one technical
aspect of the policy -- the MEAP -- provided guidance and helped the
school to organize itself using an alignment strategy with the state test.
The Schoolwide planning time was during the Wednesday morning
meetings. Laura tended to use the meeting as opportunities to gain input
on school decisions. On the one hand, she brought the teachers into
many decisions that the teachers at Strether Elementary would not have
been privy to. Thus she was creating social resources that would later
allow the school to take up technical aspects of the policy. She believed
that principals need teachers to buy in to the school’s program. In her
words, “As a former staff person I know that unless you get the staff
involved and have a commitment, you’re gonna Iose” (LO, 3/28/96). On
the other hand, the list of items she opened up to teachers meant they
didn’t spend much time in creating a comprehensive school strategy.
She opened and led discussions with a list of issues she wanted to

discuss including the eight components of Schoolwide programs. For

148

example, she would ask the faculty for input on the discretionary budget.
As they worked in this way, often they didn’t reach closure on a topic, or
if they did reach closure, she would put the same topic on the discussion
for the following meeting.

In the same way that they addressed each issue in a serial fashion,
they also wrote the Schoolwide plan itself as if it were a list. They spent
their Wednesday mornings not making a strategic plan, but using the
eight components of Schoolwides to describe different aspects of the
school’s existing program. They used this process almost as if the eight
components where something they used to justify what they were
already doing.

The initial plan read like a list. Genevieve, the principal at Strether
Elementary, worked with Laura in a school in Mapleton for many years
when they were teachers. She commented that she and Laura were
going about the planning for the Schoolwide in quite different ways.
Genevieve told Laura that at Strether faculty was first talking about what
they wanted to accomplish and then writing the plan. She suggested to
Laura that she might like to do the same. Her sense was that Laura was

eager to finish the task of writing the plan and was writing it rather than

149

using the planning time to help the staff consider what they wanted to do
or accomplish with a Schoolwide program.

This school approached the plan like a task, rather than an
opportunity to make decisions about how to build a comprehensive
instructional program.

II' III IIDII' I E'I

At the first meeting, Laura invited Sharon Wellborn from central
office to explain Schoolwide programs to the faculty. Laura told the staff
they would choose whether or not the school was to become a
Schoolwide both at the beginning of the meeting and during the meeting.

The faculty was enthusiastic the day Sharon (3/3/96) met with
them. She told them a bit about Schoolwides. When she was done with a
short presentation, they asked many questions concerning the purposes
and definitions of Schoolwides, the availability of model programs, and
other topics.

At one point Sharon explained that each school would have a
unique program, based on the needs of the students. The reading
teacher looked across the table at me and said, “That’s very exciting.”

There were many nodding heads.

150

At the same time that they were enthusiastic, they were
apprehensive about who or what would help them become a Schoolwide
and what it would entail.

Laura asked whether or not the central office had the staff to help
schools enact Schoolwide programs, and if central office would provide a
framework for schools to work through.

Sharon replied that this was about building what the school faculty

wanted for the students’ needs. She suggested they might want

to start by defining their staff development needs. For example,
she suggested, “Who is going to help you?”

Laura said, “You.”

Sharon, who knew her position in central office was at best tenuous
due to budgetary problems, replied, “I will try.”

Laura said, “Who is left to help [in central office]?”

Sharon smiled wryly and says, “Me.”

One of the teachers, Kathleen said, “How could you not help us?”

They remained enthusiastic about Schoolwides throughout the
meeting. After Sharon left they voted to implement a Schoolwide
program with only one faculty member, the fifth grade teacher who later
would provide instructional leadership, wavering.

After this meeting the school would have welcomed central office

guidance with open arms, but central office had very little contact with

151

any of the schools writing Schoolwide plans. The principal and the Title I
teacher repeatedly called central office to ask for help. In particular, they
wanted a framework to help them write the plan.

They gave up calling central office and called the state Title I office,
and received a list of the eight Schoolwide components in the legislation
as the “framework.” They used this, together with a list of 80 items that
central office had had prepared for them‘ to work through the plan. The
list of 80 items ranged across all kinds of ideas presently floating in the
education arena. As an example, it began with the following:

An agreed-upon Vision

- Mission - a well-defined academic mission that challenges all

students to be academically successful in meeting high

performance standards and achievement goals.

- Mission includes goals that upgrade the instructional core for

students by developing or adopting academic programs with these

characteristics:

Focus on early childhood intervention

Use of systematic, research-based academic programs

Instruction in thematic units; integrated disciplines and
specializations

Expanded use of technology

 

‘ Most of the items were gather from the 1dea_B_eek, 1994.

152

Emphasis on building student self-concept, cultural pride and
community identity

to I‘ or OIIOOI‘I .Io I‘iO-‘II' . o-I ‘

They embraced the eight components and the 80 items
indiscriminately, the way they embraced anything they thought could help
their students. During one planning meeting they went through the 80
items, discussing whether or not they had each item in place.

All new teaching ideas and techniques seemed to be embraced,
though not necessarily thoroughly, with equal vigor. Talking about
coordinating the foster grandparents program used as much or more
faculty time and energy as decisions conceming whether or not to fund a
reading teacher full time. Yet, the foster grandparents were not prepared
to work with students, rather they helped to clean blackboards and sat
near students as they worked.

Addressing the planning of the Schoolwide program as a list of 80
seemingly disparate items could lead to a disparate rather than
coordinated program. That is, rather than contributing to harmonious
actions on the part of teachers and principals it could lead to more
disjunctures rather than fewer.

Also, approaching the Schoolwide plan so that the foster

grandparents program was equally as important as instruction could have

153

pushed the school staff away from focusing on children’s academic
knowledge and skill.
D | 'I' II E |

There were many Opportunities in these free flowing discussions to
focus in on the technical aspects of the policy. The talk about classroom
practices could have helped them create what I have termed “professional
relationships,” or relationships that help teachers develop common
understandings about leamers, learning and teaching. These
opportunities, however, were discouraged. Perhaps they were not viewed
as Ieaming opportunities; or perhaps they were seen as too time
consuming to attend to because of the attention to finishing the plan.
Nonetheless, questions emerged concerning learners, learning and
teaching but were not pursued.

Below I use an example of a discussion concerning “developmentally
appropriate” as an example of questions teachers raised that might have,
if guided skillfully, helped them develop professional relationships around
classroom practices. Discussions of these issues, however, were set
aside or ignored. The principal, who was a strong presence at the

meetings, often brushed aside these issues.

154

A discussion concerning developmentally appropriate practice soon
after the school had written an initial draft of their plan (5/15/96) shows
one opportunity not taken. In the context of discussing the state’s
proficiencies for the fifth grade writing MEAP, Michael, the resource room
teacher, asked about, “developmentally appropriate.” He appeared to try
to change the course of the conversation from writing the plan, to a
discussion about the capabilities of the students in the school. A key
point of the policy is that all children can learn to high standards, which
means a discussion about what developmentally appropriate means and
how to interpret the concept in light of ambitious standards for all
students an important point. Thus Michael is grappling with the
assumptions teachers had about learners, learning and teaching in relation
to one of the policy’s technical points.

He said, “Isn't our job to catch up kids to where they should be? I
thought that was the whole purpose of this. What is this about
developmentally appropriate?” (5/15/96). Michael appeared to argue
that “developmentally appropriate” weren’t useful words to describe what
they hoped to achieve, because the point of Schoolwides was to ensure

all students are working at grade level.

155

Michael was a young man, perhaps 24 years of age, and other staff
members appeared to like and respect him. In an interview after this
incident, he explained that he and the staff were not like-minded. He
pointed out that the staff was mostly white women who had grown up in
rural areas. In contrast, he was a young black man who had grown up in
inner city Detroit. He felt this gave him a different understanding of the
black, urban children in the school, and a way of talking with students
that the other teachers did not possess. (ML, 6/5/96).

Dee the reading teacher said, “We can't raise them above their
developmentally appropriate level.” Dee appeared to argue that students
have limits on what they can achieve academically, perhaps by age.

Dee had suggested in an interview (5/17/96), prior to this
meeting, that Michael was the least experienced teacher in the school.
She explained that he wanted to save all the kids, while the more veteran
teachers realized they couldn’t save them all. She could only hope that
during the time she instructed them, she helped. She explained the
students’ futures were in their own hands and they had a destiny. When
she was Michael's age she wanted to save everybody, too.

A second teacher suggested that there is a contradiction or tension

in the curriculum itself. Susan, the fifth grade teacher said,

156

“It's a huge contradiction in the school curriculum.”

Later she explained to me what she meant (6/11/96). The
contradiction concerned assessing students’ progress by their own
accomplishments and efforts as opposed to assessing them by a standard
program. The fifth grade report card (though not the fourth grade) was
structured such that teachers were to give students a letter grade based
on the fifth grade program. She explained that if she used a standard of
seventy percent as a C, 5 or 6 of her students would fail fifth grade. She
resolved this conflict by noting on those 5 or 6 students’ report cards
that their grades were derived from a modified fifth grade program.

A third teacher, Amanda, appeared to take a different tack. She
said, “You have to start where the kids start.” Starting where a child
starts isn’t necessarily contradictory to Michael’s idea of helping students
to reach grade level. However, she, too, seemed interested in talking
Michael out of his position in a respectful manner.

Amanda and Michael were two of the three African-American
teachers in the school. They nearly always sat next to each other during
the planning time and I frequently saw them conversing in the hall and

parking lot.

157

Susan repeated her comment about the contradiction in the
curriculum.

The principal, who tended to lead the discussions, thought it was
time to move away from the topic. She said, “I feel we should leave it for
now. I mean the people who write this...That’s a utopian ideal.” Her
comments suggested that those who wrote the policy either wrote
something they don’t believe possible to achieve; or else they thought
possible, but because they didn’t work in schools, didn’t have an
understanding of what schools and classrooms could do or achieve.

Others seemed to agree with her. While agreeing, they also
seemed to want to ensure that Michael understood why they were
moving on and that they respected his ideas. Someone mentioned one of
Michael’s students who apparently had academic Ieaming issues.

Michael said, “If anybody knows the difficulty of this, it would be
me.“

Those around the table appeared to interpret this remark to mean
that Michael agreed that one can’t raise students beyond their
developmental levels and that they should leave this idea for now. My
interpretation was that Michael was saying nobody knows the academic

difficulties of some of these students in the way he did, therefore his

158

desire to help students achieve at grade level was a well reasoned.
legitimate concern. However, the conversation moved back to
commenting on the document as it was written.

To recap, Michael first asked what the words “developmentally
appropriate” mean. “Developmentally appropriate” suggests that
students go through stages of cognitive development. This could lead
one to ask what that means for the nature of learners and what they are
capable of. It could also lead to asking how they learn, given a particular
stage of development. Or it could lead one to ask how best to teach
them. But these issues weren’t discussed.

A teacher mentioned that you “can’t raise students above their
developmentally appropriate level.” The teachers could have discussed
what this said about which students can learn what and when. But that
discussion was not pursued. Another teacher suggested that she and her
colleagues needed to “start where children start,” an idea that touches
on how best to teach children. Another teacher mentioned a
contradiction in the curriculum. She needed to accomplish two seemingly
contradictory goals within her classroom curriculum. One goal was to

assess a student’s progress against a classroom norm. The other was to

159

assess a student’s achievement by his or her own progress. Here are
issues wrapped up with teaching and assessment.

Through language and action, teachers can develop and reaffirm
their common assumptions about children, learning, teaching, teachers’
roles, the importance of interpersonal relationships and commitment to
the collective good (Bryk, Lee, and Holland, 1993). In the teachers’
discussions of developmentally appropriate practice were opportunities
for teachers to talk about or create common understandings on the
issues such as those discussed by Bryk, Lee and Holland that were not
taken up.

Developmentally appropriate practice was not the only topic left
unexamined that could have led to discussions about teaching and
Ieaming or about the key points of the policy. Other t0pics were treated
in similar ways. Someone would bring up an issue that could lead to
discussion of classroom practice and the issue would be ignored or
answered quickly.

For example during one discussion (3/15/96) the issue of pullout
programs as the staff was reviewing the 80 item list. One teacher
pointed out that “We pull out right now." Laura replied, “It is impossible

to do all the serving within the classroom." The discussion was left.

160

Later in that same meeting, Michael mentioned that among the list of 80
items were two that canceled each out. One item said “Pullout programs
are eliminated;” while another one was “Special student groupings are
made for more effective classroom practices.” He wondered aloud why
this was so. No one responded to this issue. Either of these comments
about pullouts could have led to discussions about why the policy seemed
to urge schools to move away from pullouts, and the pros and cons of
pullouts. Yet this technical change that the policy encouraged so
students in pullout programs would not be exposed to a curriculum that
would ensure they did not achieve high standards, and so that general
and Title I staff would coordinate their efforts was nOt discussed.

In this same discussion, a teacher gave an example of her teaching
and asked if it addressed issues of “traditionally underserved populations,
including girls and women.” Laura told her that Knightly Elementary
teachers address the issues of girls and women, and that if they didn’t,
they could certainly be brought up to speed. That was the end of the
discussion. Another wondered what “goals“ referred to in the statement
“goals are aligned with the mission.” She asked if this was in reference to
the “three school improvement goals” (required by the School

Improvement Plan). No one answered this question. Each of these topics

161

could have led to discussions about academic learning for children, and
central issues in the policy, but none were taken up.

This meant that at this point the school, though they had the
beginning of what I’ve called professional relationships through the
school’s discipline policy, had yet to discuss classroom academic practices
and had yet to look closely at the technical aspects of the policy.

W

May 29''1 was to be the last meeting to complete the Schoolwide
planning document. Instead, it became a time when the fifth grade
teacher encouraged the staff to think about the school program as a
whole and to enact a program quite different from the one they had. In
this case the policy provided a chance for the full staff to hear a different
perspective than they had considered before and enabled the fifth grade
teacher to become the policy mediator.

As they gathered in the library, the principal came with a draft of
the plan and began the discussion by saying in a somewhat discouraged
manner that they had a number of topics they needed yet to address.
She included the preschool program, assessment and a number of others.

Some discussion took place concerning whether or not they needed to

162

address all the topics on the state’s list, where they could find more time
to work together, and what to address first.

They decided that the most obvious weakness in the plan was the
lack of assessment. This allowed Susan, the fifth grade teacher, to press
her ideas concerning full school reform or coordination efforts and use her
prior knowledge to assert leadership or influence in the planning process,
and begin to mediate the process for the school. I have in my notes,

Susan said, “I have a hard time talking about assessment without K-
2, and 3-5 plans.“ She went on for some time, quite articulately,
about how they needed this. She talked quickly about what they
needed to do. She used several arguments and several types of
arguments: they couldn’t assess in a vacuum, other schools had
these plans, and a plan would help them know what they needed to
do. She concluded by asserting the group needed to decide what it
was they were assessing.

About half the teachers nodded or concurred. One said, “I agree.”
About half seemed confused or surprised. One argued they had
agreed to keep the plan simple.

Susan turned to this teacher and said, “So you would leave it like
this?“ She then continued that they had to be clear about their
expectations in order to assess students.

Laura argued, “The expectations are in the district's curriculum
guides.“

Susan asked, “What kind of assessments we are making? How will
they be used in placement? How will we measure progress and
achievement?

Again, some teachers strongly agreed by saying “yes” or nodding
their heads.

163

Susan said that they needed locator tests for their multi-age
groupings. They needed strategies, plans, and tests.

Until this interaction multi-age grouping had not been mentioned to
the full group nor was it mentioned in the draft of the Schoolwide plan.
The principal had told me in an earlier interview that multi-age groupings
would mean restructuring, so perhaps the staff had talked about it prior
to Title I Schoolwide planning. But it was clear they had not thought
through what it would take to enact multi-age groups the way Susan
envisioned them.

One of the surprised teachers, Kathleen, said, “This is a surprise to
me.” She then asked if Susan was talking about a specific test and
continued to ask questions until she appeared to understand.

Kathleen said, “This is new to me. Are you talking about a pre-

test? A post-test? Do you re-administer the exact same test? Or

a similar test?“

Susan said that they would re-administer the same test.

Kathleen asked if they would do this for each subject matter area,

like mathematics, and so forth.

Susan said, yes, probably the same thing for reading and each of
the subject matters.

A couple of the veteran teachers and the principal suggested that
they had conducted this kind of pre and post-test earlier in their
careers. There were several side conversations while Susan
continued answering questions about the tests.

164

It might be because Susan was answering specific questions, or
because some of the more experienced teachers were familiar with some
of what Susan was suggesting, or some other reasons; but the group
seemed intrigued with the idea.

Laura who had mentioned that the district-curriculum was already in
place seemed reluctant at that point to entertain Susan’s ideas. But as
the conversation progressed, she warmed to the idea. She suggested
that they might be able use packaged assessments from various reading
series, or even to repackage them so that the school staff could make up
K-2 and 3-5 tests. She asked if Susan thought this was true and if they
could get these tests together in the next 45 minutes.

Susan and the enthusiastic teachers said they could. The staff
divided themselves into a K-2 team and a 3-5 team to work.

.| 3. .0 o go“ All. on. ‘1‘. ' ‘ no.

0 0 - ll

Susan had had a couple of fairly extensive opportunities to think
about and observe creating and enacting comprehensive school
programs. She was a teacher in the Mapleton district, then taught at a
private school in Florida, and came back to a school in Mapleton that

served as a pilot for the state’s accreditation program before coming to

165

Knightly. She had also worked on the curriculum in the district in which
she lived, a district adjacent to Mapleton.

In Florida, she had worked in a Country Day school. Her perspective
was that because private schools didn’t have much money, the school
staff had to do much work that wasn’t expected of the Mapleton
teachers. The school had to be approved yearly by the Florida
Independent Schools Association. This meant the staff had to write the
school curriculum and justify it. She felt she had Ieamed much from this,
particularly from other staff who had worked in American lntemational
schools. They also had to conduct work such as checking the students’
standardized tests by hand, work that Mapleton teachers assumed
someone else would perform.

When she returned to Mapleton, she accepted a position in a school
that piloted the state’s accreditation program. The piloted accreditation
program had many of the same components as the Schoolwide program.
She believed that the pilot program required much more documentation
than the Schoolwide program.2

I asked what they were doing for the Schoolwide program and she

explained, (numbering the author’s, not Susan’s).

 

2 The state later decided to base accreditation on the MEAP.

166

That’s what we’re doing and that’s basically the Schoolwide plan

was to evaluate (1) where we’re at, (2) where we need to go, (3)

how we’re going to get there and (4) different strategies and ways

in which we can work with a team of teachers in the building to
make it happen.

This explanation fit with her understanding of the purpose of
Schoolwide programs. As she said,

We’re trying to put together a cohesive, academic plan that is

consistent, K through 5, such that there’s consistency from one

level to the next. And that the expectations, there’s a standard
from which we work.

When I asked her what she meant by expectations or standards she
said that teachers need to know the standard for assessing students, and
parents deserve to know that standard. She said,
“But what does exceptional mean? What does satisfactory mean? What
does needs-to-improve mean? Where are your standards? What are you
operating from?” So Susan wanted to enact a program that had technical
aspects such as grade level goals, standards and assessments, though at
this point it wasn’t clear if these were aligned with the state standards
and assessments or not.
El . II II._ E

The teachers met in the K-2 and 3-5 teams creating pre- and

posttests for the two sets of grade levels in reading and mathematics

over the next week. They got substitute teachers -- one day for the 3-5

167

team and the next for the K-2 team -- to meet together. Susan met with
the K-2 team during this time. Though their draft plans had not
mentioned multi-age groupings, their final plan made them the
centerpiece. That is, heretofore multi-age groupings had not been
mentioned, but their final plan was based on multi-age groupings.

I asked Susan about this and she said that she had been talking to
the third and fourth grade teachers about how they needed to work
together since she had come in the beginning of the year. She was
concerned about their lack of coordination, and also wanted to plant
some seeds for change. In her words,

I had to talk to some of the teachers and said, “We can’t do this

anymore. You guys are going to have to prove yourselves to the

state. We’re in the at-risk category in terms of receiving
unaccredited status. We have to change the course in which we’re
operating to make sure that we’re all working together and towards
the same goal.” And so early on, I kind of planted the seed with

some of the staff that if we did multi-age grouping, it would be a

way to meet the needs of the kids in a better way (SH, 6/11/96).

She told me that they had coordinated the cross-grade curriculum
by creating standards for grade levels and creating tests to administer to
their students at the beginning, middle and end of the year to determine
where students would be placed in their new program. These tests were

created by using tests and materials that teachers had either used before

or had available to them through the reading and mathematics series they

168

had. The standards appeared to be one in the same with the
assessments they created.

At first, Susan explained, she was surprised that none of the other
teachers had argued in the planning meetings that their plan was not a
comprehensive school program. As she went on to help the teachers,
however, she realized that none had done this before, including the
veteran teachers. In her words,

...they’re blind. They’ve never been through this before...l worked

with the K through 2 teachers to show them. They didn’t know

what a rubric was. They don’t know what a benchmark is. These
are things that they’re Ieaming. They’re fantastic teachers, it just

that nobody has ever taken the time (SH, 6/11/96).

Though, she went on to ensure me, they were an enthusiastic staff.

And this is a real eager, motivated staff and they’re open to new

ideas. They want to do it better. They don’t like these low scores.

They teach, you know basically, they’d stand on their heads to do

anything for these kids (SH, 6/11/96).

She defended the fact that the Laura didn’t know much about how
to make a comprehensive school plan, by suggesting that she had
recently become a principal and the district didn’t provide administrators
with much support. In her words,

When you were sitting there the other day, there wasn’t a plan of

action. I think that the administrator...is...probably thinking there
is a plan of action, but there isn’t.

169

She continued, “She’s new [to the principalship]. [In this district]
we have administrators that...never get trained in curriculum. So you’re
on your own.”

Susan’s proposal was a strong internal coordination strategy. The
plan was to have K-2 and 3-5 teachers work together as a team, creating
goals, activities and assessments for the two levels and also grades within
these levels. So Susan led them to conceive of and respond to their own
technical guidance and worked with them to develop the necessary social
relationships.

What this strategy did not take into account was external
alignment. Though Laura suggested that the district had a curriculum
that defined goals (and was, at least in name, aligned with the state
standards) in this initial work, the school did not align externally.

They began the work, however, of talking about what should be
taught and how to determine if it had been taught. One veteran teacher
of 25 years told me that she was embarrassed to admit it, but she had
never thought about the school’s program as a whole (LT, 5/29/97).

The next fall, the staff team taught by sharing students across

classrooms based on the results of the pre- and posttests they had

170

created. They referred to this as the students’ developmentally
appropriate levels. In the new program, they tried to place students K-2
and 3-63 in what they referred to as ability groups for mathematics and
reading through the tests. For mathematics, they divided the 3-6 grade
by ability groups with each teacher teaching an ability group. The K-2
teachers traded more informally. For all grades the multi-age reading
groups were instituted more informally than the mathematics -- individual
teachers arranged to move individual students among themselves -- and
that seemed to work better for the school.

They also created a “lunch bunch“ program, in which any students
could go for extra help during the lunch hour. Sometimes the teachers
would suggest they go, and sometimes the children went on their own.
This is both an “extended school day“ strategy and an opportunity for
those not mastering the standards to get extra help. The IASA
encourages schools to “increase the amount and quality of learning time,
such as providing extended school year and before- and after-school and
summer programs and opportunities” (p. 3536). It also states that
schools should include in their plans “activities to ensure that students

who experience difficulty mastering any of the standards required during

 

3 The central office decided that Knightly Elementary would provide a K-6

171

the course of the school year shall be provided with effective, timely
additional assistance” (p. 3537).

Also, the Title I funding for this school was more plentiful in this
school year than it had been in the previous year, so they were able to
hire two aides. The principal believed the lunch bunch program and the
aides helped them improve their academic program.

In the spring of 1997 the school decided to drop the scheduling
changes they had created. They changed back to the egg crate model
for several reasons. Scheduling was a problem. The school and the
teachers found it difficult for everyone to have mathematics at the same
time. For the school, this meant that no assemblies or other work could
be done during this time. For the teachers, this meant their classroom
schedules were less flexible. Two, they decided the test they had created
wasn‘t accurate enough to place students in flexible or ability groups.
Three, the principal told me that an inexperienced third grade teacher
wasn‘t meeting the needs of the upper grade students who came to her
classroom.

Susan, the fifth grade teacher, reported that throughout the year

she continued to call and hold meetings with the third, fourth, and sixth

 

program as part of a district and state schools-of-choice program.

172

grade teachers to continue to develop consistency in program and in
instruction.

Susan felt that this group of upper elementary teachers had also
begun to implement the “writing across the curriculum“ idea, though the
constructed responses of students hadn't gone as far, or as deeply, as
she had hoped. This concern had to do with her growing interest in
ensuring the students performed well on the MEAP. As she explained, to
use constructed responses students were given a situation, investigation,
or problem. The students then needed to state the situation,
investigation or problem in their own words, and then answer by providing
evidence from the text. She thought her students might have performed
well on the MEAP science test because the test used constructed
responses extensively.

She believed that unless the principal started pushing for more
cohesiveness and stress on academics, the Title I Schoolwide plan would
become just another process that the teachers walked through. She was

concerned that the K-2 teachers weren't meeting to think about how

173

they could work together, nor were they developing the cohesiveness to
enable them to share students.4

She also wondered aloud why it was that central office didn't
provide oversight for principals and encourage them to encourage their
staffs to move toward the statewide goals. She felt the principals in this
district needed more oversight. She thought it would be a good idea to
have a teacher go with each principal to the central office principals'
meetings, and have them report what was going on in their schools
concerning these goals. But as noted, this central office was loosely
coupled from the schools, especially concerning school programs and
instruction.

During this first year of the Schoolwide program enactment, the
1996-97 school year, the MEAP gained prominence in this school. By the
end of the year, it provided a focus for the school and the school

organized their curriculum around this technical aspect of the policy.

 

4 The second grade teacher told me the K-2 staff traded students more
informally for both reading and mathematics, which might have caused
some interaction among those teachers.

174

W

The faculty did not discuss the MEAP during the Schoolwide
planning time. The principal mentioned it a few times. She suggested
that raising scores was an important part of continuing to be considered a
Schoolwide program. The MEAP was important to both leaders, Laura and
Susan, during the Schoolwide planning time -- though it became important
to the entire school during the first year of enactment.

As discussed above, during my first conversation with the principal
in February of 1996, (L0, 2/23/96) she told me the staff needed to
disaggregate the MEAP scores and figure out which questions or types of
questions they had to do better on. She also told me that the staff
needed to use the same language the MEAP used in classrooms to
improve scores. In a planning meeting she told the staff that the MEAP
would determine whether or not the school would be allowed to remain a
Schoolwide under Title I.

Also during the planning and enactment years Susan was
increasingly focused on the MEAP. As the fifth grade teacher, she
administered the writing and science MEAP tests. When the faculty

discussed what professional development activities to undertake the

175

following year, she pressed for help with writing, particularly constructed
responses.
l‘ .--I0 I‘ no non.- r“ .‘.'| l-Olll‘l

In the 1996-97 school year the state decided this school should be
a part of a special program for improving the school’s academic
achievement, particularly achievement on the MEAP. The state provided
a consultant to work with the school to decide on academic achievement
goals, which were defined by the MEAP; and the faculty was a part of a
MEAP workshop.

As mentioned above, state accreditation was based on the MEAP.
Schools were classified in one of three classifications: the highest was
“summary status,” the middle was “interim status,” and the lowest was
“unaccredited.” Knightly was neither in the top rung, nor in the bottom.
Nonetheless, the state decided this school should be a part of the
program.

Both of these efforts could have been a teaching and learning
opportunity for the faculty, though Laura explained that only the
workshop was helpful. Ironically, she claimed the retired superintendent

who was the school’s state consultant sought to learn how to raise MEAP

scores from her.

176

However, she found the workshop helpful. In the workshop they
worked with university people on an item by item analysis of the MEAP.
They examined each MEAP question to determine if it was “easy” or
“difficult” to answer based on the percentage of students in the state to
answer the question correctly. They compared that item to how Knightly
students responded to that item. That way, if a answer was “easy” for
the state , but “difficult” for Knightly, the staff tried to think about why
their students had not done well on that item and considered ways to
improve their score on that item or a similar item. This is much the same
strategy that that Strether Title I mathematics teacher used with the
teachers, though in that case, the Strether teacher, rather than university
faculty, worked with the school staff.

They were encouraged not to try to tackle those that were
“difficult” for the state as a whole, but to work on those that should have
been “easy.”

Laura explained that there were about six to eight questions or
types of questions and the school could raise their test scores to the 66th
percentile or above, which would make a student’s score “satisfactory.”
As she said,

There was an analysis sheet that the teachers that went to this
workshop analyzed; and they have the test questions. And we

177

have like six questions that we really need to hone in on in both
reading and math.

The most we had were like eight questions. And if we just, you
know, really hone in on just a couple, we feel we could raise those
scores above the 66 percent, which is everybody's goal.

But the school went beyond attending the workshop and examining
what types of questions the students needed to improve on the MEAP.
They also aligned the MEAP with the curriculum and curricular materials.
As Laura states,

We took our curriculum statements, and textbooks, and tradebooks

and those types of things that we use, and the MEAP assessment

to make sure that we had something that would align with

everything. (LO, 3/25/97).

They bought curricular materials that they believed were in
alignment with the MEAP. For example, Susan had been using M1913
Emmas in the fifth grade and they purchased it for the entire school.
They also purchased W for the entire school.

The fifth grade teacher, Susan, had gone to a series of MEAP
workshops and she felt the workshops were of importance both to the
school and to herself. She felt that what she learned there was in concert
with what she believed students needed to know and be able to do. She

explained that the MEAP required students to write constructed

responses.

178

She had begun having students develop constructed responses
across subject matter areas «literature, science, mathematics and social
studies. She told me that though earlier in her career she would have
been embarrassed to say it, she now was teaching to the test -- the
MEAP. (SH, 5/29/97). I asked her why she was embarrassed and what
she made of the MEAP. She said,

When I look over the MEAP, I think, “Certainly, our kids should know

this.” To me, that's a reading test. They should be able to read

through this, and we should give them the skills to be able to take
this test and do well, and I feel like we did that. And so, yeah, that
probably determined how I taught. And it determines what I do
now, because I teach from a constructed response format for any
reading that we do.

The fourth grade teacher also told me that the MEAP was
important. She mentioned to me that Michigan history was going to be
very important on the MEAP social studies test. She also told her
students (5/11/97) that they were skipping around a bit in the social
studies text because she wanted to determine if it was a good text for
the MEAP.

As the principal discussed the MEAP and its importance in the
school, I asked her what she made of it. Her response was equally as

supportive as Susan’s was, but not for instructional reasons. Instead her

response came out of a concern for how the school was judged.

179

What I make of the MEAP doesn't matter. It runs the school. It's

from the State. It determines funding. It determines whether we

get a good or bad rep[utation] (LO, 3/25/97).

The principal was very happy with the alignment process. In her
words, “It walked us through aligning the MEAP with the curriculum, and it
made us all very cognizant of what it is and what is says...”

The fifth grade teacher and the principal felt strongly that there
was much more consistency across the grades during the first year of
enactment than previously. They agreed that this was truer for grades 3-
6 than K-2. This could have been in part because the MEAP is
administered in the upper elementary grades. The 4‘" grade MEAP was
reading and mathematics, and 5‘“ writing and scienCe.

The MEAP is certainly a large part of the federal Title I and Goals
2000 legislation. The states are to create state standards and align
state tests with those standards. At the same time, the MEAP has a long
history in Michigan, beginning in the late 19603. At this time it was

gaining prominence in state policy as well as federal, particularly through

the state accreditation program.5

 

5 During the 1996-97 school year the reading and mathematics versions
were not yet updated and therefore aligned with the 1995 state student
content standards. The reading and mathematics MEAPs at this time
were first implemented in the 1989-90 school year. However, the

180

.- I O. I. O
AOIIOTII‘ .‘ 0 ‘I ‘ 00:0. 0 .00.‘0|00

This school's story calls into question the nature of what it takes to
coordinate a school’s academic efforts. At the end of the first
implementation year, this school displayed less coherence around the
programmatic or horizontal coordination efforts of a Schoolwide program
compared to the other two schools. They had tried interdependent work
relationship and had decided not to pursue them at this time. They had
no images of new Title I classroom practices. They had dropped the
internal coordination piece of their program when they dropped the multi-
age groups. That is, after having worked briefly on goals and
assessments by multi-age groups, they did not continue with this work
although the fifth grade teacher continued to press the 3rd through 6'h
grade teachers to do this.

But perhaps what they had done was equally as significant as the
multiple ways that Strether had coordinated. They hadn’t developed an
intemal focus, though through alignment, they used the MEAP as an
implicit focus. They had recognized the technical aspect of the policy

and decided to coordinate around that. They also had jointly interpreted

 

Michigan Department of Education felt the earlier MEAPs were close
enough to the state content standards to be viable tests.

181

the MEAP during their staff meetings, which might have helped them
develop professional relationships and address at least some of the social
aspects of the policy.

While conversations about the Schoolwide program introduced
conversations that could have led to discussion of learners, Ieaming and
teaching were not pursued, the use of the MEAP made it much more likely
that they would have these kinds of conversations. The IASA and Goals
2000 legislation encouraged states to test most students, which Knightly
did. The state workshops led them to talk about how the students
understood MEAP questions, and could have led to discussion about
teaching. This shows one way in which the state attended to the social
and technical aspects of the policy, by providing workshops in which
teachers could work together.

The MEAP scores were higher than the other two school's scores
during the year of planning (1995-96), and they continued to climb
through the 1997-98 school year. Indeed, it scored higher, across all
subject matter areas, than the district-wide average, and increased this
difference over time.

The two leaders, the principal and the fifth grade teacher, both

believed the school was more consistent across grade levels. By

182

consistency, they might have meant that what was taught was more
consistent, or how it was taught. I presume they focused on what was
taught because of the discussions concerning the MEAP, and what to
assess as they tried to coordinate their multi-age grouping program in the
first year of enactment.

However, they might have developed more strongly a sense of how
to each teacher taught. I observed five classrooms in this school: the
second, fourth and fifth grade, resource room and reading classrooms. At
first blush, these classrooms were managed more like one another than
they were like the classrooms in either Strether or Brooke. They were
strongly teacher-controlled and led. The teachers tolerated very little
student talking accept with the teachers themselves. The students sat in
rows in the all of the classrooms except in the small reading classes, and
during mathematics in the third grade classroom.

Each teacher mentioned to me that she felt the students needed a
structured classroom. The resource room teacher told me that resource
room students need fewer, not more distractions. Students in his room
sat in rows. The shades were often drawn, and there were no decorations

on the walls (ML, 6/5/96).

183

The second grade teacher told me that she had been teaching for
26 years and she knew the students needed structure. When I mentioned
to her that Susan, the fifth grade teacher, also told me the children
needed structure, she responded that she and Susan taught a lot alike.
Yet, she had not had the opportunity to observe Susan’s teaching.

The fourth grade teacher, who administered the reading and
mathematics MEAP tests, spent much of the time I observed her
explaining to me what she was doing and why. She mentioned the MEAP
frequently, discussing which tests (mathematics, reading and so forth)
the state was emphasizing and what students needed to know to prepare
for the various tests.

So there is strong evidence that this school coordinated around the
MEAP, that the staff used it as both a focus and as a determination of at
least the content of the curriculum for Knightly students. There is also
evidence that though teachers did not directly discuss how to teach the
content, in fact, were discouraged by their principal to discuss their
respective practices in much detail, they had a sense of how each taught.

They had opportunities to understand one another’s discipline
policies. During the staff meeting held on Wednesday mornings they had

developed a school discipline policy. Also, during the time they semester

184

they tried the multi-age grouping strategy they might have Ieamed about
one another’s practices. And finally, though their discussions of the
MEAP during the first year of enactment.
Conclusion

This school was nested in the same relatively passive district as the
other two, and left to its own devises to interpret and enact the Title I
Schoolwide program. Its student population was similar though not
identical to students in the other two schools due to bussing. But it was
quite different from the other two schools in the way they enacted a
Schoolwide and in what the Schoolwide looked like. While Strether
attended to the social and technical changes in the policy through the
strong leadership of the Title I teacher, this school ultimately attended to
the technical aspects and worked socially to understand them.

This school’s leadership was not the strong, direct leadership like
Ann DeBoer's at Strether Elementary. Instead Laura’s leadership was
focused on the formal educational system for guidance and she enabled
teachers to help lead the school’s instructional program. Susan’s
leadership was strong, however, the principal did not view her as someone
with whom she shared instructional leadership, and her influence over the

entire school was short lived. The adult Ieamers were enthusiastic and in

185

the beginning phases of learning about comprehensive school reform.
The content of the policy was not fully explained to the faculty by
outsiders. This combination ultimately led the school to invest deeply in
the aspect of the policy with the clearest and loudest message: the
Michigan Educational Assessment Program.

The Schoolwide planning process provided opportunities to discuss
instruction, though initially these discussions were discouraged. However,
they began to discuss what should be taught, if not how it should be
taught, when they planned for the multi-age group strategy. This was
discussed in creating an assessment for multi-age grouping. The MEAP
appears to have opened up both a discussion of the content as well as
the process of the curriculum.

For a short while the school coordinated around multi-age groups.
This coordination was abandoned after one semester. The principal told
me she would like to see the staff again try a school program. But, as
the fifth grade teacher noted, without stronger leadership from the
principal, it is unclear how this could happen.

The learners were early in their understanding of whole school
reform, and the MEAP had strong influence. Susan's mediation of the

MEAP was strong and Laura supported it as well. The attention they paid

186

to the MEAP probably came from several sources. The principal felt
strongly about the reputation the school would have due to the MEAP and
believed the school would need to improve MEAP scores in order to
remain a Schoolwide project. The fifth grade teacher thought the MEAP a
good assessment of what teachers should be able to teach. Unlike the
fifth grade teacher, the principal tended to judge the MEAP not by
qualities that she determined as good or strong for student learning, but
rather by what was required of her school in the public’s eye. The MEAP
was such an instrument guidance, and for strong reasons. The MEAP had
growing prominence in the state and this school in particular as the
school was selected to go through an intensive MEAP analysis course.

The strength of the MEAP, together with the instructional leaders’
willingness to use it for guidance and enactors who were relatively new to
the concept of comprehensive school reform, meant that the MEAP

gained even more prominence in this school.

187

CHAPTER FIVE
THE CASE OF DOROTHEA BROOKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL:
MEASURING THE POLICY BY INTERNAL STANDARDS

Dorothea Brooke Elementary School was working on
coordinating the school’s instructional program before the school
staff decided to become a Schoolwide program. The school’s
program was remarkably organized, making this school unique. The
classrooms’ rhythms; and the interactions between and among the
principal, the teachers, the students and the parents were not what
one would expect from having read the literature on school
organization or the culture of teaching (Lortie, 1975; Sarason, 1982)
or from having examined the other two schools in this study. The
classrooms were organized in groupings of grades K-2 or 3—5, and
the teachers team taught. The staff had organized itself around
developmentally appropriate practice, which they spoke about it at
length, between and among staff and parents. The teachers spoke
with one another not only about teaching practices in a general
sense, but also about one another’s teaching practices in particular.

The principal and teachers in this school referred to their
school as a Developmentally Appropriate Practice school, or a DAP

school. DAP was a set of principles about how to teach and organize

188

the school. Their source of guidance was not a policy instrument but
rather at set of prior knowledge and beliefs that a set of teachers
and the principal held, together with guidance from the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).

That this school’s interpretation of and response to policy was
unlike the other two schools would come as no surprise to policy
researchers as they would expect variation in implementation,
(Elmore & McLaughlin, 1988). But its response was unlike others
described in the literature. It was not a case of mutual adaptation,
(Berman and McLaughlin, 1978), or co-optation, (Berman and
McLaughlin, 1978), or an embellishment of the policy (Furhrman,
Clune and Elmore, 1988). Instead this is a case of a school having
such a clear vision and methods of operation that it imposed that
vision on the policy, seeing the social aspects of the policy but not
the technical alignment with the state standards.

The Title I program was another label to put on their highly
coordinated program -- a label they hoped would provide political
cover for the program. The policy’s press for internal social
coordination was enacted. But the press for external alignment with
the technical aspects of the policy such as state student standards
or the assessments were not. In a twist on what it means to “align”

curriculum, tests and texts, this school aligned the district’s

189

curriculum with the their definition of DAP, rather than aligning
their program with the policy instruments. While they were aware
of the policy’s technical instruments, they did not view them as a
part of Schoolwides, nor did they enact them.

As with the other two cases in this study, the teachers and
principal were left to their own devises to mediate and enact the
policy. They did not look to policy agents outside the school, to
another school, or to the policy’s legislation and attendant
documents. That is, no person or ideas that the enactors were aware
of, or structural constraints or support, suggested that there were
technical aspects of the policy that could be implemented more
fully. They didn’t look beyond their definition of DAP. The school
changed very little during the planning and early implementation
phases, because the educators didn’t or wouldn’t entertain other
ways of interpreting the policy.

in ' i l f m ri n

Brooke Elementary School, though part of Mapleton's inner-city
school system, was located in the outskirts of the city, making it
appear from the outside like a rural school. Though directly off a
highway, it sat on a road of farmhouses lined with lilac bushes, and
in May the blossoms framed a brilliantly colored path to the school.

But the setting belied this school in two ways.

190

One, it was an inner-city school in all its manifestations. Of
the 300 students, 60% were eligible for the federal free and
reduced-price lunch program. The student minority population was
strong, though unlike this district,‘ it was not majority-minority.
Twenty-four percent of the students were African-American, eight
percent were Asian, four percent Hispanic, and two percent Native
American. All students were bussed to the school from the inner
city -- the result of a Department of Justice desegregation order
that the district implemented in the 1970s.

Two, the principal and in the spring of 1996 at least half the
teachers, preached and practiced what they called Developmentally
Appropriate Practice, or DAP. DAP was a set of school and
classroom practices that was aimed at focusing on the individual
child.

D l' . D !E

Many of the ideas and practices that Brooke Elementary School
used to guide the school’s program were also promoted by the
National Association for the Education of Young Children, by other
educators, and by colleges or schools associated with early

chfldhood educafion.

 

1The district's minority population was a small majority at 51%.

191

In the spring of 1996, the first full year the entire school
implemented DAP, I asked the principal and the nucleus of teachers
to define DAP. There were elements of DAP that all respondents
touched upon -- though not surprisingly none defined it the exactly
the same and each emphasized different elements of what follows.

Overall, DAP meant that teacher were to understand each
child's knowledge, beliefs and stage of development; and then create
opportunities which would enable the child to develop more
knowledge, deeper understandings, or move to the next stage of
development. These beliefs and knowledge were based on ideas that
the teachers had read in texts by Jean Piaget, Arnold Gesell, Howard
Gardner, and others. The main concerns of this group were stages of
child development, multiple intelligences, learning styles, and
developmental domains of learning.

These ideas concerning child development, learning styles and
intelligences had implications for (1) how one ought to teach with
regard to how children’s learning, and (2) how a school’s program
ought to be organized for students. DAP then, was a set of practices
at the programmatic and instructional levels based on strongly held
beliefs and knowledge. As the principal said in defining DAP, “Well,
developmentally appropriate means that you're going to, first of all,

set the environment so children are learning in a manner that's

192

appropriate for their stage of development” (GR, 3/18/97). More
will be explained on how they set the environment in the section on
internal coordination.

So, DAP was strongly about how to teach, but not so much
about what to teach. This kind of approach could have gone hand in
hand with the state standards, core curriculum or the MEAP, but as
will become clear this school did not focus on the technical content
of the policy.

' i n DAP h l

The decision to become a DAP school started in the 1992-93
school year when the district’s then Deputy Superintendent of
Instruction thought some schools ought to become focus schools.
Initially, she encouraged Gretchen Ramone, Brooke’s principal, to
make Brooke a bilingual English-Spanish school. Gretchen liked the
idea, in part because she was Hispanic and bilingual herself. But as
she spent a summer researching bilingual schools, she developed
concerns about the logistics. How was she to hire an entirely new
staff and where would she find a group of unemployed bilingual
teachers?

Then she talked to the teachers about making this change. She
found they had additional logistical concerns. They assumed that

they would continue teaching and Gretchen would hire a few

193

bilingual teachers, but weren’t sure how the new teachers would
rotate through the classrooms. As Gretchen pondered these issues,
the Deputy Superintendent decided, together with other central
office personnel, to open an entirely new mulitcultural school and no
longer wanted Gretchen to open a bilingual school.

Nonetheless, the Deputy Superintendent continued to press
Gretchen to create a focus. Gretchen turned to the teachers for
direction and as they talked, she realized that a handful of them --
at least three of the twelve general education teachers -- had been
educated in early childhood education. Gretchen had completed her
teacher preparation courses many decades earlier but remembered
the principles of developmentally appropriate practice the teachers
were discussing. To her DAP meant that individual children were the
foci of instruction. She explained that it was very difficult to
practice this in a conventional public school in a conventional
district. Nonetheless, she wanted to give these practices a try at
Brooke Elementary.

One teacher, Marilyn Lancaster, urged Gretchen to allow her to
pilot a DAP program with two other teachers, which she did the
following year. Therefore, during the 1993-94 school year, at least
three teachers worked with K-2 classrooms and with one another. In

the 1994-95 school year the entire K-2 program moved to DAP. And

194

in the 1995-96 school year the full program of K-2 and 3-5
classrooms was implemented throughout the school. This first year
of full implementation was also the year they planned for the Title I
Schoolwide Program. I observed during the year of planning and the
following spring (1996-97 school year).

Therefore, in the beginning a fourth of the twelve teachers in
the school were actively seeking to create a DAP school. As
Gretchen recruited teachers new to the school, she recruited
teachers interested in DAP. By the time I initially observed there
were six teachers committed strongly to enacting a DAP school.
These six teachers and Gretchen formed a nucleus of those
interested in continuing to enact a DAP school and were the most
acfive.

r 'n i i

As discussed in the first chapter, to examine the process that
teachers used to plan and enact the policy, I examined the sources of
guidance that school personnel had or used to enact the policy.
Specifically, I used Fenstermacher’s generic definition of teaching
to describe and interpret the processes and content those in the
schools utilized to implement the policy. I drew on a triangle of
“teacher,” “content,” including substance and process, and

“learners.” Therefore, who was the teacher or mediator or

195

instructional leader of the policy in this school? What was the
content and process used to learn and enact the policy? Who were
the Ieamers or the enactors?
Ihe En’ngipal; Gatekeeper and lnstmgtignal Leader

During school, the principal, Gretchen Ramone, was generally
either standing just outside her office talking with a student; or
talking with her secretary in her office’s glass-enclosed foyer. An
Hispanic woman in her late fifties, Gretchen was always manicured
-- trim, clean, and polished. She wore dark suits and tinted wire-
frame glasses; her short hair was always in place. Even her jeans
and tee shirts, which she wore only when school was not in session,
looked as if they’d been freshly pressed. A soft spoken, reserved
woman, she often talked with a knitted brow. But just as the
school’s country setting belied an inner city school, Gretchen’s
conservative look belied in innovative educator who was deeply
committed to change, to improving her own practice and those of the
teachers and to making children’s learning needs the determining
factor in organizing the school.

At first it was difficult to determine who mediated the policy
because of the way Gretchen called on teachers to determine the
focus of the school and because she pointed to Marilyn Lancaster as

an exemplar of DAP. Yet, as the literature concerning principals

196

suggests, she was the gatekeeper (Berman and McLaughlin, 1978;
Fullan, 1991) for enacting the DAP in this school. She decided to
have a focus, and she chose to seek out the teachers’ expertise in
choosing the focus. After the school had chosen a focus, she ensured
that all school activities built toward that focus. She told me that
she spent much of her time identifying appropriate professional
development activities for the teachers (GR, 5/28/96). Over time,
she selected teachers new to the school by ensuring that they
wanted to work in a DAP school.

She decided whether or not teachers were going to lead and
whether or notthey had input into the direction of the school, and
whether their ideas fit into the school’s framework. In her words,

I like everybody to have the opportunity to lead. If they have

something that fits within the framework of what's best for

kids or the philosophy that I understand, or as a group we
understand, I'm ready to support it. And I'm ready to let them
take a spotlight or lead into or if they -- whichever piece they

want to play in it. (GB, 3/18/97)

Through identifying and choosing the professional development
activities, she was also the instructional leader. In addition, she
encouraged teachers to read particular books from a professional
library she had created that were in keeping with the school’s focus.

When I asked teachers about professional books they were reading,

they invariably mentioned books they had from the library. She was

197

a voracious reader and had read far and wide in the education
literature. She believed her job was to help the teachers do their
jobs. For this reason, she read many books about teaching practice
and stocked the professional library with them.

She also mediated the policy through her leadership style. She
drew upon educational literature to guide her practice as a principal.
She explained she used a vision-oriented, instructional leadership
style. On her door was a laminated sign that read, “Head Learner.“
She explained to me that in reading the school administration
literature for her master’s thesis, she learned about three different
types of leaders: a leader, a boss and a manager. Though the leader-
type was the most difficult to achieve and the most unusual, she
was determined to be a leader and measured herself by a definition
of leadership. As she said,

A leader thinks about vision, interacts with the teachers and

talks about curriculum and talks about programming and talks

about new learning and discusses books, authors. And I think

that's what a leader really does (GR, 3/18/97).

She constantly measured what she might do to be a leader,

In the back of my mind - I'm always measuring what I'm doing

as a leader. All the leadership concepts and ideas that one

studies, I ...keep those in the back of my mind. I kind of

measure myself by them. (GR, 3/18/97).

She didn’t mediate the policy in the way she described a

“manager”: one who provides only the structure of the work. Nor

198

was she a “boss,” that is, she didn’t tell teachers what to do. She
likened the “boss” to the “teacher controlled classroom.” She
believed the role of manager or boss was much more typical of
principals, and believed that some of her teachers expected and
wanted her to behave as a manager or boss. Though this made it
difficult for her to be the kind of nontraditional leader she wanted
to be, she persisted just as she persisted in making the school a DAP
school even in the face of opposition, as discussed below.

As the mediator of implementing DAP and later the Schoolwide
program, she became more inclusive and democratic in her decision-
making. She worked to develop consensus, due, in part, to the books
she had read. She was eager to share work that she thought teachers
might enjoy. The year I observed the Title I Schoolwide planning,
she was surprised that the teachers on the School Improvement
Team (a team required by law through Public Act 25 of 1991) wanted
to write the school improvement plan. And she was eager for a
particular teacher who pressed to share instructional leadership in
the school to work with other teachers.

About one third of teachers left the school over the first three
years because of the decision to become a DAP school. In the 1995-
96 school year, the first year the 3-5 grades were required to

institute the DAP program, one male teacher left the school. This

199

teacher had caused much turmoil in theschool by openly working
against the program and organizing other teachers, parents and one
school board member to work against it. The year he left was the
first year that the school put into writing the DAP program and had
the teachers and parents council sign it. Perhaps he became
convinced for the first time that the school was to be organized as a
DAP school.

One irony of her democratic leadership was that as she became
more democratic there was more conflict within the core group, and
between the core group and her. The last time I was at the school in
the spring of 1997, she had made a decision that was in opposition
to those who were a part of the core DAP group. She decided to
override their decision of adding a Reading Recovery teacher at the
expense of an aide for kindergartners. The teachers told me that
this lack of consensus in decision making threatened the integrity of
the program.

Gretchen had strong influence in this school, though she
willingly shared her work as an instructional leader with other
teachers who agreed with the school’s focus. She pressed the idea
of going to a Schoolwide program to protect their very fragile DAP
program. Her explanation of why they moved to a Schoolwide was

because the school board did not support focus schools, so she

200

wanted the DAP program to go on regardless of whether or not the
district had focus schools.

She also had influence on how teachers interpreted the purpose
of Schoolwide programs. She explained to me that Schoolwides were
an attempt to reach more children than those that schools have
traditionally reached. In her words,

What I get from Schoolwide projects is they want people in

schools to try innovative strategies. Look at the research and

apply the new ideas so that children will be more successful,
and it will also help more children because now we teach

specifically to one group of the population. (GR, 5/28/96).

Teachers in the school also mentioned the idea that
Schoolwides enabled them to reach more children through innovative
strategies. f

wl Di ii n

The policy enactors in this school included the principal and
about three-quarters of the teachers at the time of this study. Half
of the school’s twelve teachers were in the core decision making
group and another quarter were willing to learn about DAP and try to
enact it in their classrooms.

Of the seven enactors who led the way, all of them used for
guidance their prior knowledge, one another’s knowledge and

practices, their knowledge of the NAEYC, and particular authors

quoted in the NAEYC documents. They used their prior knowledge to

201

bring them closer to the NAEYC positions and their own prior
knowledge -- or perhaps dispositions -- to lead them away from
government sources of authority.

All of those in the leadership group claimed to have
undergraduate training in DAP, though two of them in a limited way.
Most remarked how they had never been in a school that actually
practiced it, though. The principal said that was because schools
hadn’t taken seriously the notion of educating all children before
now.

Nearly everyone I interviewed mentioned that Marilyn
Lancaster was a good role model for DAP. Almost all seven
mentioned having read books by Susan Kovalik and Alfie Kohn. And
they all had COpies of and referred to the NAEYC report,

" ‘OOII‘lo. zoo-on..- “L. 1‘1 ‘-_ hllhoou soon.
i i ' h h h (1987).

They brought and then continued to develop strong dispositions
toward a certain kind of teaching and schooling that encouraged
choosing particular sources of guidance.

l i i ° in h ir nm r

This was clearly the most coordinated school in the study at

the programmatic level. Almost every interaction appeared to be an

Opportunity to advance the cause and understanding of DAP, from

202

their classroom practices, to their professional development, to
their work with parents, to their attempts to provide guidance for
other district schools, and to the writing of the Schoolwide plan.

Through the DAP program, the teachers and principal
coordinated their efforts internally to address the learning of all
students in the school. In fact, coordination took place in many of
the ways I’ve chosen to examine that are more social in nature:
through a common focus, through interdependent work relationship
and through professional relationships. They did not have
opportunities to see teaching practices in the direction of the Title I
reforms, and they did not align internally or externally, exactly;
though they did align in an unusual sort of way: they aligned the
district’s curriculum to the developmental domains.

So, the school’s focus on DAP and the school’s interpretation
of what that meant, dovetailed with one aspect of Title I Schoolwide
programs, the social coordination aspect, and strategies associated
with this.

They decided to become a Schoolwide program, in part, because
they believed their school to already have a Schoolwide program.
They believed that some populations were under-served in
conventional schools and they wanted to address this. They took

seriously the aspect of the policy that concerned under-served

203

students. They took responsibility for all children’s learning. The
also wanted to create classrooms in which children of all
performance levels participated. As the policy would have it, they
made an effort to ensure that all students were served within the
classroom. Their School Improvement Plan made this one of the
major principals of DAP. It contained the following two statements.
(1) “Students with special needs will remain within the classroom
setting for all instruction, unless otherwise specified.” And (2) (We
will strive for) “inclusion of all Title I and Special Education
services for students within the classroom when appropriate for
student“ (6/96).

The work of planning this highly coordinated school took place
in the School Improvement Team. This team then took ideas to both
the full teaching staff and a parents’ council for approval.

I l r

The process the teachers and principal used to write the Title
I Schoolwide program plan was different than the other two schools
in this study. This group discussed multiple tasks using multiple
leaders simultaneously. The group was composed only of teachers
who supported the DAP approach.

I first watched the School Improvement Team work together in

June of 1996. The team was composed of the principal and 4 female

204

teachers, 3 of whom were white and 1 who was African-American.
They had all chosen to work together on a clear, 75-degree, June day
to complete the School Improvement Plan, which also served as the
Title I Schoolwide Program plan. Gretchen, the principal, later told
me that l was observing “the change process” and that it was “an
example of what should be happening in the classrooms.” (GFI,
3/18/97).

As they got started they expressed concern about the format of
the prototype plan they received from the district office. They felt
the format made it unclear and confusing as to what “they” wanted.
Then they moved to asking who “they” were, wondering aloud who
the audience for the plan might be. They had several potential
audiences, groups to whom they might need to explain their plan: the
other teachers, parents, the central office, the board, or the Title I
state or federal office.

They explained to me that they were in the third year of the
program and they had attempted or accomplished so much that it
was hard to know where to begin to explain and how best to explain
themselves.

Ultimately, they made a set of matrices. I explain a bit about
these here because they give a sense of the kinds of issues they

were debating on that Sunday in June. The plan was a set of five

205

matrices, each two to three pages. The first matrix had a set of 14
general DAP principles down the first column such as “Principle 1:
Teacher teams will offer parents educational activities about DAP
and be considered partners in their child’s education.” Across the
top row were a set of commitments to that principle including
professional development or another activity they would undertake
to address the principle. Across the top was following information
concerning each activity within the principle: when it would begin,
how it would be monitored, and when it would be complete, who was
responsible for it, how the activity would be funded, and the
evidence of success of an activity. Each box in the matrix was filled
with something. Professional development was a central activity
for four of the fourteen principles.

In addition to this matrix concerning the principles, there
were three matrices addressing academic goals, goals required by
state law. They included reading, mathematics, and science.
Finally, there was a matrix concerning social goals and student
behavior.

As they were making these matrices, there were at least two
conversations going on, though there were times when Gretchen
asked everyone to listen to a particular point a teacher was making.

Often, they turned to me to explain what they were talking about.

206

The conversation ranged from the differences between multiple
intelligences and various learning styles, to the need for research
writing, to the “cognitive hunger” that teachers experienced in
students as they worked on service learning projects, and other
t0pics. At one point, a teacher explained to me ways in which she
was in disagreement with Gretchen, the principal, as Gretchen
listened in.

This same teacher abruptly left the room at one point. No one
appeared to notice; the teachers continued debating and talking.
When she came back she was rolling a computer desk with a
Macintosh. She began writing the matrices described above and she
called out questions concerning when they were going to do what,
and appeared to have some luck getting responses.

This was the working group and they shared their ideas with
the full staff and the parent’s council. They had been working with
the full staff and the parents’ council over the full three years, but
were somewhat anxious about the next few meetings because they
wanted to have the next steps of the program in writing.

They worked together much more than simply preparing the
Schoolwide plan. They had spent countless hours over a three-year
period in program planning and enactment. During this time, they

took the staff and parent meetings seriously. Each School

207

Improvement Team member teamed up with a parent to explain to
him or her what they were doing and why they were doing it. They
spent one summer aligning the Mapleton curriculum to the
developmental domains. They did this by subject matter and by
grade level. Marilyn Lancaster and one other teacher taught other
teachers about DAP in a weeklong, district-sponsored summer
program.

These professional relationships extended far beyond the core
group, as all teachers were involved in extensive professional
development activities. The work was much more than the efforts
of the core group. All teachers were asked, to varying degrees, to
change their teaching and this meant extra time and work for all. I
was told about a kindergarten teacher who was from all reports a
good conventional teacher. She was reluctant to change, the story
went, because she had a horse farm and didn’t have the time. Still,
she and others claimed she changed her practice, and when I spoke
with her, she did not complain about the time involved.

The core group persevered in building professional
relationships. The core team estimated that in the beginning about
1/3 of the teachers were for the changes, another 1/3 accepted the
program and wanted to learn more, and 1/3 didn't want the program

instituted. The latter 1/3 grieved or threatened to grieve through

208

their union every time they were asked to attend training that
required more time than the union contract specified. But by the end
of the third year and certainly by the end of the fourth year, most
people in the school were supportive of the program, though with
varying degrees of engagement.
T1: 100 ,1 1.80m. ’l’ur- : In ‘ 0‘0‘nrlq‘ Wol’ 3‘ -. ion

At the programmatic level, two practices that affected all
teachers in this school, whether or not they closed the proverbial
classroom door, were multi-age grouping and team teaching. Each
teacher had a classroom of what would have traditionally been
kindergarten through second-grade children, or third- through fifth-
grade students. This alone required all teachers to change their
teaching to a degree. The principal thought this the most important
aspect of DAP, in that multi-age classrooms “forced“ teachers to
focus on individual children and their growth and learning as
individuals. It also allowed children to go through the three grades
at their own pace, and eliminated grade retention.

As to the team teaching, each team of two teachers could be as
much of a self-contained classroom as the two desired, although the
school’s Title I plan specified that they would be teaming 60 percent

of the school day within two years, and the teachers understood that

they were to team. The team teachers were housed next to each

209

other, and each had a door connecting their rooms so students could
pass back and forth quickly. One teacher told me that team teaching
was a very important aspects of DAP because it allowed two
teachers to get to know a child well--a “second pair of eyes” (LG,
5/5/97).

Marilyn Lancaster who was eager for Brooke to become a DAP
school, and her teammate made extensive use of individualized
instruction and center activities. They worked with students one on
one or in small groups as the others worked at centers. Another set
of teammates used cooperative learning techniques for literature
and individualized instruction for mathematics. This latter team,
interestingly, divided their mathematics students by those students
who worked well with manipulatives and those who worked well
with written symbols.

This was the only school in the study that clearly had
interdependent work relationships through team teaching. However,
there was a great deal of discussion in the school about how to
teach children, though not nearly as much on what to teach them. So
while the professional relationships in this school seemed strong,
because the teachers frequently talked about learners, learning and

teachers; there were differences in what teachers taught.

210

All the discussion about good teaching could lead one to
believe that classroom practices were similar. So, I spent a good
bit of time in this school trying to figure out what teachers made of
particular words and phrases they used to describe DAP. In
particular, I sought to understand the meaning of “individualization”
because more than one teachers suggested that individualization
was the key component of DAP.

i ' l' ' n r i

These teachers individualized the curriculum in different
ways, examples of which are included here. Aspects of their
teaching appeared to be in concert with the assumptions in the
policy while others did not. Those aspects were different by
teachers and the teaching itself, at least in those snippets of
classroom teaching I share.

I argued in the first chapter that before the 1988 amendments,
one assumption in the policy was that different students learn best
with different types of teaching. That is, that some students need a
skills-based, lock step method of teaching while others do not. In
Marilyn and Liz's classroom, all students were taught using the same
methodology. That doesn't mean that all students were exposed to
the same content, for they were not. But students were not taught

in different ways.

211

I also argued that learning occurs by building on previous
knowledge and beliefs as learners construct and reconstruct their
understandings and misunderstandings. Therefore, teaching needs to
enable students to grapple with complex problems which allow them
to problem-solve and learn skills within applications (Lampert,
1990).

So, what was the content the children were exposed to in these
two individualized classrooms, and how were students taught, and
what did it mean to individualize?

Marilyn Lancaster: l_-_lign lndiyidual Standards. Marilyn
Lancaster’s classroom practice is an example of DAP at the
classroom level. To Marilyn DAP was an individualized curriculum
based on students’ developmental stages. The teachers and principal
report that Marilyn’s practice is not only an example of DAP, but was
an exemplary practice.

Marilyn was a tall, slim woman with dark brown hair. She
obtained both her undergraduate and master’s degree in early
childhood education. In her mid-thirties, she had no children of her
own. She referred to herself as the school’s “visionary.” Her
principal, many of the other teachers, and perhaps those who
observed her classroom, did as well. Gretchen, the principal, learned

in her early discussions with teachers about becoming a focus

212

school that Marilyn was already using DAP techniques, and saw her
as the model. Gretchen told me,

Marilyn Lancaster, she really is the expert in all of the

teaching strategies and activities. And if you were to observe

her, you would be absolutely amazed. She is so good. (GFI,

3/18/97).

Marilyn recruited two teachers to pilot the program with her
in the 1993-94 school year. Each had a K-2 classroom. Eventually,
there would be six K-2 classrooms and six 35 Her principal was
pleased that she wanted to move ahead, and encouraged her to
conduct the pilot. Gretchen credited her with making the ideas
become a reality. As Gretchen said, “Marilyn really led us in a
wonderful direction, which was just excellent and really all put
together” (GR, 3/8/97).

Marilyn’s spent a great deal of time planning and preparing for
each student’s learning. She mentioned to me how much work and
energy it took, telling me as she was in her mid-thirties, she was
beginning to slow down. She also mentioned that her teammate who
was close to retirement no longer had the high energy that DAP
requhed.

Students in this classroom were on task most of the time.

Visitors did not distract them and she explained that this was in

213

part because she frequently had people observing her. They were
used to being observed.

In teaching, she used learning centers and small teacher
directed groups. Though she occasionally conducted whole group
lessons, she explained that she wanted to conduct more of her
teaching in centers, particularly mathematics; in part because this
allowed her to individualize the content of the curriculum.

As she worked with a small group, the other students worked
at centers. The students in centers worked from worksheets that
Marilyn had prepared. Each week she prepared a master worksheet
with Monday, Tuesday and so on across the top row. On the side
columns were various activities that students could undertake on a
given day. Then, she tailor made each worksheets by circling in
crayon what activity she wanted each student to undertake. She had
activities in mathematics, language arts and so on. 80, though there
was a master worksheet, at a given time each student could have
been conducting different activities in different academic areas. So
each student was working on different activities though they could
have overlapped with other students.

In addition to the center work, individualization also occurred
when she worked with groups. The reading groups she worked with

were based on achievement. Some groups were as small as one. For

214

example, each child in the room has his or her own spelling list. I
observed one child’s spelling test. When I later mentioned I had
observed the spelling test, she said, “Yes, that is completely
individualized.” She explained she individualized the spelling words
based on where she believed the child was in his or her
developmental stage. She continued that she couldn't arrange it such
that they were all learning the same words, because some of the
students were working with a fifth-grade vocabulary and they would
be “bored to death” if they were doing first-grade-spelling words.

As I watched the spelling test, she presented the second word,
and then said to the boy, “Did you study this at home?“ The student
looked down and mumbled. f

She said, “Well, I don't think you studied this at home. And I'll
tell you the reason, because here's how that word is spelled.“ She
showed him on his paper how to spell the word. "I don't think it
makes sense for you to take this spelling test. Why don't you study
these words at home?"

She then went on to explain to him what he was capable of by
referring to his age. “The more you write it, the more you'll know it.
You're getting old enough that you can see those words in your head.
I know you can do it.“ She mentioned a couple more times that he

was at an age where he can see the words in his head, varying her

215

wording slightly. She repeated that he needed to make an image of
the word in his head.

This example of the spelling test is not only an example of
individualization, but also of her belief of what children can
accomplish by particular ages and the stages of child development.
In explaining DAP, she discussed the work of Piaget and Gesell,
particularly concerning the stages that children go through and what
stage a child could be in, such as pre-operational.

She was not locked into children's ages to determine their
various stages. She stressed that children don't all learn at the
same rate or pace and felt strongly that not all children read by the
first grade. She believed that most children read between
kindergarten and second grade though mentioned that some are not
reading until third. She did not read until second grade and is now,
like her principal, a voracious reader. She said she hates it when
people say, “Well, if they aren’t reading by first grade, they're out of
it.“ (ML, 4/24/97). She did not find it problematic that not all are
reading by second grade. But she did find it problematic that the boy
described above did not know his spelling words and that by a
certain age he should be able to make images in his head of

particular words. This is an inconsistency in her practice. What if

216

children aren’t reading because they haven’t practiced enough like
the boy and his spelling?

The belief that children learn to read anywhere between the
ages of five and eight or nine might naturally lead one to group
children by multi-age groups. This enables the teacher to group
children together by achievement within an age range.

The beliefs and knowledge concerning child development and
learning that provided guidance for Marilyn’s practice are at least
twofold. One is that children go through sequential stages of
development, and that children progress through these stages
differently because of their rate or pace of learning. However, there
are certain expectations that one should hold for children by age and
what a child can do cognitively at particular ages. So, in her
classroom, children progress at their own rates through
individualized lesson plans within subject matter areas. However,
this doesn’t mean that each child isn’t pressed to advance to the
next stage of development.

In Marilyn’s practice each child’s learning is fluid. The child
progresses at his or her own rate, which is some combination of
innate ability and learned achievement. In contrast, the nature of
knowledge in this classroom is static, and the teacher strongly

mediates that knowledge. -Mrs. Lancaster had the correct answers

217

and in addition to providing a fluid curriculum for each student, her
job was to ensure that students knew those answers.

One time I observed Mrs. Lancaster working with the entire
class, reading a story. She did not ask interpretive questions, but
instead she argued with students about the meaning of the story if
their interpretations did not match hers.

She read to the students a large book titled W
that was about three bears that are preparing for a visitor. She
mentioned that it was a lot like Wm, At
the end of the story the three little bears greeted a blonde girl with
long, curly locks. Marilyn said, “Oh, I can't imagine how that
happened. What happened here? This isn't the story of Goldilocks.
But what's this story about?“

In answering this question she overrode one girl's
interpretation that this story wasn't about Goldilocks at all. She
enthusiastically responded to one boy's idea that the author had used
the Goldilock's story as a starting point, but changed it. She
instructed the students on the best comparisons between the two
stories.

These examples show some ways in which Marilyn
individualized her practice. Each child was exposed to the same

teaching processes, but not the same content. Students did not

218

grapple with complex problems, rather she held and told them the
correct answers. How does this square with Liz Grant's practice and
with the policy? Below is a peek at how Liz taught literature and

then a discussion of the differences.

-.I' 0 '0i 0 ‘ ‘ o “‘rOO‘l‘O -010.
Liz was a 48-year-old black woman, though she looked much younger.
She always wore a baseball cap -- in and out of the classroom. She
came to teaching later in life after having been a counselor and
social worker for a number of years.

To study literature, Liz created a structure for students to
learn from one another. She created small groups of students whom
she deliberately mixed by achievement levels and age. She assigned
each group a reporter, scribe, discussant, and summarizer; and
rotated these roles among the students.

After Liz set up the structure, students were in charge of their
own learning. Each group was to choose something to read from the
third, fourth or fifth grade Houghton-Mifflin textbook. As they
worked, Liz walked around the room from group to group ensuring
that all students were participating and that students were behaving
appropriately.

I sat with a group that chose to read the story ,LumajL The

group was composed of 2 white boys, 1 African-American boy and 2

219

white girls. One white boy decided to explain to me what the group
doing. After he explained the roles, the students took turns each
explaining his or her role to me. They took turns reading a page and
included me is the round robin. When they finished, the scribe asked
the group to discuss their observations, using OWL, which meant O
for observations, W for wonderings, and L for links to other ideas.
Liz did not participate in the content of these conversations, though
she did walk around the room ensuring that students were on task.

Liz also described her classroom practices as individualized.
In this example, it was individualized in that students choose the
content of work through a group process. Also, it was individualized
in that even if two groups of students chose the same selection to
read, each group was left to its own devises to determine what
content to discuss and how to discuss it.

In both rooms, then, the teachers individualized instruction.
As the assumptions in the policy would have it, they did not assume
that some students learned in one way and others in another.
Marilyn's examples show that if students learned at different rates
and paces, they could be held to high individual standards. In Liz's
room they could have learned at different rates and paces, and
within heterogeneously based groups, they were exposed to the same

content.

220

As to the policy's assumption that students construct and
reconstruct their own knowledge, Marilyn did not provide these kinds
of opportunities in the classroom because she posed the problems
the students grappled with and had the correct answers to them. For
Liz on the other hand, with some structuring the students posed the
questions and answers without much adult intervention. In these
examples, Liz did not ensure that students were grappling with
issues, questions or problems that would enable them to understand
the various interpretations of an author's meaning in the story.

In these examples, Marilyn and Liz show quite different ways
to individualize literacy lessons and what DAP might entail. They
enabled students to work at their own rate and pace. Beyond this
they differed from the policy's assumptions, as well as differing
from one another in practice. While in Marilyn's classroom, students
did grapple with complex questions and the teacher's mediation of
how and what understand was strong, in Liz's classroom they could
have grappled with complex questions, though this wasn't assured by
the teacher's mediation of the literature.

Marilyn and Liz’s practice give a sense of how difficult
coordination across classrooms can be. These two women had
worked together on a school focus of DAP for perhaps as long as five

years, and had talked through their assumptions about learners,

221

learning and teaching base on DAP. But yet their classrooms were
quite different.
Internal and Extamal Alignment: Leading the Paligy

This school's understanding of what it means to align the
curriculum was quite different from the other two schools'. This
school aligned the district curriculum to their ideas concerning
child growth and development. These ideas were not necessarily
under the rubric of the policy. This is easiest to understand when
contrasting what this school did other two schools. Strether
Elementary aligned to the MEAP somewhat and they also aligned
internally by creating grade level goals and aligning the early
elementary grades to reading strategies based on Reading Recovery.
Knightly Elementary aligned their curricular materials and teaching
with the MEAP. The MEAP was not only external to the school, but
also a large piece of the policy. Brooke did not align externally to
the district's curriculum, nor did it develop an internal alignment
strategy that enabled the teachers to align with one another.
Instead they aligned the external policy to their ideas.

in rl hil

The school aligned the district’s curriculum with early

childhood ideas concerning developmental domains; they did not

align their curriculum with the district’s. During the summer of

222

1996, the summer after the writing the Schoolwide plan, the core
leadership team spent many hours aligning the district’s curriculum
to six domains: the cognitive, social, language, aesthetic, physical
and affective domains. As they stated in the School Improvement
Plan, “Mapleton School District has aligned its curriculum with the
State Core Curriculum...Brooke School further aligns the curriculum
with the six developmental domains.” The developmental domains
come from early education literature concerning educating the whole
child. Alignment, as it was used above, meant that the teachers
ensured that each of the six domains was represented in the
district’s curriculum objectives across subject matters and across
grade levels.

This group felt that for schools in the district to serve the
whole child, they had to fill in the “massive holes” (LL 7/26/96) in
the Mapleton curriculum with each domain. One teacher explained
that as they read the mathematics curriculum, the learned it had
many cognitive objectives, but few or no aesthetic objectives; “So
you aren't doing the whole child justice“ (LL, 7/26/96). In art, they
found the opposite issue. That is, the art curriculum had few if any
cognitive objectives. They created a matrix with “subject matter“
across the top row and domains down the first column. In the

matrix, they wrote curriculum objectives in the heart of the table.

223

The teachers saw their work as helping the entire district,
though the teacher referenced above claimed in made her a better
teacher in addition. She reasoned that as the district-wide steering
committees re-wrote curriculum guides, they could “just plug in
new information [with the addition objectives based on the
developmental domains] and erase the old,” (LL, 7/26/96) in the
various matrices by grade level.

As they expanded on the district’s curriculum, they perhaps
Ieamed about the curriculum itself. But their intent was to change
the curriculum to meet DAP standards and to help inform others in
the district as well, not to align their work with the district’s
curriculum.

They also attempted to align the entire district’s report cards
with their ideas concerning DAP. First they petitioned the central
office to allow them to deviate from the standard district report
card, and use the Work Sampling System. As one teacher explained,
the Work Sampling System was a type of reporting system that
would allow parents, teachers and students to determine a student’s

cognitive growth, as well as how he or she compared to students

224

nationwide.2 Central office declined to make the Work Sampling
System the district wide reporting system, though Brooke used it.

They paid little attention to the MEAP. They tended to judge it,
rather than letting it judge them. They weren’t completely adverse
to it. Having gone through some iterations since when it was first
administered in the early 1970s, three teachers told me the MEAP
was “getting better.” They particularly liked the new science MEAP
that they described as having hands-on activities.

It was clear from their test scores that they were not
teaching to the test. In fact, this school improved little in the MEAP
test scores over the year before my first observations (1995-96)
and the following three years (1997-98). The MEAP was a criterion
referenced test and state policy makers hoped that students would
improve their test scores over time. However, this school’s scores
did not improve through the 1998-99 school year, while the other
two schools in the study did improve their scores.

It is somewhat surprising that they didn't pay more attention
to the MEAP. The state used the MEAP scores to classify schools in

the state accreditation process by using three categories: summary,

 

2 For more information on the Work Sampling System see Meisels, S.
J., F. Liaw, & A. Dorfman. (1995). “The work sampling system:
Reliability and validity of a performance assessment for young

children.” Eatly Childhood Rasaardh Quadarly 10: 277-296.

225

interim, and unaccredited. This school was classified in the interim
category, as were the other two schools. The other two schools
were not necessarily trying to achieve summary status, but they
also did not want to be in the unaccredited category. This school
appeared to be unconcerned with its categorization.

I asked Gretchen if academic standards get lost when the
school has such a strong philosophy of focusing on each child and
promoting that child's growth. She responded that I didn’t
understand what they are trying to do. As she said,

I think I know what it is you're saying, but you're coming from

the perspective of this is how high everybody should be and if

you're not this high, then you're just not achieving. But that's
not true because children and human beings develop at

different rates. And they learn in different ways. So if they're

not up here, right now on June 5th, that doesn't mean they can't
learn...that just means that they haven't had enough time. So
coming from that thinking, that's why maybe I think you have
trouble understanding this and that's very common. That's the

first thing parents and other peOple think. (GR, 6/5/96).

80 while this school coordinated internally, it did not
coordinate externally with the policy, nor take seriously the
technical aspect of the policy. They tended to believe that they

needed to educate all external forces, including parents, which they

spent many hours doing.

226

W

The policy enactors in this school believed they were on the
cutting edge of the reform, leading the way by showcasing the DAP
school -- an innovation for children who had formerly been
underserved by schools, which was a purpose of the policy (IASA, p.
3536). But the schools were to do this through the state content and
performance standards. In this school the content of the policy was
a set of ideas concerning developmentally appropriate practice.

The lead enactors also lacked trust in policy makers and
officials for several reasons. One, they found the guidance and ideas
weak or wrong. Two, they found policy guidance contradictory. And
three, they felt the central office -- one potential source of
guidance -- did not provide the kind of political resources and other
support they believed it should for their innovative program.

One teacher summed up both her distrust of policy makers and
her belief that the teachers in this school knew more than policy
makers did by saying, “When was the last time some of these policy
people taught Johnny how to read?” (KS, 6/26/96).

W One telling statements in the
conversations I conducted with these teachers about their lack of
trust concerning policy and policy makers was: “Government people

don’t know how to get at children’s learning directly, rather than

227

indirectly," (LL, 6/6/96). This remark was made during a SIT
meeting while teachers were explaining the forms the central office
and intermediate district suggested they use to show their
Schoolwide plan. The forms led them to believe that policy makers
and officials didn’t understand schools. On the heels of the
statement, a second teacher jumped in to say it is important to
explain to policy people that books and lessons plans aren’t as
important as instruction. Instead “Instruction, and what you do, and
how you spend your time is more important.” (KS. 6/6/96).

They found policy guidance contradictory, in part because they
didn’t conceive of policy as coming from multiple sources in a
fragmented and decentralized system. They didn’t consider that
different directives could come from different and loosely-coupled
organizations (Weick, 1976) within the system -- the central office,
the board of education, the intermediate district office, a state
office, or a federal office. Beyond that they often lumped their own
teachers’ union policies in with governmental policy. They thought
of policy makers as contradicting themselves -- and though policy
makers are not immune to contradicting themselves, a complication
to this in the education system is that different sets of policy

makers might contradict one another.

228

The principal, knowing my interest in policy, pointed out to
me several times how policy makers send the schools conflicting
signals. She pointed out that (1) policy makers talk about
“consensus” and then ask in legislation for teachers to “vote,” and
(2) policy makers seem concerned with violence and then require
only academic, and not social, goals in the School Improvement Plan.

Concerning Schoolwide programs, she described to me how the
programs were meant to spark innovation, yet the format for writing
the plan did not allow schools to describe their innovations.

But then when you get these requirement forms and how to

describe your program--they're very narrow and very specific

and actually don't leave any room for you to put in any
innovative ideas and to work them throughthis form. So I find

that's not congruent (GR, 5/28/96).

As pointed out in chapter two, this was a passive central
office, and passive might be too benevolent a term. As one teacher
in the school pointed out to me, the massive budget cuts the central
office imposed on the schools year after year meant that leadership
hadn’t been thinking comprehensively about the future.

These enactors felt their work history with the central office
was particularly sour. They believed that once central office had
encouraged them to become a focus school, central office should

have then supported them and promoted their program. Initially, the

central office gave 3 of the 34 schools in the district $60,000 to

229

become focus schools. This school spent most of the money on
furniture that reflected particular beliefs about teaching. There
were no traditional student desks in the building. All classrooms
had tables with one straight side and one round side. That way, two
tables could be put together to make a circle, or students could sit
against the straight side of the table and use it as a more
traditional two-person table. Having carefully crafted their
program and even the furniture for it, they felt the central office
should be showcasing the school.

But beyond this, many in the school felt the central office was
detrimental to the program because it not only did not showcase
their school, it also didn’t protect it from the political process. The
male teacher who left the school after the first year of planning,
seemed to have caused much conflict within and outside the school.
He left the school after the DAP program was in writing and
approved by parents as the Title I Schoolwide program document.
During the three years he was there, he battled the principal, the
program and the other teachers in any way he could to change the
school back to a more conventional configuration. He brought
together a parent group that opposed the program. He also talked to
one board member repeatedly about what he saw to be the

problematic aspects of the program. This board member asked that

230

Gretchen Ramone attend a board meeting and decided to use the
board meeting to tell Gretchen what a poor job she and the teachers
were doing.

The teachers didn’t understand why central office staff didn’t
prevent this from happening. They also felt that central office
should have taken on the teacher’s union and enabled Gretchen to
empty the school of staff and staff it with teachers dedicated to
DAP.

When I asked what central office could do for them, they
responded that it could provide political cover for program, and
central office staff could write grants that would enable them to
try more innovative practices. They never suggested that central
office would or could provide instructional guidance for their
program.

W This group questioned the
knowledge base of others in the central office and the district
through pushing for a different report card, and through rewriting
the curriculum. Beyond this, they also questioned the knowledge
authority of the state, district and federal levels. I asked Marilyn
Lancaster if she knew of or had observed teaching that reflected the
goals of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)

curriculum (1989) or professional (1991) standards. She responded

231

that the NCTM was so “cognitive” it didn’t provide for the whole
child. I also asked her about another DAP school that had won state,
and to some extent national, recognition for their developmentally
appropriate practices. Her response was that they were not
practicing DAP correctly.

When discussing the Schoolwide policy with the principal, she
suggested that is was an effective schools policy which was out of
date. She said, “Well, see, they might just be a little behind, just
catching up with it, don't you think? Especially if it's coming from
federal government“ (GR, 3/18/97).

The principal, in explaining to me what I was watching as I
observed the School Improvement Team writing the Schoolwide plan,
declared that I wasn't watching anything that had to do with the
policy, but rather I was observing the change process. In her words,

The Schoolwide thing is really, in the end like today; it's been

nothing. Nothing different than what we were already doing.

Nothing added extra. Nothing that taught us anything. Okay?

In that sense, it wasn't anything as far as concepts or

philosophy or approach. That was already in place for us. We

were already struggling with what we had chosen. So I would

think what you really observed had nothing to do with
Schoolwide (GR, 3/18/97).

Conclusion.
The change process in this school, as was true for the other

two schools, was led by a mediator who came from within the

232

school. This meant the policy’s only agent came from within the
school. The school did not look outside the school for guidance, not
to the legislation, other schools, someone in central office, or the
policy’s instruments such as the state standards or assessments.
They did not look to any part of the formal educational system. They
looked to their own prior and present knowledge and beliefs, as well
as an organization outside the formal governance system -- the
National Association for the Education of Young Children. In part,
they were predisposed to look to this organization because of their
beliefs concerning learning and child development.

The principal was the mediator in this school and she
interpreted the policy as enabling schools to try innovative ideas for
serving traditionally under-served populations. She and a core set
of teachers were committed to the ideas of developmentally
appropriate practice, and over time most of the school became
committed to enacting such a program.

DAP, as they referred to their classroom and school practices,
contained beliefs and knowledge about learners and learning, and
guidance as to how to organize classroom instruction and school
organization. They pursued this content by creating a set of formal
and informal understandings among themselves. They put enormous

energy into making this happen. The content of the policy in this

233

school did not include any of the technical policy instruments such
as the state standards, the district’s curriculum or the Michigan
Educational Assessment Program.

This school was socially coordinated by having a common focus
(developmentally appropriate practice), interdependent relationships
(team teaching), and professional relationships that were based on
how students learn. In these three ways, the school was remarkably
coordinated.

The policy, however, was more than a social coordination
effort. So, while they enacted a coordinated school -- one that was
coordinated around a certain type of teaching, it was not a
Schoolwide program that was closely aligned with technical aspects
of the policy.

What makes this school unique in the policy implementation
literature is that enactors used their prior knowledge and beliefs
not only as a filter through which to interpret the policy -- as might
be true in the case of mutual adaptation -- but as the policy itself.
The enactors held their beliefs so deeply and strongly, they believed
the school’s DAP program to be the policy. Mutual adaptation
suggests that this school moved slowly toward the policy’s goals as

they shaped the policy to their own context. But this school’s story

234

isn’t a case of mutual adaptation. It was a case of not hearing or
seeing aspects of the policy.

This school also wasn’t a case of policy co-optation. The core
leaders assumed they were enacting the policy. They didn’t
deliberately subvert the policy. They believed they were leading, not
following, the policy. Nor did they embellish the policy, taking it
further than policymaker’s requested. They became a Schoolwide
because it would allow them to protect and promote their politically
fragile, prior school program by putting it in writing. Thus, this

allowed them to keep their DAP program.

235

CHAPTER SIX
COMPARISON OF THE THREE SCHOOLS

Enacting Title I Schoolwide programs requires changes in
knowledge and beliefs, as well as practices, for most schools’
staffs. For one, a staff would need to change their knowledge and
beliefs about Ieamers, learning and teaching. Previously Title I was
a remedial education program based on teaching isolated skills to
low achieving students in high poverty schools. Now, Schoolwide
programs and the policy generally encourage schools to ensure that
all students gain proficiencies in ambitious state standards. This
would mean a change in technical views of what certain learners are
capable of learning, how they leam, and what and how to teach them.
It would also mean changes in social understandings as teachers and
students incorporate one another’s understandings into the
classroom curriculum.

For another, a staff would need to change the way they work
together as a faculty unit, changing the social arrangements among
them. A school may believe that Title I programs are ancillary or
separate from the school’s instructional program. Historically, it
has been common for Title I teachers or aides to work with a few

students in a pullout program that was not viewed as part of the

236

common curriculum of a school. Since the 1988 amendments and
more clearly since the 1994 amendments, the Title I legislation
encourages schools to create a harmonious or coordinated effort
that will enable all students to achieve ambitious goals; and to
organize themselves such that all staff take responsibility for the
learning of all children. Coordination of instructional efforts among
staff is unusual for most American schools. Coordination between
the Title I program and a school’s general education program is even
more usual. Yet, policymakers are asking schools to do just that:
coordinate the entire school’s program, including Title I, into one
harmonious effort.

Berman (1986), Cohen and Barnes (1993), McLaughlin (1978)
Sarason (1982) and others have argued that learning is required on
the part of those enacting policies or making changes in practice.
This indicates that school staffs would have much to learn to enact
Schoolwide programs due to the large changes. Beyond this, Cohen
and Barnes (1993) suggest in their book chapter MW
Mthat if learning is important, then perhaps the instruction
available to school staffs is an important piece of enabling schools
to Ieam to make changes, or to enact policies or other changes.

If learning is required to enact this policy and if instruction

makes this learning more effective or more efficient, then this

237

policy, and others, have embedded in them a particular teaching and
learning problem. That problem is that the changes require teaching
and learning about both technical and social matters.

At the classroom level, the technical changes that enactors
need to Ieam are state content and performance standards, and the
aligned state standards. Also, at the classroom level, enactors
would need to Ieam how to organize classrooms socially in ways
that enable teachers and students to understand one another as they
work to ensure that students achieve state standards. This could
include teachers listening to students’ ideas in order to understand
students’ conceptions and misconceptions of the subject matter. It
could also include students listening to one another’s ideas as they
work to understand a mathematics problem, a piece of literature, or
a science experiment.

At the school level, changes enactors might need to make are
also both social and technical. For example, they might need to work
together to build a common focus. Creating or having a technical
focus might require technical learning, depending on the focus.
Constructing such a focus so that it is truly common could require a
change in social arrangements as teachers work together in ways
that they might not have had the inclination or opportunity to do in

schools heretofore. Other technical and social school coordination

238

activities could include creating relationships in which teachers
work together, as in team teaching, to improve children’s
achievements; creating professional relationships in which teachers
come to agreement about the nature of Ieamers, learning and
teaching; and agreeing on a curriculum including how to teach and
what to teach.

I conducted this study to find out iflearning opportunities
exist for schools to enact these technical and social changes. And if
they do, what sources of guidance are available for those
opportunities and how that guidance is communicated. I also wanted
to know if and how schools interpret and respond to the technical
and social aspects of the policy at the school level. I wanted to
conduct provisional work on how these learning opportunities
changed the practices of teachers in their classrooms. My rationale
was that understanding if and how opportunities to learn affect the
enactment of Title I Schoolwide programs as apart of the Improving
America’s Schools Act of 1994 (IASA) and coordinated with the
Goals 2000: Educate America Act legislation would further the
research knowledge concerning policy implementation in light of
ideas concerning instruction for teachers and principals.

This study suggests that the schools in this passive school

district generally moved in the direction of the policy, while

239

enacting programs that were largely idiosyncratic across schools.
One school responded to both the social and technical aspects of the
policy. Another used the technical aspect for guidance. A third
organized themselves socially around children’s learning without
enacting an important technical aspect of the policy, the state
standards. Beyond this, the schools actively chose a policy mediator
to help them determine a source or sources of guidance for
implementation. These mediators looked both inside and outside the
formal educational system for direction. And the source of guidance
greatly influenced how the schools interpreted and enacted the
policy.
8W

I used a teaching and Ieaming frame to interpret
organizational change. To find out if learning opportunities exist for
schools enacting programs and the content and process of these
learning opportunities, I used ideas from the teaching literature. I
used Fenstermacher’s (1986) definition of teaching to help guide
what I defined as a learning opportunity as I observed schools
planning for Title I Schoolwide programs. Fenstermacher argues
that teaching is a deliberate activity on the part of one person (a
teacher) who tries (but doesn’t necessarily succeed) to impart

content (knowledge and skill or both) to someone else (a learner).

240

Therefore, in looking at schools as they planned to enact
Schoolwides I asked three sub-questions about the guidance
available to them. 1) Who (if anyone) tried to impart content to
enable them to Ieam about Schoolwides? 2) What content and
process was used to convey knowledge of Schoolwides? And 3) Who
was the intended learner?

I used teaching to examine or frame what learning
opportunities, or professional and staff opportunities, teachers and
others had to understand and respond to Title I Schoolwide programs.
The word “teaching” evokes the classroom so strongly, that in
discussing “teachers” and “learners,” at the organizational level, I
used words that are more familiar or in the education vernacular.
Therefore the “teacher of teachers” could be called the “policy
mediator” or “instructional leader” or “policy agent.” The “learner”
I generally refer to as the "enactor." In this case, I asked the
following questions concerning the sources of guidance. 1) Who was
the instructional leader? 2) What content and what process did the
instructional leader use to convey or impart knowledge to others?
3) Who Ieamed to enact the policy?

r i n
Rather than attempt to measure what, if anything, was

imparted or conveyed to those enacting Schoolwides, I examined how

241

they interpreted and responded to the sources of guidance. That is, I
did not measure what or how much enactors had learned. Instead, to
learn about enactor’s interpretations, following the qualitative
tradition, I interviewed them.

To learn about how they responded, I observed organizational
changes and classrooms during the first year of enactment. The
policy asks schools to coordinate internally to upgrade and enrich
the entire school program (IASA, p. 3534), and to align their
curriculum with state student standards (IASA, p. 3537). I used
ideas from the school restructuring and school coordination
literature, as well as ideas generated by my data, to examine how
schools responded to coordinating themselves internally in five
ways. The first was to determine the explicit or implicit vision or
focus of each school's curriculum. Many researchers have argued
that a common vision will lead to shared goals as Purkey and Smith
(1983) explain in their review of the effective schools literature.
The second was to examine attempts to create professional
relationships. Many researchers have argued that the most
important aspect of a school is its culture (Bryk, Lee and Holland,
1993; Newman and Wehlage, 1995; Seashore-Lewis, Kruse, and
Marks, 1996). The literature contains many definitions of culture

and suggests various ways to examine it. For this study, to specify

242

culture, I used professional relationships to mean that schools
attempted to create shared norms, values and understandings among
school staff concerning learners, learning, and teaching. Another
kind of relationship often explored in the literature is
interdependent relationships or relationships that are created by a
school’s structure. A clear example of this is team teaching. This
was the third way I examined changes. A fourth way I looked at
changes in school and teaching practices was to determine if visual
guidance for changes in classroom practices was available. By
visual, I mean teachers opportunities to see different ways of
teaching, through modeling or videotapes or another way. This
emerged from my data because the reading and mathematics
teachers at Strether Elementary were available for modeling
teaching practices within classrooms.

The fifth way I examined how schools coordinated internally
was through internal alignment. Alignment means that tests
measure what students are taught (S. Alan Cohen, 1983). The
activities undertaken to align internally could include writing
school goals, creating tests, trying to teach in ways that ensure that
students achieve on aligned tests, and ensuring that curriculum and
curricular materials help to promote the goals and tests. This

category, too, emerged from my data, especially at Strether

243

Elementary. To sum up, I examined these five responses during the
first year of enacting a Schoolwide program: a common focus,
professional relationships, interdependent relationships, visual
guidance for teaching practice, and internal alignment.

In addition to coordinating themselves internally, the policy
pressed schools to align with state content standards. This could
include trying to teach toward those standards and attendant tests,
or other activities such as developing or using curricular materials
or activities that are aligned. I call this strategy external
alignment and looked for examples of this in schools as a whole.

I now turn to summarizing the schools' learning opportunities
and each school's interpretations and responses to the policy. I then
compare and contrast the schools around their learning opportunities
and reactions to them.

h r I m n r h l m

Strether Elementary School’s Title I Targeted Assistance
program was a pullout program in which Title I aides worked with
students in reading and the Title I reading teacher worked with first
grade students using the Reading Recovery program. A half-time
Title I mathematics teacher also worked with students in a pullout
program. To create a Schoolwide program, the school’s staff, led by

the Title I reading teacher, reorganized the instructional program by

244

eliminating most pullouts and creating a communications center in
which Title I staff worked with all students -- not just those
identified as Title I students -- using what policymakers might
mean by “applied learning“ (IASA, p. 3540). They also studied the
Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP), particularly in
reading, to bring up the scores of all students.

These actions -- upgrading the entire program (IASA, p. 3534),
eliminating pullouts (IASA, p. 3540), creating heterogeneously based
groups for instruction (IASA, p. 3541), holding all students to the
same high standards rather than focusing on remediation (IASA, p.
3521), and encouraging the entire staff to be responsible for all
children’s learning (IASA, p. 3521) -- were ideas pressed either in
the federal and state Title I programs.

This school’s story shows how quickly a school is able to begin
to change from a Targeted Assistance program to a Schoolwide
program when the instructional leader is knowledgeable about the
Title I program and its changing purposes and goals.

Like the other two schools, this school had no outside
leadership or input to help the school enact a Schoolwide. That is,
neither the structure of the school system nor guidance from the
central office helped the school. Nor did this school look to other

schools for guidance, to professional organizations, or use federal

245

legislation or regulations. However, the instructional leader was
inspired by the state’s Title I director to become a Schoolwide, and
they used a technical state policy instrument, the MEAP, for
direction. But generally, the Title I reading teacher, Ann DeBoer saw
this as an opportunity for schools to take the lead.

Ann was more knowledgeable than any one person in the three
schools about Title I and the social and technical changes in program
and ideas embodied in Schoolwides. The combination of her
knowledge and leadership enabled her to move the school swiftly
toward an internal coordination and external alignment strategy that
was pressed by the Title I and Goals 2000 legislation.

She learned about Schoolwide programs from a talk the state’s
Title I director gave for Mapleton Title I teachers. She claimed to
have learned all she knew in that one talk. But she had an avenue for
learning about Title I more generally. Her husband was the reading
and language arts coordinator, and director of Title I, in a
neighboring district. She said that information about Title I didn’t
sift down from the Mapleton central office, but she kept up through
her husband. She also learned about education reform more
generally. She perused many catalogues and magazines for ideas for

the school, though she stated that she didn’t have time to read.

246

Ann had to encourage her principal to allow her and the rest of
the school’s teachers to enact a Schoolwide. Her principal was at
first reluctant to plan for a Schoolwide program because she thought
that having a Targeted Assistance program together with planning
for a Schoolwide program would be too much work for the school.
But Ann persevered and talked her principal into letting her provide
leadership for enactment. So, though the principal was the
gatekeeper, she was not the instructional leader. The principal said
several times, concerning Ann, “I don’t know what I’d do without
her” (WG, 2/23/96; 6/21/96; 5/22/96).

The teachers also trusted Ann. When she wasn’t in her
classroom, working with a student through the Reading Recovery
program, she was usually in a teacher’s room talking about
instruction. During a more casual moment in a full staff meeting,
one teacher shouted across the room to the principal, “If we lose
Ann, all bets are off,” (5/22/96) showing the staff’s confidence in
Ann’s leadership.

The teachers were enthusiastic enactors of the Schoolwide.
They weren’t required to attend the three after school programs that
Ann planned for them to learn about Schoolwides, though most of

them did.

247

Ann determined the overall strategy for coordination with
input from Genevieve, the principal. She also coordinated the
efforts for doing so. For instance, she hired a professional
development provider to work with the staff on literacy activities
for the classroom. She brought staff together at her house by grade
level to work on communication goals and activities to achieve
those goals. They also wrote goals for mathematics, science and
social studies, though they spent less time on these goals and did
not work on developing activities. She ran the Schoolwide planning
meetings, though in one she turned over leadership to the Title I
mathematics teachers to work with staff on the mathematics MEAP.
She also was available to model classroom teaching if teachers
requested that she do so. She orchestrated many other activities,
but these were the most obvious during the planning time.

The data I collected indicate that the school not only enacted
the technical and social aspects of the school level policy, but most
staff also enacted changes in the classrooms. They coordinated in
all the ways I discussed in the first chapter concerning
“coordination.” Ann encouraged them to work together or created a
social environment for them to create a focus, professional and
interdependent relationships, images of reformed practice, and

internal alignment. They also aligned externally with the MEAP.

248

Their focus was on communications, which they defined as
“reading, writing, speaking and listening.” And these four skills
were highlighted in nearly all of their other coordination activities.
They built professional relationships through determining grade
level goals and activities, particularly in communications. Whether
or not they developed true interdependent relationships I did not
determine, but Ann pressed the teachers and the Title I staff to
develop them through the communications room. They were able to
get visual guidance for classroom practice by having the Title I
reading and mathematics teachers model lessons in their
classrooms.

They aligned internally and externally. To align internally,
among other strategies the early grades ensured that the students
were able to use reading strategies as defined by the Reading
Recovery program. They also wrote grade level goals, particularly in
communications and activities to accomplish those goals. To align
externally, they used the reading and mathematics MEAP tests.

This case shows the power of a knowledgeable and trusted
leader, and how this leader was eager to act as the policy’s agent.
In fact, she was so steeped in Title I she might have overplayed the
prior role of reading in the Title I program through her emphasis on

communication skills, of which reading was a part. In general this

249

school moved quickly and clearly toward the technical and social
Title I goals, because they had a knowledgeable and trusted leader.
1 hl l l m

In the spring of 1996, Knightly Elementary School’s Targeted
Assistance Program had a full time reading teacher who taught a
pullout program in her room, and a part time science teacher who
taught science in the classrooms. During the planning time and first
year of enactment, how the Schoolwide program was defined shifted
as different people stepped into the leadership. They also were
coordinated socially: on Wednesday morning they met for an hour and
a half. However, they had yet to discuss the technical aspects of the
policy in these meetings.

At the end of the first year of enactment of a Schoolwide
program they had the same reading and science arrangements, but
had added to the whole school’s program. They added two
instructional aides. The principal argued, based on her assessment
as well as the teachers’ evaluations of the program that the aides
greatly enhanced the program. The aides were in charge of a “Lunch
Bunch” tutoring program that teachers recommended to students to
attend, and they also assisted in classrooms. The Lunch Bunch
program extended the day for some students, an idea highlighted in

the Title I legislation (p. IASA, 3536).

250

Knightly had changed in one other significant way as well: they
scored amazingly well on the MEAP and had clearly organized
themselves around this technical aspect of the policy. In fact, 100%
of their fifth grade students had received a “satisfactory” on the
MEAP writing test, which was unusual in any school and almost
unheard of in an inner city school. I

This school’s story shows the importance of leadership as a
means of enacting policy, as the school’s leadership and definition
of a Schoolwide shifted over time. It also shows that aligning
externally with state standards can be an organizing principle for
coordination.

During the planning period, first the principal led the process.
The way the enactors constructed this initial environment, the
school’s meetings and instructional program were distinguished by a
lack of focus. The principal led the meetings with lists of issues
she wanted to discuss with the teachers including everything from a
list of computer programs available in the school to budgeting for
Title I reading and science teachers. She would cut short
discussions that concerned instruction. And the Schoolwide plan
reflected her leadership: it was a list of activities.

The second person to lead the process was the fifth grade

teacher. She thought the school ought to enact multi-age learning

251

groups in kindergarten through second grades, and third through fifth
grades in mathematics and reading. She envisioned a school with a
strong internal alignment strategy in which pre and posttests, grade
level goals, and curriculum were aligned. She thought these
alignment strategies worked in concert with developing
interdependent teacher work relationships through the multi-age
groups of students in reading and mathematics.

With Susan, the fifth grade teacher as instructional leader, the
school enacted her vision of a Schoolwide program for one semester.
They then decided to go back to self-contained classrooms for the
time being. The principal and teachers felt they needed to regroup
for several reasons. They hadn’t thought through the difficulties of
scheduling, of differences in classroom management, of the
preparation required to work with wide ranging age groups, and of
how to ensure the pre and posttests measured the appropriate
knowledge and skill to group students by achievement.

So, through two different leaders, Laura O’Connor, the
principal and Susan Harpins, the fifth grade teacher, they had two
different leadership styles and two definitions of a Schoolwide
program. Laura’s definition was to list out the eight components of
Schoolwide programs and what the school was doing to achieve

them. Susan’s was to develop an internally coordinated and aligned

252

strategy. The teachers, having enthusiastically helped to create the
list for the initial Schoolwide program, just as enthusiastically
followed Susan’s leadership.

During the one semester of enacting Susan’s vision of a
Schoolwide program, another force was beginning to guide this
school: the MEAP. That is, during the first semester of the first year
of enactment the teachers became involved with the state program
to improve the school’s MEAP scores.

Though the MEAP was not discussed in the Schoolwide Planning
meeting, both Laura and Susan had mentioned its importance. Laura
thought it important because it reflected on the school’s reputation.
Susan thought it important because it could be helpful in improving
teaching practice. Susan said that though she should be embarrassed
because she taught to the test, she wasn’t. Instead, she thought the
MEAP’s emphasis on constructed responses was a good Ieaming tool.
(SH, 5/29/97). She taught students to write constructed responses
across the subject matters.

They became involved with the MEAP because the school was
selected by the state for extra support. Laura wasn’t sure why they
were selected because the school was not in “unaccredited” status,
nor was it necessarily in danger of becoming unaccredited.

Nonetheless the state selected some schools for extra support. This

253

extra support included a state consultant to help them write their
school improvement plan and a MEAP workshop to work through an
item by item analysis of the school’s MEAP.

This school’s alignment with the MEAP became stronger as
they dropped the internal coordination piece -- the multi age
groupings -- from their instructional program. For instance, they
bought curricular materials aligned with the MEAP.

The case of Knightly Elementary School holds two lessons for
examining the enactment of Schoolwide programs. One concerns the
means or the Ieaming opportunities the enactors had for learning
about the policy and the other raises questions about the nature of
school coordination. .

In this small elementary school one striking attribute
concerned the means of enacting the policy or who taught the
teachers’ opportunities to learn. The teacher or leader or person
who provided guidance for policy enactment shifted back and forth
between the principal and the fifth grade teacher. This process
clearly showed that the content and process used to enact
Schoolwides changed as leadership changed. This shows the
importance of the means, especially the who, as well as the how and
what, of the Ieaming opportunities the teachers had. Leadership

emerged, though the school had no guidance from the outside.

254

There is a second lesson in this school’s story. After the first
year of enactment, this school hadn’t coordinated in some of the
ways that are viewed as important in the school coordination
literature. Neither the principal nor a teacher had pressed a
particular vision or focus, though the school had implicitly focused
on the MEAP. The school did not coordinate activities between and
among teachers and students. The school had no visual models for
classroom practice.

Yet they had some strong elements of school coordination, and
these elements played out in organizing themselves around a
technical aspect of the policy, the MEAP. All teachers --
kindergarten through sixth grade -- had taken a workshop on
understanding the MEAP though the MEAP was administered in the
fourth and fifth grades. They also had interpreted how their
students were understanding the MEAP together -- indicating that
they were developing professional relationships that focused on
Ieamers, learning and teaching that had not been apparent during the
planning time. They also developed professional relationships
around the MEAP

The work with the MEAP showed in their test scores. They
increased the percentage of students who achieved satisfactory

starting in the school year 1994-95 (the year before I observed their

255

planning) through the 1997-98 school year (the year after their first
year of enactment). They outperformed the other two schools in this
study, though the poverty rate was as high as or higher than others.
They outperformed the district average during this period.

This school received guidance from the state, and brought a
willingness to use the MEAP for guidance. Unlike the other two
schools, guidance did not come almost solely from within the school;
but like the other two schools they chose their source of guidance.
The teachers continued to strongly support this movement toward
the MEAP, just as they had the work conducted under Laura’s
leadership and under Susan’s leadership.

This school’s enactment of the policy shows that schools can
coordinate by aligning themselves with a policy instrument and
enjoy success in raising their students test scores. It suggests that
the state tests need to be developed with care, ensuring that what
they measure is what students need to know and be able to do.

The case further suggests that technical strategies, such as
alignment strategies, can be helpful in enacting Schoolwide
programs, particularly if the school has opportunities to learn about
the policy instruments to which they are aligning, thus using a

social strategy to learn about a technical aspect of the policy.

256

Opportunities to discuss this alignment can lead to the beginning of
professional relationships, or shared norms and values.

This school used the MEAP to align both externally and
internally. They planned their curricular materials around the MEAP.
Their implicit focus became the MEAP. Their professional
relationships were developed around the MEAP. They dropped their
interdependent relationships; nonetheless, they continued to learn
together about constructed responses.

r k I m n r mm

Brooke Elementary School changed neither its internal
coordination strategy nor its response to the state content
standards much during the first year of planning and enactment.
This is because the enactors believed they had already enacted the
policy by creating a Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP)
school, starting two years before the Schoolwide planning year.
They took the opportunity to become a Schoolwide program to put in
place a three year written plan, which they hoped would ensure that
the school’s DAP program would not be questioned or attacked by
others.

This case shows that a school enacting a weakly specified
policy in a decentralized and fragmented political system might not

see parts of the policy. Brooke Elementary had such a clear vision

257

and method of operation that it imposed an already developed vision
on the policy, seeing only the part of the policy that was congruent
with their program. The policy’s press for internal coordination and
the social aspects of classroom practice had been enacted. But the
press for technical knowledge and external coordination through
alignment with state standards was not pursued. Not only did the
school not align their curriculum, tests and texts with the state
student standards, but staff interpreted “alignment“ to mean that
the district's curriculum should be aligned with ideas concerning
DAP. No person or ideas that the enactors were aware of, or
structural constraints or support, suggested that the policy could be
implemented more fully. V

While the lack of attention to the alignment piece of the
Schoolwide strategy was in part due to the weakly specified policy
and the decentralized and fragmented political system, it was also
due to the enactors. The enactors used their prior knowledge and
beliefs not only as a filter through which to interpret the policy --
as could be true in the case of mutual adaptation (Berman and
McLaughlin, 1978) -- but as the policy itself. Mutual adaptation
might suggest that this school moved slowly toward the policy’s
goals as they shaped the policy to their own contexts. But this

school’s story isn’t a case of mutual adaptation. It was a case of

258

not hearing or seeing aspects of the policy. This school also wasn’t
a case of deliberate co-optation (Berman and McLaughlin, 1978). The
core leaders assumed they were enacting the policy. They weren’t
subverting the policy in a deliberate way, they believed that they
were leading, not following the policy.

The principal, Gretchen Ramone, was the policy’s mediator. In
the spring of 1996, four teachers and the principal routinely met to
write the School Improvement Plan, a whole school plan required by
Public Act 25 of 1991,1 which was one and the same with the
Schoolwide Plan. They all played a leadership role by working with
other teachers and the parents’ committee to help them enact a DAP
school. But it was the principal who chose the content of the
school's program and the process through which it would be enacted.
She made the decision to become a DAP school by asking teachers
what they thought the school’s focus should be. A small group of
teachers encouraged her to make the school a DAP school.

Gretchen pressed the school to become a DAP school in subtle
and obvious ways. Gretchen not only determined the focus but also

championed the ideas of DAP as they were enacted in one teacher's,

 

‘Sharon Wellborn, the person in central office in charge of
Schoolwides, encouraged the schools to think of their School
Improvement Plans as their Schoolwide Program Plan and that is
what these schools did.

259

Marilyn Lancaster's, classroom. She also encouraged those who
believed in or understood DAP to be active on the School
Improvement Team and shaped the way they worked together. She
encouraged the School Improvement Team to define and extend their
ideas concerning DAP. She created a professional library based on
DAP ideas. She chose the professional and staff development
activities that teachers would attend. By the fourth year of
enactment (the first year the program was referred to as a Title I
Schoolwide program), she had hired many teachers in the school with
the explicit understanding that the school was a DAP school.

But Gretchen wasn't the only person in a leadership position in
this school. All four of the teachers on the School Improvement
Team and two others were strong advocates of DAP, and saw
themselves as a cohesive group in advocating for the program they
had crafted, and the practices they encouraged in classrooms. This
doesn't mean that there were no differences of opinions or conflicts
among them. As might be expected, there were. Still, they were
cohesive in focusing on DAP.

This school did not look to the central office, federal or state
policy documents, other schools, or any other part of the formal
educational system for guidance. They felt they had good reasons

not to trust policymaker’s ideas and this central office. Beyond

260

this, they looked to themselves for direction, and the guidance they
sought was from an organization completely outside the education
governance system -- the National Association for the Education of
Young Children (NAEYC), and some ideas associated with early
chfldhood educafion.

DAP was a set of practices at the programmatic and
instructional levels based on strongly held beliefs and knowledge.
To use DAP, teachers were to understand each child's knowledge,
beliefs and stage of development; and then create opportunities
which would enable the child to develop more knowledge, deeper
understandings, or move to the next stage of development. The main
concerns of this group were stages of child development, multiple
intelligences, learning styles, and developmental domains of
learning. This was the policy in this school.

As the principal said in defining DAP, “Well, ‘developmentally
apprOpriate’ means that you're going to, first of all, set the
environment so children are learning in a manner that's appropriate
for their stage of development” (GR 3/18/97). They set the
environment as much as they could to reflect their beliefs.

Of the five ways that I have suggested might make a
coordinated strategy for schools, they were coordinated with each

of them in social ways, but had not decided the content of the

261

curriculum nor to align with state content standards. That is, they
had determined how to work together as a Schoolwide program and
discussed how to teach, but not the content of the curriculum. They
had agreed on a focus of DAP, but, by definition, what students
should accomplish by grade was left open. They had professional
relationships based on how to teach, at least philosophically, and
how to work together as a school to ensure that all children would
achieve. They discussed in small and large meetings that they
discussed what learners were capable of, how they learned and how
they should be taught. They had interdependent relationships
through team teaching. They had some images to guide their
practice through the NAEYC and much discussion. They aligned
internally on how to teach. Again, however, their professional
relationships, images of the reforms, and internal alignment did not
focus on what to teach.

They aligned an external instrument to their internal beliefs.
As to an alignment strategy, they appeared to use one that enabled
at least those in the core group to know what was in the district's
curriculum by subject matter and grade level. They did not study the
district's curriculum in order to ensure that their curriculum
materials, texts and teaching were aligned. Rather, they added

objectives to the district curriculum to ensure that the six

262

developmental domains -- cognitive, social, language, aesthetic,
physical and affective -- were addressed in each subject matter and
grade level. So, they expanded on an external source of alignment or
guidance by adding their beliefs and knowledge to it.

They did not align the school's curriculum or curricular
materials with the state student content standards. And the MEAP
scores reflected this. This school scored the lowest on the MEAP
reading and mathematics tests of the three. To the extent that they
aligned themselves externally it was with the ideas on how to teach
presented by NAEYC.

The teaching practices of two of the teachers in this school,
Marilyn Lancaster and Liz Grant, show just how different teaching
practices can be even when teachers believe themselves to
understand one another's focus, beliefs and knowledge concerning
how to teach. Both teachers argued that “individualization“ of the
curriculum was essential for teaching in the DAP tradition.
However, a peek into their classrooms showed just how differently
individualization can look In practice.

Marilyn Lancaster's spelling curriculum was completely
individual by student. She also individualized by having students
working on different tasks as they worked in centers. In literature,

she led small groups of students, grouped by similar achievement. In

263

such groups she asked questions to which she had the correct
answers and encouraged students to get those answers.

Liz Grant, on the other hand, individualized in a completely
different way. In literature, she divided students into groups of five
of six students with mixed achievement levels. She then assigned
them various roles to fulfill as they discussed the literature
selection that the group had chosen. The roles rotated among the
students. For instance, one student was the scribe and would take
notes of the transactions. This way of teaching allowed each
student to participate in the discussion and have different
responsibilities in the discussions over the year. This differed from
Marilyn’s practice because “individualization“ was not a unique
curriculum for each student (though the content of the curriculum
would vary by group), but rather was an opportunity for students to
discuss their understandings of the piece of literature and work in
different roles in the group.

These different interpretations of individualization show how
difficult school coordination at the level of classroom practice can
be. Perhaps the lack of alignment to state student content
standards was in part responsible because these teachers taught
quite different content in quite different ways within this school.

The two teachers’ methods show how schools can coordinate but

264

with little internal or external alignment, teach different content
and have different understandings of what constitutes the
elementary school curriculum.

The case of Brooke Elementary School is a case of a school
with little or no external alignment with the state content
standards. They didn't see or hear the call for schools to align with
the state student content standards within the policy. Instead, the
school saw itself as leading the policy and providing guidance for
other schools that might want to develop and create a DAP school.

It -. ‘0: r ‘ro‘qo -. 0. 3‘ HI ‘

The most obvious observation about the way the policies
played out in these three schools is that they played out in
idiosyncratic ways across schools. At Strether the Title I reading
teacher led the school through a process of coordinating themselves
in a way that looked remarkably like what many Title I reformers
have called for. She started the development of the technical
alignment strategy and the social coordination strategy at the
school and classroom levels. In the other two schools the Title I
reading teachers did not play strong roles in planning the
Schoolwide. No other school so clearly enacted the coordination
piece of the policy as closely to what Title I reformers were

pressing.

265

At Knightly, two different leaders -- the principal and the
fifth grade teacher -- emerged at different times and had quite
different ideas about what the policy was asking the school to do.
Over time, the two agreed, if implicitly, on an alignment strategy
with the MEAP. This school used the technical alignment strategy
for guidance and built the social aspect of the policy into
understanding this alignment. At no other school did leadership pass
so clearly between two peOple. Nor did either of the other two
schools so strongly pursue an alignment strategy.

At Brook, the principal led teachers to enact a DAP program
which while coordinating the school internally, ignored the strategy
of alignment with the state student standards. - No other school
chose to coordinate around principles or practices that were not
mentioned or pressed by the legislation or main policy reports. So
while this school pursued the a social strategy of how to organize
the school and the classroom, they did not coordinate this strategy
with the technical alignment offered by the policy.

What accounts for these differences? The answer, in part, is
that leadership in each school had quite different opportunities for
understanding the policy. Each school worked in a near isolation
from other schools or levels of governance within the formal school

system. In no school were agents of the policy evident. That is, a

266

“teacher” from outside the schools could have provided guidance, but
was not available. One school relied on the state’s policy
instrument, the MEAP, for guidance but the other two schools did not
rely on the state extensively. None of the schools worked closely
with district personnel in interpreting the policy. In no school did
the enactors read the federal legislation or regulations. That is, a
federal policy “curriculum” they could have used for guidance was
not used. In no school did they meet with other schools that had
enacted the policy; thus they didn’t used a kind of distributed
learning model between and among schools to enact the policy.
These differences can be accounted for by the political system
within which the school system resided. Historically, the federal
government has had little influence over state and local education
policies. The IASA and Goals 2000 were the federal government’s
first foray into trying to guide the entire education system, rather
than the compensatory education system. Title I funding was tied to
Goals 2000 in this legislation, thus making the Goals 2000
legislation, which is aimed at the entire education system, quite
powerful due to Title I money. Title I is compensatory program -- a
virtual entitlement to states and districts. Therefore, districts and
schools have not had to follow Title I instructional guidelines in a

strict manner to receive Title I moneys. Though they did have to

267

follow strict finance and resource allocations guidelines, they were
free to run the instructional programs as they saw fit. A strong
example of this is the district within which these school resided,
which paid very little attention to the instructional aspects of this
Title I policy.

The Title I legislation requests that districts work “in
consultation” (IASA, p. 3530) with schools to enact Schoolwides,
yet the central office in this district did not. This central office
provided neither guidance nor support. Beyond this, the central
office did not construct any constraints. One could conceive that
even without guidance and support, this central office, had it not
been distracted by budget cuts, could have provided oversight that
restricted what the schools could do. But this central office did not.

In addition, the policy itself was not highly specified. It
wasn’t meant to be. It was meant to provide a framework for all
federal education policy, and to move the Title I system away from a
highly specified system that lacked accountability toward one in
which accountability was measured by results. But there are other
reasons the schools might have difficulty in specifying the policy in
practice. One is that not enough is yet known about the fundamental
tenets of school change and how school might best go about enacting

comprehensive school reform. Another is that perhaps

268

comprehensive school reform is so unique to each environment or
context it is not specifiable. And another is that there was much to
specify and due to new ideas concerning national or state standards,
much is still to be decided as to who is responsible for what in the
education system. Above all, because education is a local and state
concern, the federal government is in no political position be very
specific in trying to guide the entire educational system. The old
Title I, though highly regulated, delegated most instructional
decisions to states and LEAs. The new Title I with its lack of
specificity in some ways delegates even more decisions because of
the lack of definitions around “advanced skills” (IASA, p. 3524);
“higher order thinking skills and understanding” (IASA, p. 3525);
“applied learning” (IASA, p. 3540); and the like. The Title I
Schoolwide programs are in a way a federal experiment that could
enable us to understand how school coordination interacts with
systemic reform instruments.

The fragmented and decentralized political system including
this passive district, together with the weakly specified policy,
meant that the schools learning opportunities were nearly
completely constructed from within each school. This accounts for
the idiosyncratic ways in which Schoolwides played out in these

three schools. The school staff could rely only on those resources

269

within the school, whether they are physical, human or social, to
Ieam about the policy or to construct the opportunities to learn
about the policy. So, school staff, particularly leadership, looked
largely to their prior knowledge and beliefs to make sense of the
policy. The rest of this chapter will explain who these leaders
were, and what their prior knowledge and beliefs were. It will also
explain the way leaders read the policy, and the way enactors
responded to the policy.

I start by comparing the learning opportunities between and
among the schools, and the various coordination activities they
enacted.

r ' I ni i

Each school constructed activities to learn about the policy.
This makes intuitive sense. How could schools enact a policy that
they knew nothing about? Beyond this, in no school did one person
conceive of or write a plan and hand it over to the enactors. If this
had happened, it seems almost a given that the enactors would have
had to learn how to interpret and respond to the document given

them.2 At Strether, the Title I teacher and principal created a vision

 

2 Cohen and Barnes (1993) write that all policy enactments require
some learning. This policy requires many changes in beliefs,
knowledge, and skills concerning school and classroom organization,
making the need to learn about them all the more obvious.

270

for the policy, while simultaneously talking with teachers about
their ideas. They also created many learning opportunities for the
full staff to learn about and from this vision. At Knightly the
principal said that she had to have teachers buy into the strategy,
which was one reason why she opened up the entire process,
including the creation of the program itself, to all teachers. For the
short time the fifth grade teacher was the leader, she conceived of a
Schoolwide program and worked with teachers to enact it. At
Brooke, the principal together with a few teachers created a vision
which they then shared with the other teachers and parents.
IIII II I' III E I' ,7

Did someone teach each school about the policy? That is, did
someone mediate the policy or was there an instructional leader for
the enactment of the policy? In each school, the answer was yes.
Again, as might seem almost intuitive, in each school a leader
emerged. Leadership emerged and the policy’s enactors either
followed that leadership, or left the school as was the case at
Brooke Elementary.

Who emerged as the leader could not have been predicted from
that person’s employment status. It wasn’t always the principal, or
any other person within the school who provided leadership. At

Strether, the leader was the Title I reading teacher who had a good

271

relationship with the principal and the teachers, and was
knowledgeable about the Title I program. At Knightly, the leader
changed back and forth from the principal to the fifth grade teacher
and back to the principal with the support of the fifth grade teacher.
At Brooke, the leader was the principal.3

In each school the principal, was the (Berman and McLaughlin,
1978; Fullan, 1991), though not necessarily the leader. At Strether,
the principal gave her blessings to the reading teacher’s leadership
and ideas. At Knightly, the principal agreed to let the fifth grade
teacher provide leadership and the school to enact her ideas, even
though initially skeptical. At Brooke, the leader and principal were
one in the same. ’

IMJQ Enaglgd mg Eglimp

In each school, the mediator was also an enactor, as was the
rest of the school staff.

At Strether, the learners were the entire school staff. This is
because leadership emerged from within the school. Ann DeBoer was
the leader and while the after school Schoolwide planning meetings
were optional (though teachers were paid to attend), about 85 or 90

percent of the staff attended each one. And over the three meetings,

 

3 If this were a study of leadership, rather than policy enactment
one might be able to make the case the leadership in this school was

272

probably 95 percent attended one of the three meetings. While
there, the staff was engaged and working, though at times they
complained about the lack of time to finish the work they needed to
do.

At Knightly, the learners included the entire staff, including
the leaders, the principal and the fifth grade teacher, particularly as
they Ieamed from the MEAP workshop.

At Brooke, like the other two schools, the entire staff was
learning. The categories of “teacher” and “learner" tend to break
down completely because the Schoolwide planning document was
written by a committee of teachers who endorsed DAP. They learned
from one another as they wrote the document. Then the other
teachers and the parents became the Ieamers as this set of teachers
explained the plan.

In all three schools, most if not all staff, had positive
dispositions toward improving their school and teaching practices -
- particularly for disadvantaged kids. At Strether a third grade
female teacher said (5/29/96) to her male counterpart, “You know,
it is never going to be easy. We can improve, but it isn't going to be

easy!

 

distributed across the School Improvement Team.

273

To which he responded, “We will do better,” as many heads
nodded in agreement.

At Knightly a teacher said in response to learning that
Schoolwides give schools a chance to tailor their programs to their
students said, “This is exciting” (3/3/96). Again, many heads
nodded in agreement. At Brooke, the principal and teachers talked
tirelessly about the need to change schools to serve all students.

In a like manner, all three schools believed themselves to have
responded to the policy. They all felt strongly that they were
serving traditionally under-served students.

In addition, though teachers can always close the proverbial
classroom door, all staff in these schools was involved in
Schoolwide changes in one way or another. At Strether, they all
utilized the communications center. At Knightly they all took the
MEAP workshop and met on Wednesday mornings. ‘At Brooke they all
team-taught multi-age groups.
W

The process and content that each school used to learn the
Schoolwide programs followed from leadership. This was most
obvious in Knightly where as leadership changed, so did the process

and content of what was considered a Schoolwide. In each case, the

274

leader’s prior knowledge and beliefs played a strong role in the
content of what teachers learned.

At Strether the instructional leader had a strong, direct
approach. She had ideas about what she wanted the school to
accomplish during the planning year and first year of enactment, and
designed tasks so that teachers could learn more about what it was
the school was to accomplish.

She relied on her knowledge of Title I. She pushed the school
to enact many of the ideas mentioned in the Title I legislation or
research reports -- upgrading the entire program, eliminating
pullouts or remediation programs, creating heterogeneously based
groups for instruction, holding all students to the same high
standards, and encouraging the entire to staff to be responsible for
all children’s learning. She learned about Schoolwides when she
attended a talk for Mapleton reading teachers which the state
director of Title I held. In addition, her husband, a Title I director in
an adjacent district, kept her abreast of Title I changes. She also
relied on her knowledge of Reading Recovery and the teaching of
reading more generally, as the school focused on communication
skills.

Knightly changed policy mediators or instructional leader as

the school moved through the planning process. Each change in

275

leadership changed the process and content of the policy. At first,
the principal was the leader. She openly searched for guidance to
enact the policy. She called the Title I offices at the district and
state levels for a framework from which to work. She received from
the state a list of the eight Schoolwide components and used the
school’s existing program to fill out the list.

She had a strong disposition to rely on policymakers for
guidance. She mentioned to me that the district’s curriculum was in
place, but what the school staff needed to figure out was how to
implement it. When the staff began to discuss grade level goals, she
announced that they didn’t need to determine grade level goals,
because the district’s curriculum was already in place. She also
said that her opinion of the MEAP didn’t really matter, that the
students needed to score well on the MEAP. So, her disposition was
to use policy for guidance.

After this, the fifth grade teacher used her prior knowledge
and beliefs to mediate the policy. She had previously taught in a
private school in Florida, and had been a teacher in another Mapleton
School that piloted a Michigan Accreditation Program. The pilot of
the Michigan Accreditation Program included many of the eight
components of Schoolwides, and promoted the MEAP as a source of

guidance. Her method of instruction was direct as she encouraged

276

teachers to write, or borrow from other sources, test items for each
grade level so that students could be tested for placement in multi-
age groups. She also encouraged teachers to write grade level goals
to help them determine these test items. All were activities she
had learned in previous settings. The school staff worked to enact
multi-age groups in reading and mathematics, which lasted for one
semester.

In the third stage of enactment, the teachers began to organize
themselves around the MEAP by participating in a workshop
organized by the state and working on what they had Ieamed in the
workshop in their Wednesday morning meetings. Both the principal
and the fifth grade teacher thought the MEAP to be a good source of
guidance. The school began to align their curricular materials with
the MEAP.

At Brooke, four teachers and the principal met together to
hammer out agreements among themselves about what they meant by
DAP as informed by the National Association for the Education of
Young Children. This group shared a common disposition toward DAP
from prior individual experiences. All of them had been exposed to
ideas concerning DAP previous to their experience in Brooke
Elementary School. They then worked to mediate their Schoolwide

planning document for the other teachers and the parents. So the

277

leader determined the process and content of the learning
opponunhy.
W

The schools constructed their own learning opportunities; they
worked with the human and social resources that were already
available in the school, though they also continued to build these
resources as they enacted the policy. The schools chose their source
of guidance, rather than having it laid out for them.

In each school, an instructional leader or mediator emerged.
Though the principal was the gatekeeper, the mediator’s role in
influencing how the policy play out is hard to overestimate.

In each school, the process and content of what the mediator
presented was built on the leader’s prior knowledge and beliefs, as
well as dispositions toward the policy. In two cases, Strether and
Knightly, the new Title I policy and Goals 2000 legislation informed
the leaders’ technical knowledge and skill. At Strether the policy
also influenced the social relationships within the school.

The policy enactors in each school were generally enthusiastic
about enacting the policy. The enactors believed that they had
enacted the policy. In two of the three schools there appeared to be

little conflict around enacting the policy. In the third, Brooke, there

278

was much conflict; however, those who opposed the policy left the
schooL

The next section addresses issues of how schools interpreted
and responded to the policy.

I’ n I'

All three schools enacted the policy, in part because the policy
itself was not highly specified. Perhaps the spirit of the law can be
summed up as follows. Policymakers hoped that Schoolwides would
encourage teachers to assume responsibility for all children to gain
proficiencies in student standards and would coordinate across the
school, discard pullouts, and use Title I to lead change. They were to
enact the technical and social aspects of the policy. They were to
ensure that all students gained proficiency in state student content
standards through alignment with the standards. They were to
organize themselves internally to accomplish this. One might
question if Brooke Elementary enacted the policy because they did
not align with the state standards. From the school’s perspective
they did enact the policy because they held students to high
individual standards.

In this section, I answer questions about how schools
responded to the policy. Did schools organize themselves internally,

and align themselves with the state student content standards? Is

279

so, how did they? To answer this question I used six ideas, most
based in the school coordination literature. They are as follows. Did
schools develop or choose a common focus and what focus did they
choose? Did schools develop professional relationships and what did
they look like? Did schools develop interdependent relationships and
what did they look like? Were school staff exposed to images of
classroom practice that could serve as guidance? Did schools align
internally and how did they? I also asked a question about
alignment. Did they align externally and how?

[1' I E I S I IE I F 9

Every school developed a focus, though in one school it wasn’t
explicit. Each focus became the centerpiece of the curriculum
students were exposed to.

At Strether, the focus was communications, which meant
reading, writing, speaking and listening. Communications was
highlighted in each activity the staff conducted to make a
Schoolwide program. For instance, they dedicated five professional
development days to language arts activities. When studying the
MEAP, they used more time reviewing the reading sections, and
reviewed them in more detail, than the mathematics MEAP. When

writing goals by grade level they addressed the basic subject

280

matters, but for communications they also wrote activities to
achieve each goal.

The time the teachers spent in discussing and learning about
communications was reflected in the students’ activities. During
the first year of enactment, students spent more time on reading,
writing, speaking and listening in the communications center and in
the classroom. In classrooms, they worked on journals and on
creating portfolios. They spent so much time on communications, in
fact, the some teachers found these activities were crowding out
the science, mathematics and social studies curriculum.

At Knightly the focus became, over time, the Michigan
Educational Assessment Program, though the staff might not have
said the MEAP was the focus. At the beginning of the process, the
principal told me that the staff didn’t really want to have focus, and
when they discussed the Schoolwide program, they made a list of
activities to pursue -- none of which was privileged over another.
For a short time the fifth grade teacher might have said that the
focus was multi-age grouping. However, that focus lasted for only
one semester during the time I observed.

The MEAP became the school’s focus as the staff aligned
curriculum materials, the curriculum and their teaching practices to

the MEAP. More than one teacher told me the school had to turn its

281

attention to social studies because the next MEAP would concern
social studies, and that the MEAP’s encouragement of “constructed
responses” was a important part of the curriculum. The MEAP test
scores, which were higher than the other schools and higher than the
district average, showed this focus.

At Brooke the school’s focus was Developmentally Appropriate
Practice, using principles outlined by the National Association for
the Education of Young Children and early childhood education
programs. In creating the DAP goals and activities staff frequently
discussed classroom practices. DAP determined, in part, the
curriculum the children would be exposed to. However, classroom
observations showed there was wide latitude in what DAP meant in
terms of the content and process of the teaching.

Whether it was communications or the MEAP or DAP, what the
adults studied became the centerpiece of the children’s curriculum.
Though they all developed a focus, each developed a quite different
focus and this meant that students were exposed to quite different

curricula.

282

lo -. I In I: ‘H o: Oqu 3‘20] I'7

Each of the schools developed professional relationships
around the focus. This could mean that as schools created shared
understanding about learners, Ieaming and teaching, each school
might have become more cohesive. But the three schools might have
been more divergent from one another in their understandings.

The Strether staff uniformly understood that the Title I
program was no longer about a subset of the students, but about all
students in the school. That is, they were aware that all students
were to work toward high standards. They developed understandings
about what students could achieve and how they could achieve on
many fronts including exploring how students made sense of the
MEAP, creating grade level goals, aligning the early grades’ reading
curriculum with Reading Recovery strategies. They also explored
teaching activities when working with a language arts professional
development provider and when writing grade level goals. They, at
least tentatively, developed shared ideas about learners, learning
and teaching.

Knightly, too, developed shared ideas about learners, learning
and teaching, but focused its efforts on one technical aspect of the
policy: the MEAP tests. They took a workshop the state encouraged

to understand how all students performed on the MEAP and what they

283

could do to improve that performance.

A subset of teachers at Brooke Elementary continually
discussed student learning, learners and teaching, in defining DAP,
and shared those ideas with other teachers and parents.

All three schools discussed ideas concerning learners,
learning, and teaching. The policy created an opportunity for this to
happen, particularly at Strether and Knightly. At Strether, the
policy provided an opportunity for the reading teacher to gather the
staff together and have such discussions. At Knightly staff
discussed how students could understand the MEAP. At Brooke,
conversations about classroom practice preceded the Schoolwide

planning year.

Do .. I I00 l‘ '00 1‘0‘0‘ I‘I .‘-.o it?

The only school that clearly developed interdependent
relationships was Brooke. They did this through team teaching,
though each team could define them as they chose. Nonetheless, the
two teachers in each team had to at least schedule around one
another, and I know four teams did much more than schedule around
one another. At Strether the interdependent relationships between
Title I aides and classroom teachers through the communications
center, could be as strong or as weak as the two parties wanted.

Knightly developed interdependent relationships between the

284

teachers through the multi-age program they used for one semester.
Ironically, these experiences were one reason they chose to go back
to self-contained classrooms. All the teachers I talked with thought
it was a good idea that they didn’t continue this program, even
though at least the principal seemed disappointed to have given up
on it. Differences among teachers concerning classroom
management and appropriate materials for use in multi-age
classrooms surfaced.

So, all schools created interdependent relationships for at
least awhile.
DII IHI I‘VI‘H I ‘ _o_-.n ‘ I c. room ’ -. ' 7

Only one of the three schools clearly used images of new Title
I practices for guidance for classroom practices. At Strether the
Title I reading teacher and half-time Title I mathematics teachers
were available to model lessons in the classroom. A number of
teachers took advantage of this opportunity. Also, if the teachers
chose to see it as such, the communications center could be seen as
an example of authentic pedagogy.

I asked the Knightly and Brooke teachers it they had
opportunities to view videotapes or observe other teachers teach in
the way Title I policymakers are asking them to, their response was

that they had no such opportunities.

285

Any instructional guidance that schools took was what they

saw and wanted, not what was shown or imposed from the outside.
I ' rr' I I r ?

All three schools internally aligned their grade level goals
with what they were teaching students, though to varying degrees
and in different ways. Strether Elementary aligned internally in the
early grades by using the reading strategies as used in the Reading
Recovery program as a guide for all children. The also created grade
level goals and, in communications, grade level activities to match
these goals.

Knightly Elementary tentatively aligned internally by
discussing grade level goals and test items for placement in multi-
age classrooms during the first semester of enactment. But they
used them for only one semester.

A subset of Brooke Elementary’s staff aligned the district’s
curriculum to the seven developmental domains often discussed in
early elementary education. I refer to this as internal alignment
because they aligned the curriculum to their ideas, rather than
aligning their ideas or curricular materials or other such alignment
instruments to the standards. They also tried to align on how they

would teach, more than on what they would teach.

286

III hool AI01.A‘I’I wi ‘ 01 ‘l -. h. I 7

At the time data were collected, the Michigan Department of
Education was working to align the MEAP with the state student
standards. The Department’s official stance was that following the
high state student content standards would not adversely affect
achievement on the MEAP scores (SR, 1998). The Department did not
state whether or not following the MEAP would adversely affect
achievement on the standards. So, it wasn’t clear if using the MEAP
for guidance would mean that they were enacting the latest set of
standards.

Strether Elementary aligned with the reading MEAP tests and
to a lesser degree, the mathematics test. Knightly Elementary
aligned with all the MEAP tests that were in the elementary school
curriculum: fourth grade reading and mathematics tests, and fifth
grade writing and science tests. Brooke Elementary did not align
with the state student standards or the MEAP. But Brooke staff said
the Mapleton Curriculum was aligned with the state student content
standards and they spent a great deal of time aligning the Mapleton
curriculum to seven developmental domains. While this is not an
external alignment strategy it probably enabled at least the subset
of the teachers doing this work to become familiar with

expectations by grade level.

287

In these three schools, the attention paid to the MEAP was
reflected in their MEAP scores. Over a four year time period -- the
year proceeding the planning year, the planning year, the first year
of enactment, and the year following, the school years 1995-96
through 1998-99 -- Knightly scored the highest, Brooke the lowest
and Strether between the two on the MEAP tests.

Because the MEAP is a criterion referenced test it can’t be
compared across schools by simple averages. One way to compare
the schools is by the percent of students in each school that scored
a “satisfactory” compared to those in the district in reading and
mathematics. Knightly students scored satisfactory in a greater
percentage than district students did on 7 out of 8 tests (4 times in
mathematics and 3 times in reading). Strether students scored a
satisfactory in a greater percentage than district students did on 4
out of 8 tests (3 times in mathematics and once in reading). Brooke
students scored satisfactory in a greater percentage than district
students did 2 out of 8 times (once in mathematics and once in
reading).

Another way to compare the scores is by the number of times
more than 50 percent of students achieved a satisfactory score. At
Knightly more than 50 percent of students achieved a satisfactory

score 4 out of 8 times (3 times in mathematics and once in reading).

288

At Strether the number was 2 times (both in mathematics). At
Brooke on no test did more than 50% of students achieve a
satisfactory score.

The MEAP was the most obvious representation of the policy to
the schools. Though it is unclear whether the schools saw the MEAP
as one of the main components of the Schoolwide program or not, at
least two schools worked to align their curricula, teaching
practices, curricular materials, or understandings with the MEAP.

What seems remarkable about these three schools is that all
three at least started conversations that would lead to professional
relationships. That is, they all at least tentatively discussed ideas
concerning learners, learning and teaching. The policy allowed for
the time and space for this to happen. And what seems even more
remarkable is that the policy was relatively new and all three
schools were in only the early stages of enacting this standards-
based reform.

In all three schools (1) all staff were eventually brought into
the conversation about becoming a Schoolwide program, (2) staff
developed a focus that was centered on classroom practices, and (3)
staff began conversations about learners, learning and teaching. One

can imagine scenarios in which not all staff is involved in planning

289

the Schoolwide, or in which a focus is not developed or is not
centered on classroom practice, or in which the teachers do not
discuss classroom practices. Yet in these three schools, the policy
provided the opportunities to begin to discuss as a whole staff the
knowledge and beliefs underlying their practices.

In two schools, Knightly and Strether, the policy was able to
provide resources to buy time for this labor intensive work, to draw
attention to issues, to infiltrate national language, and to simply
allow conversation. In changing the nature of the conversation, the
schools began to address changes in either what was taught or how
it was taught.

n n F II w i n

My rationale for conducting this study, as stated at the
beginning of this chapter, was, to understand if and how
opportunities to learn affect the enactment of Title I Schoolwide
programs as set within the Goals 2000 legislation.

My answer to this exploratory question is that learning
opportunities did affect the enactment of Schoolwides.
Opportunities to learn greatly influenced the enactment of Title I
Schoolwide programs. And furthermore, this influence was exerted
mainly through the person who mediated the policy for the enactors.

Beyond this, because the schools were in a fragmented and

290

decentralized system, each school chose its source of guidance --
the policy didn’t provide, nor could it, a single mediator from whom
all schools enacting the policy could or should use. Hence, there was
great diversity in what the schools chose as a focus, what they
talked about, and how they organized the school’s and the children’s
curriculum. And this diversity came about in part because of the
mediator’s knowledge and beliefs.
Conclusion

This chapter suggests that the three schools, which were
situated in a fragmented and decentralized formal education system
including a passive school district, made or found learning
opportunities to enact Schoolwide programs. The schools chose a
source of guidance for these learning opportunities that included
none of some of the obvious federal guidance. No school turned to a
governmental agent -- at the federal, state or district level -- for
guidance even though one school, Knightly would have welcomed such
guidance. Knightly did ultimately avail itself of such guidance
through MEAP workshops. No school turned to the federal
“curriculum” of legislation or regulations or federal or national
reports for guidance. No school turned to other schools that had
enacted or were enacting the policy for guidance. No school turned

to a professional organization such as the National or Michigan

291

Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Because the policy is weakly specified and the educational
system of which the schools were a part of is decentralized and
fragmented, the schools had many choices of sources of guidance.
These sources were rooted both inside and outside the formal
educational system. As other studies have indicated, the principal
was the gatekeeper for these choices, if not the mediator.

This chapter further suggests an instructional leader or policy
mediator emerged to construct the learning opportunities. The
mediator emerged from different formal roles within the
organization. That is, it was a principal, a classroom teacher, the
Title I reading teacher -- a person in different formal roles. The
mediator’s understanding of the policy was created from the
mediator’s prior knowledge and beliefs together with new knowledge
of the policy. The policy, in part because it was systemic in nature,
influenced the thinking of two of the three mediators in this study.

The content of the mediator’s work with the teachers greatly
influenced the policy’s enactment. In these three schools the
mediator’s work helped schools develop a focus that enabled each
school’s staff to discuss learners, learning and teaching,
discussions that could lead to what I call professional relationships.

Finally, this chapter suggests that the sources of guidance

292

schools chose might be quite different from one another, and that
schools might enact quite different aspects of the policy. Strether
worked to learn the technical and social aspects of the policy, but
didn’t press on the technical aspect as strongly as Knightly had, nor
the social aspect as strongly as Brooke had. Knightly organized
strongly around a technical alignment strategy, and was able to
bring to bear prior social resources to this strategy. Strether
organized strongly around the social aspects of classroom and
school coordination, and the technical aspect of how to teach, but
largely ignored the technical aspect of state student standards.
This indicates that though programs might become more coordinated

within schools, programs across schools might become more diverse.

293

CHAPTER SEVEN
CONCLUSION

This study shows that as three schools enacted a systemic
standards-based reform strategy meant to ensure that all children are
taught advanced academic skills, the policy played out by school in
idiosyncratic ways. The political system and weakly specified policy
meant that the human and social resources and dispositions towards
policy within the schools influenced greatly how the policy played out.
The policy’s enactment was greatly influenced by the policy mediator in
the school and the Ieaming opportunities she provided.

The study also suggests ways in which schools like these might be
enabled to enact the policy more fully. One way is simply to allow time
for the systemic nature of these reforms to take place. Another is for
policymakers to continue to ensure that, though fragmented, the political
system begins to define what educators up and down the system are
responsible for at various levels of aggregation. These responsibilities
include not only providing somewhat abstract directions such as
standards, but also providing guidance showing how to enact such

reforms. Another source of enactment guidance could be people who are

294

prepared to work with individual schools as they enact such a policy.
Finally, the study suggests that the assessments required by the
Improving America’s School Act (IASA) of 1994 and the Goals 2000:
Educate America Act have much potential for influencing the way schools
enact the policy, and should be created and updated with care.
LessonsLeamedJmmmezIbLeefiases

The policy played out in the three schools in idiosyncratic ways for
at least three reasons. One reason was that the schools worked in near
isolation, and the human resources available within the schools meant
that the policy mediator, and the interpretations and responses varied by
school. The policy mediator in each varied in her knowledge and
understandings of the Title I program, standards based reform,
comprehensive school reform, and other issues. They also varied in their
dispositions toward learning about and from the policy. A second has to
do with why they worked in near isolation: they worked within a
fragmented and decentralized political system. The district’s central
office and the state department played modest roles in the schools’
enactments of the Schoolwide programs. A third reason was that the

policy itself was weakly specified.

295

II B . | . II S I I

The policy played out in these three schools in idiosyncratic ways in
both how the schools were organized for the delivery of instruction, and
in what was taught to students and how it was taught. Each school made
technical and social changes to their Title I program.

In the first year of enactment, students in the three schools worked
within different organizational structures and somewhat different
curricula. At Strether the technical changes meant that students were
exposed to a curriculum that emphasized what the teachers referred to
as “communication skills” in all classrooms. They conducted this work in
grade level heterogeneous groups in autonomous classrooms. All
students also worked with Title I aides in heterogeneously based groups
on communication skills in the communications center. In the center,
they had the opportunity to experience what the policy might refer to as
“applied learning” (IASA, p. 3540). A handful of first grade students
were individually pulled out once a week to work in the Reading Recovery
program.

In addition to these technical changes, teachers might have made
social changes in the way they organized their classrooms by listening to

students’ ideas, particularly concerning communication skills and the

296

MEAP. Their teachers made social changes as they worked collectively to
write grade level goals and activities, and were urged to work with the
Title I staff in the communications center.

At Knightly, students stayed in grade level autonomous classrooms.
Most likely the students were exposed to some technical changes in
curriculum as each classroom teacher developed knowledge of what was
expected of students on the fourth and fifth grade Michigan Education
Assessment Program (MEAP) tests. New curricular materials were aligned
with the MEAP. In addition, the fifth grade teacher pressed the other
teachers to teach students how to use constructed responses across the
curriculum. A science teacher came into each clasSroom to teach
science. A subset of students in each classroom was pulled out for
reading. Different students were encouraged to work with aides during
the noon hour, depending on whether or not they needed help with
classroom work expected at that time. The same two aides who ran the
noon hour program also rotated through the classrooms helping students.

Like Strether’s students, students in this school may have been
exposed to changes in the social organization of classrooms as teachers
tried to determine if they were understanding the MEAP, and as their

teachers used constructed responses to get at children’s learning. Their

297

teachers continued to develop the social resources among themselves by
discussing the MEAP and student’s responses to the MEAP.

At Brooke, students were grouped by three-year age spans with
their primary teachers. Students also had secondary teachers who team-
taught with their primary teachers. What students were taught or how
decisions were made as to what to teach them was less clear in this
school than the others, though a philosophy of how students learn and
teachers teach was well articulated.

The teachers in this school pressed on the social changes in the
policy such as how to teach students and how to arrange themselves to
teach students in a particular way. They did not press on the technical
aspects of the state standards and aligned assessments.
W

The policy played out in these various ways in part because the
schools worked in isolation and had to rely on the human resources
available in the school to mediate, interpret and enact the policy. All
three schools’ stories show that the instruction they received to enact
the policy strongly influenced how they understood the policy and how it
played out in each school. Though they played out in different ways,

there were several common elements of the enactment processes, which

298

show that the learning opportunities available influenced the outcomes,
and why they played out in different ways.

Each school chose its source of guidance, whether that was a
person, a policy instrument or another program; and within that source of
guidance they paid attention to either the technical aspects of the policy,
the social aspects or both. A policy mediator emerged and led the rest of
the school through interpreting, planning and enacting the policy. Though
the principal was the gatekeeper, the policy mediator and instructional
leader was not predictable based on her official role within the school.

In each school a significant portion of the staff participated in
either creating the Schoolwide plan or learning about and from it.
Enactors, which included the mediator, were generally enthusiastic or at
least accepting of the Schoolwide plan and enactment, or eventually left
the school. All the enactors believed they had enacted the policy.

Each mediator relied largely on her prior knowledge to provide
mediation and leadership. In two of the three schools, the mediators
used aspects of the policy to help provide guidance.

The policy mediators played a large role in the learning

opportunities available, pressing those opportunities that had to do with

299

the selected focus of each school. And the guidance schools obtained
was strongly related to the schools’ enactments of the policy.

I chose to examine five elements of coordination, which have both
technical and social aspects, to help understand how the schools
coordinated themselves for instruction. Thesewere a common focus or
vision, professional relationships, interdependent relationships, images of
classroom practice, and internal alignment. I also determined if they
made use of external alignment.

Each of the three schools had a focus, though in one school it was
implicit. Surprisingly, each of the schools addressed issues of the nature
of Ieamers, learning and teaching, and thus developed at least tentative
professional relationships; though two of the schools pressed on what and
how they were to going to teach students, while one pressed on how
they were going to teach them. Each school had independent work
relationships at least for a short time, meaning teachers literally worked
together. None of the schools had available to them images of new ways
of teaching Title I students that originated outside the school, though in
one school the Title I reading and mathematics teachers were available for
modeling teaching in classrooms. One school, Strether, clearly addressed

internal alignment. Another, Knightly, attempted to use it for one

300

semester. And the third, Brooke, aligned with a set of ideas based in
early childhood education that was not aligned with state standards.
Finally, two of the three schools aligned externally with the MEAP.

I I. I. I I I I.

Though the three schools had all these elements of the process in
common, their Schoolwide programs were strikingly different. The
mediators prior knowledge and beliefs and dispositions toward the using
the policy for guidance together with the chosen curriculum focus and the
aspects of that focus they chose to press, meant the policy played out in
quite different ways. The leaders pressed, and the enactors followed
quite different tracks.

The schools’ foci ranged from communications and ideas promoted
by Title I reformers, to the MEAP, to DAP. Within these foci, two schools
pressed on what and how to teach, and one school pressed on how to
teach. As noted above, children in each school might have quite different
experiences in schooling both in how their schools and classrooms were
organized and in the subject matters they studied.

E I D . I. I [II
Though each group of teachers discussed quite different issues,

they each had opportunities to talk about learners, learning and teaching.

301

Perhaps this was an interactive effect of having a classroom level focus
and the opportunity to discuss that focus. This interaction of the school-
level discussion with classroom-level ideas might be what Judith Warren-
Little calls “joint work” (1990). Joint work occurs when “independent
action is both enabled and constrained” (p. 521). The schools appeared
to have begun a conversation that was joint work.

Peterson, McCarthy, and Elmore (1996) write that changing
classroom instruction is a problem of learning, rather than organization.
This study suggests, however, that changing the organization or at least
discussing changes created opportunities for creating shared
understandings or Ieaming. In some instances, these opportunities were
taken up and in others, they weren’t. But rather than contrasting
organization and Ieaming with one another, this study suggests we need
to know more about their interaction.

I- -.-,, dun-hu._-. ..fl .." m

That the education political system is fragmented and decentralized
is no surprise to those who study the system in the United States
(Cohen, 1982; Cohen and Spillane, 1993; Cusick, 1992; Meyer and

Rowan, 1983; and Weick, 1976).

302

This fragmentation and decentralization accounts for at least two
reasons why the policy played out in idiosyncratic ways. One was that
the policy mediators in each school had been exposed to different and
sometimes conflicting ideas and activities concerning comprehensive
school reform and Title I classroom practices. There was a lack of
guidance from outside the school. No policy agent or other
representation of the policy was pressed upon the schools; they chose all
their source of guidance. No one outside the school was available to
point out ways in which the school could have interpreted the policy any
differently than they did. The schools did not read the legislation,
regulations or other policy documents; and they did not work with other
schools as they enacted the policy. These might have influenced the
schools to interpret the policy differently than they did.

In addition, structural or organizational boundaries did not enable or
constrain how the schools interpreted and responded to the changes
related to the policy. Though the central office had what Archbald and
Porter (1994) refer to as a strong central curriculum control -- textbook
adoption policies, curriculum guidelines and testing -- no one was either

enforcing them or helping schools to learn how to use them. The schools

303

enabled and constrained their own work, but no one from outside the
school participated.

Neither the state nor the district provided pressure or support
meaning that two potential sources of guidance were not available to the
schools. Michigan has traditionally been a local control state. Though the
State Education Agency (SEA) has increasingly been involved in
curriculum since the initial creation of the MEAP in the late 19608 and
early 1970s, this Local Education Agency (LEA) behaved as if it were
completely autonomous from the state. _ The former assistant director of
the Title I office in the district made it clear that the central office
behaved in this way. She told me (CO, 8/2/96) that the staff in central
office were “off in their own little world.” I had drawn a diagram of the
central office in the middle of a number of education constituencies -- the
state board, the state department of education, the local school board,
the parents, the teachers, the students and others -- and had connected
them with lines to try to get a sense of the relationships. She told me
that at least this central office didn’t behave in that way. She continued
by arguing that the lines between the central office and these various
constituencies were dotted lines at the most, “because they don’t listen

to any of these groups.” She then argued that the central office staff

304

complied with legislation just enough so as not to draw attention. “But,”
she concluded, “they tend to do pretty much what they want. They can
be bent, but it takes a great deal to bend them.”

The loose coupling between the central office and state office, at
least in the Title I program, was also apparent because the state director
of Title I didn’t work with the central office to encourage them to enact
Schoolwides. Instead, she made a presentation directly to the Title I
teachers in the district. The reading teacher at Strether told me that the
Title I director organized this meeting because she had heard that
Mapleton had no Schoolwides.

The loose coupling between this central office and federal direction
is evident because the central office prevented schools from becoming
Schoolwides between 1988 and 1996. Yet, the legislation directs LEAs
to inform schools of Schoolwides and then support that effort. The
Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 states that LEAs must write a
plan which assures that the agency will “inform eligible schools and
parents of schoolwide project authority” (IASA, 3530).

In this same plan, LEAs are to provide assurances that they will
“provide technical assistance and support to schoolwide programs,” and

“work in consultation with schools as the schools develop the schools’

305

plans...and assist schools as schools implement such plans” (IASA, 3530).
But the strongest role central office played in the year of planning and
first year of enactment (the spring of 1996 and the school year of 1996-
97) was its lack of participation. The co-supervisor of the Title I office,
Sharon Wellborn, was supposed to help schools enact Schoolwides. She
met with the principals of those enacting Schoolwides twice, met with the
reading teacher and principal at Stretcher once, and met with Knightly’s
staff once. That was the extent of her participation. She supported the
schools and staff felt free to call her; but she had other work to attend to
in central office.

The central office did not participate much in the enactment of
Schoolwides, though they could have both enabled and constrained much
more activity had they chosen to. In fact, Knightly school continually
sought central office help for the first half of the semester, but did not
receive it.

In the IASA, SEAs and LEAs were to make certain assurances in
their plans in exchange for their grants Yet, because of the history of the
local control in education, all federal legislation is voluntary. Title one is a
categorical program, and money is granted to states by virtue of the

target population of Title I, thus making it a virtually entitlement grant to

306

SEAs and LEAs. This might be part of the reason the central office was
so disconnected from the process and unconcerned about fulfilling the
terms of the legislation.

The state played a role in two of the three schools, Knightly and
Strether. At Strether, it was the state’s Title I director who enabled the
reading teacher to encourage the principal and other teachers to make
the school’s instructional program into a Schoolwide program.

E I. 1!! II S '['|

An additional reason schools were left to enact Schoolwides
virtually on their own was the policy lacked specificity and allowed for
wide interpretation. The policy was not meant to provide specificity. It
was meant to provide a framework for all federal legislation. It was also
meant to change the accountability measures in the Title I program.
Previously, accountability was measured by restricting and specifying Title
I allocations. In the new Title I, accountability is to be measured by
results on student assessments. In exchange schools are to have more
flexibility in how they spend Title I money.

There are other reasons, however, that may account for the lack of
specificity. Perhaps it wasn’t specified more because of the traditional

role of the federal government in education. Perhaps it wasn’t specified

307

more because it was either too much to specify, too early to specify or to
unique to each context to specify.
LQQaLQQmmijdunatiQn

As mentioned in the section on fragmentation and decentralization
in the United States education is a local or state responsibility. One way
to think of the IASA and Goals 2000 is an attempt on the part of federal
government to communicate a larger vision, rather than specific
practices. This strategy delegates much of the interpretation and
development of the policy to states, districts and schools. A part of this
vision is to urge states not only to create state level goals and
assessments, but also to ensure that these goals and assessments are
well understood at the local level. Districts might reinterpret their
curriculum based on the state standards, and help in the development of
Schoolwide programs. Schools might respond to a federal policy that has
been specified by the state and district. In these three schools, there
was wide latitude for interpretation; but SEA and LEA activity could have
specified this policy much more.
IQQMUQDJLSDEQII!

Another reason this policy was weakly specified might have been its

very comprehensiveness. In addressing so many pieces of the education

308

system all at once -- content and performance standards, assessments,
local curriculum, professional development, comprehensive school
programs and others -- it might take several years to specify what is
meant by each.

Just how comprehensive and new the idea of systemic standards-
based reform was demonstrated in the way school worked with the
technical aspect of the policy, the MEAP. Two schools invested in
working on the MEAP, but seemed to view this as a way of improving
MEAP scores rather than as a way of getting at state standards. A third
didn’t seem to understand that state standards were an aspect of the
policy, and did not invest much in learning about the MEAP. For example,
the staff at Strether Elementary worked to understand the fourth grade
mathematics MEAP. When I asked what they hoped to accomplish, the
half time Title I mathematics teachers told me that they had not reviewed
it to increase the scores of the lowest scoring students, but rather to
ensure that some of their top students did even better. Yet, by exploring
the language used on the MEAP and the language used in their
classrooms, they might have been creating way to help all children to

achieve on the MEAP and thus achieve the state standards.

309

At Knightly the principal and the fifth grade teacher talked as if the
Title I program was a comprehensive school program while the MEAP was
something separate. The fifth grade teacher thought the knowledge and
skills the MEAP required of students was valuable to students, and
worthwhile for teachers to teach. But the teachers didn’t talk about
building a comprehensive program around state standards, but rather
talked as if they were addressing comprehensive school reform and
improving MEAP scores simultaneously.

At Brooke, the school overlooked entirely the technical alignment
piece of a Schoolwide program, and did not align with the state content
and performance standards.

W

Closely related to the idea that the policy was not specified
because of its comprehensiveness, is the idea that it was too early to
specify. In some ways this policy is a national experiment, which might
help us begin to understand the relationship between systemic reform
and Schoolwide programs and the enactment of both.

The education community and larger public are in a sea change of
ideas concerning education, and the IASA and Goals 2000 add to this sea

change. Not much is yet known about how these changes will play out as

310

the process -- if it continues -- is still in the very early stages.
Nonetheless, from the classroom to the Secretary of Education,
educators are being encouraged to change their work practices. These
include calls for teachers to teach a “balanced” curriculum (Hammond,
1999), schools to make comprehensive school reforms, district
administrators to focus on instruction (Elmore, 1996), state officials to
be more actively involved in curriculum (IASA, 1994; Goals 2000), and
policymakers to re-conceive of their roles (Berman, 1986; Wilson,
Peterson, Ball and Cohen, 1996). If these changes do continue, this
study will be just an opening chapter in very long story.

But there is another issue to consider in addition to asking
educators up and down the system to change their work practices. While
local control was once a given in education policy matters, we now are in
the midst of a debate about who should be responsible for what. The
state curriculum frameworks and the IASA and Goals 2000 have
contributed to the debate and the sea change. Schmidt and Prawat
(1999) argue that we should set state or national standards, and that
teachers should have flexibility over lesson plans and delivery. But in the
last 10 to 15 years, state curriculum frameworks such as California’s have

reached far into the classroom. And there is much to decide in addition

311

to standards and lesson plans. Issues range all over the educational
system, including standards, the content of the curriculum (how and
what), scope and sequence of the curriculum, assessments, syllabi,
textbooks, bench marks, course offerings, lesson plans, lesson delivery,
grade specific goal setting, theory alignment, school organization, school
program and many others.

The purpose of this study was to understand the guidance provided
to enact changes in policy. Because the study took place in a fragmented
and decentralized political system and because the policy was weakly
specified, the study begs a couple of questions that are pieces of the
national debate.

One question: who is responsible for what at various levels of
aggregation of the education system? The IASA and Goals 2000 are
clearly a move away from local control because the states are to set
student content and performance standards at the urging of the federal
government. Though Michigan had begun the process of developing
essential skills and objectives, in the IASA the federal govemment
entered the conversation and strongly encouraged states to create
content and performance standards. This study suggests that the while

the state was quite responsive to trying to change its role and work to

312

develop state content and performance standards, the district was not
willing to change its role.

Another question: who is responsible for ensuring that these
changes are enacted at the classroom and school levels? This study
suggested that at least in passive school districts, it is the schools that
take that responsibility if they choose to enact a Schoolwide.

OI‘A 00 I0 ‘ 0 r-oI—Iou . II-o-II

Perhaps Schoolwide program policy can’t be specified in great
depth. As schools shape the policy to their own contexts, perhaps all
Schoolwides will look quite different. In addition, as many have noted,
policy is a blunt instrument.

Berman and McLaughlin (1978) suggest that the policy process is
one of mutual adaptation. That is, the policy enactors slowly move
toward the policy’s goals as they shape the policy to their own contexts.
When weakly specified policies play out in a fragmented and decentralized
system, the system and Ieaming opportunities within the system greatly
complicate the process of mutual adaptation.

Perhaps the unique ways the policies were enacted is a fixture of
our system, as much as it is an artifact of unique contexts. What the

schools in this study understood or knew about the policy greatly

313

influenced how they enacted it. So, what the three schools were
adapting to their local contexts across schools was quite different. This
suggests the policy wasn’t adapted to local contexts as much as to local
knowledge and beliefs.

Yet these knowledge and beliefs can be influenced by the learning
opportunities. Rather than adapting the policy to their local contexts,
perhaps the schools in this study had too little instruction. Researchers
(Majone and Wildavsky, 1977) have written about the policy process as
an evolutionary process in which policies are enacted slowly over time.
This study suggests that the evolution of the policy can be enhance, or
quickened, or both by educative opportunities. This was most obvious at
Strether, which was able to quickly begin to enact both the technical and
social aspect of the policy.

Conclusion

This study presented three schools that enacted a policy that
presented for policymakers and enactors teaching and Ieaming problems
that were both technical and social in nature. These schools show some
ways in which the policy will play out, particularly in schools that enact
the policy in virtual isolation. The curriculum was idiosyncratic by school,

and perhaps by classroom as well. These Schoolwides, though early in the

314

process, might have played out differently in a different central office or
state, or in schools that were enabled and constrained by the formal
education system. Brooke Elementary School enacted the social
coordination ideas in the policy without the technical alignment to the
state standards. This school’s case suggests that some schools would
need considerably more direction that enables and constrains school and
classroom practices.

Where might the support to enact such a policy come from in a
fragmented and decentralized political system? One way to ensure more
guidance would be to encourage a more nested political system in which
each level of governance had responsibilities. Responsibilities would need
to include not only the development of policy instruments, but support
for enactors to use the instruments. That is, various levels of governance
might be responsible for defining the educational system’s “curriculum”
and for “teaching” that curriculum to enactors up and down the system.

For example, the federal government might be responsible for
creating a set of national standards and assessments. This study
suggests that policy enactors up and down the system could help in
understanding and enacting those standards and assessments. The

federal government, another level of governance, or another organization

315

would need to be responsible for ensuring that SEAs make sense of the
standards and assessments, and enacted them. The same would be true
to ensure that LEAs, schools and classrooms make sense of and enact
the standards and assessments.

In this case, the federal government attempted to communicate
the policy and provide support for enacting it. This study shows ways in
which the federal government was able to communicate with districts and
schools and ways it wasn’t. That the policy was able to get schools
focused on the classroom issues seemed almost amazing. In two of the
three schools, the staff paid attention to the state’s criterion reference
test program, the MEAP. It was one instrument that appeared to have
gained attention not just in the school system, but in the general public
as well.

On the other hand, support for the policy that policymakers hoped
for wasn’t forthcoming. The money the central office spent on
professional development was to be based on the state’s content and
performance standards. I saw no such workshops in the LEA over at least
a three—year period that I followed this district.

In addition, the comprehensive regional technical assistance centers

and the educational laboratories were to give “support and assistance”

316

(IASA, p. 3548) to the SEAs for the statewide support system. The only
evidence I saw of this was that a person from the regional technical
center spent two hours lecturing to those teachers and principals who
chose to show up on a summer day in 1995. Not one teacher or principal
from the schools that planned Schoolwides the following year was there.
While this lecture might have provided an introduction to the ideas in the
policy to some schools, it would likely play a minor part in enacting a
Schoolwide program.

Strether Elementary School’s enactment of the policy suggests
that another way to ensure guidance for schools and teachers is to
develop in local communities people who are the policy’s agents and
mediators. Ann DeBoer may be an example. But Ann was in part able to
move the school quickly because of the social resources she had
developed in the school and her technical knowledge. She was part of the
school and the staff trusted her. She had a least 15 years experience
with Title I and its changes over that time. It is hard to imagine how to
garner the resources it would take to prepare enough Ann DeBoers to
work with even a subset of Michigan’s 3,500 public schools.

The case of Knightly Elementary School suggests that the states’

criterion referenced tests can be powerful tools for change, if enactors

317

have positive dispositions toward learning from and about the policy.

This school did not develop an implicit focus, nor did it have
interdependent work relationships at the end of the first year of
enactment, however, it had aligned strongly with the MEAP. They were
still organized in the egg crate fashion of traditional schools, but this
school was not traditional. The time that they had carved out to work
together on Wednesday morning coupled with their attention to the MEAP
may have developed in this school what Warren-Little refers to as “joint
work,” work that enabled and constrained their classroom practices.

This study suggests systemic standards based reform with Title I
leading the way moved two of the three schools in the direction of the
policy. Again, this is a relatively new policy and watching how these and
other schools continue to enact the policy would be instructive. Perhaps
policy makers' messages will become clearer to schools over time.

People teach in part to make learning more efficient and effective --
though this is not to argue that learning can be guaranteed to be efficient
or effective. Ensuring standards based reforms are enacted somewhat
efficiently and effectively will mean providing guidance. One way to do
this is continue to find ways to make the multiple, disjointed

organizations that make up the education system more united in their

318

efforts. Another way would be to prepare people to work more
consistently within the schools to guide the changes. Another way would
be to continue to define what it means to align with state or national
standards with particular emphasis on the assessments. Finally, some
combination of all three of these strategies might be helpful. These
might be ways to provide guidance that goes beyond messages, and that
provides the know-how to enable schools to enact the policy in ways that
ensure all children gain proficiencies in ambitious standards.

These schools show us three probable ways the policy will play out
in schools in which the policy was not mediated strongly by the state or
local governance system. These schools also show us the possible,
especially in good will. Perhaps their isolation shows that they had to
have extra will and capacity to enact a Schoolwide. Despite a lack of
support from their central office, they worked to enact the policy in ways
that they believed helped disadvantaged children. The question then is

how to find ways to capitalize on their energy.

319

APPEhDICES

320

APPENDIX A

EPPS Teacher Interview
Spring 1993

Enclosed in this little bundle are different categories of questions.
These include:

Post observation questions

Questions about categorical programs
Questions about anything new
Questions about assessment and testing
Questions about teacher learning
Pedagogical biography

Post Observation Questions

How do you feel about the day? Why do you think that? Did you
accomplish what you hoped to today? Did anything go differently
than what you expected?

Was today a typical day? If so, in what ways? If not, in what
ways? Why?

I am interested in focusing on two different events from the class I
observed. Because we are interested both in language arts and
mathematics instruction, I've selected one event from each of those
areas. I'll start with one, and ask you a series of questions about it,
and then ask you the same series of questions about the other.

Observation 1: I noticed that [plug in the relevant descriptor]

Could you tell me a little bit about [relevant descriptor]

Where did you get that idea?

Did you change the textbook/the strategy/the materials/the idea
in any way? If so, how? Why?

What were you hoping kids would get from it?

How do you think the students did?

321

Is there anything they had trouble with?
How could you tell?
Why was this a problem?

Is there anything they found easy/interesting?

Why do you think they found this easy/interesting?
How could you tell?

Is there anything you want to follow up on in future classes?
It so, what?

Why is that important to follow up on?
How might you go about doing that?

Are there ways that kids typically react to this material? Things
they find difficult, interesting, fun, boring?
If so, what?

Are there differences in the ways that students react to this
material?
If so, what?

Do girls react differently than boys? Do children from different
cultural, racial, or ethnic backgrounds react differently?
Does that affect the way you think about teaching this
material?

In what ways? Could you give me an example?
Did you teach this material in the same way last year?
If so, can you recall any differences in the way you taught it
this year and the way you taught it last year?
What were those changes?
Why did you make them?
Is there anything that you might do differently next time?

Observation 2: I was interested in the part of the day when you
did....[repeat the above questions for a second part of the day
dealing with the other subject matter]

Before I go on and ask you some more general questions, is there
anything else that you want to say about the day?

Questions about Categorical Programs

Today I'd like to focus our conversation on the categorical programs
in the school. The interview has four parts. First, I'll just ask you
to give me an overview of the programs that are offered to students
in the school. Then I'll ask you for detailed information about each
of those programs. Then I'll ask you some questions about the
coordination or relationship among those program. Finally, I need to

322

know a little something about the professional development
opportunities that instructors are offered in these programs. I am
particularly interested in how any instructional programs such a s
Chapter I or bilingual education co-exist in your school with the
curricular reforms that we are investigating in language arts and
mathematics, so any insights you have into that would be of great
interest to me.

Overview of Schoolwides in This School

Detailed Information about Title I Schoolwides
Now I'd like to get some more detailed information about the
programs you have mentioned.

Let's start with [insert here, e.g., Chapter I]:

What are the needs of the students in this categorical program?

What is the goal of the program?

What are the anticipated/hoped for outcomes of the program?

How is this program funded?

Who is involved in deciding the needs of this particular group of
students? ,

Do the needs of students vary within categorical groups?

In what ways does the program serve the students' needs?

How are the services of this program provided?

Are there special teachers? Aides? Assistants?
Is this a pull out program? Or do students stay in the room?

What are the instructional materials used in the program?

Are these instructional materials that are different from those
provided in the student's classroom?

Who makes the decisions about the instructional materials
categorical students encounter?

What are the factors that influence the decision on materials
used with this group of students?

Is there any relationship between the instructional materials
used in the specialist classrooms of categorical students and
the instructional materials used by their classroom teacher?

Are there certain skills, or curriculum that you feel this
categorical group of students should experience but do not?

What assessment materials are used in this program? How do you
measure and report student or school improvement for these
programs?

323

Have there been any changes in the assessments you use or in how
you evaluate the programs?
How would you describe those changes? In your opinion, why
did those changes take place?

Are parents involved in this program at all?
If so, how? What is the nature of parent involvement?

How and when are students placed out of the program?

What is your opinion of the effectiveness of this program?

What kind of monitoring do you do of this program?

Is there a relationship between the instruction offered in this
program and the regular classroom instruction?
If so, what?

Has this program changed in the last five years? If so, in what
ways? Why did those changes occur?

Before we move on, do you anticipate any changes in any of these
programs in the coming year?
If so, what are those changes?
What is your sense of why they will be happening?
How do you feel about them?
Will those changes affect your instruction at all?
If so, in what ways?

Professional DeveIOpment/Learning Opportunities for
Teachers and Program Aides

What kind of preparation do the specialists and the instructional
aides receive?

Who do the specialists and instructional aides work with among
the staff?

Do you know if they participate in professional development
opportunities? Where? What kind?

Questions about Anything New

One of the things that we are interested in tracking are changes that
teachers go through from year to year in their teaching. While I am
interested in anything that is new about your teaching this year, I
am also specifically interested in anything new that might be
happening in your teaching of language arts/reading/Iiteracy and
mathematics. This next set of questions is intended to help us have
a conversation about things that are different in your teaching this
year.

324

Let's start with a general question. Is there anything new in your
teaching this year? [Note: We anticipate that the ‘grain size' of
responses to this question will differ]

If so, what? Can you describe it for me.
Note: If the teacher can not think of anything, probe with the
following:
Anything new with the curriculum or textbook?
Anything new with your style of teaching? Or the strategies
you use?
Are you teaching any new tOpics?
Are you using any new materials?
Are you teaching kids in different ways?

Schoolwides

Since we are interested in language arts and mathematics teaching,
I am going to ask you several questions about your teaching in both
of these areas.

Language Arts/Reading

Is there something different in the way you are approaching your
teaching of reading and writing this year?

If yes: What?

What has contributed to these changes?

Does the textbook (or the new program) you are using having
anything to do with this? If yes: What?

Is your school doing anything different with reading and writing
instruction this year?

Has your principal--or any other administrator--said anything
about the teaching and learning of language arts/reading and
writing? What has he/she said?

Note: It may be that you, as the observer, noticed something new
in the teaching or the classroom. If this is so, please add the
following probes:

I noticed a few things that I hadn't seen before. Could you tell

me a little about [plug in the relevant descriptor here]?
Is this a new practice/idea?

325

If so, where did it come from?
How do you feel about it?

Mathematics

Is there something different in the way you are approaching your
teaching of mathematics this year?

If yes: What?

What has contributed to these changes?

Does the textbook (or the program) you are using having anything
to do with this?

Is your school doing anything different with math instruction this
year?

Has your principaI--or any other administrator--said anything
about the teaching and learning of mathematics? What has
he/she said?

Note: It may be that you, as the observer, noticed something new
in the teaching or the classroom. If this is so, please add the
following probes:

I noticed a few things that I hadn't seen before. Could you tell
me a little about [plug in the relevant descriptor here]?

Is this a new practice/idea?

If so, where did it come from?

How do you feel about it?

We've talked some about what is new for you in your own teaching.
Now I have a few questions about anything you have observed as new
in the district or state. I'll begin with a few questions about the
district.

District

Is there anything new going on in the district?
If so, can you describe it for me?

Has there been any talk at the district level about the
teaching and learning of reading and writing?

326

Potential probes: Any new personnel? Any new
materials or mandates? Has the student population
changed at all?

How about in mathematics? Has there been any talk about
teaching of mathematics in the district? [Note: Use the
same kinds of probes to find out anything about math]

State

Have you been hearing anything about the state reform
initiatives in reading and writing?
If so, what is your impression of the ideas?
How have you gotten information about them?
Do you know why these ideas were introduced?
How about in mathematics? Have you heard anything about
state reform initiative in mathematics teaching?

Have you actually seen a copy of the any of the state policies
about these ideas?

Have you talked with any other teachers about this? What have
they said? _

Has there been any talk at the district level about the state
definition/framework?

Do these ideas affect your thinking or your work with your
class?
If so, in what ways?

[Note: You'll want to probe for reading/writing and

mathematics with all of these questions]

Questions about Assessment and Testing

We are interested in the kinds of assessments and tests that you use
in your daily practice, as well as the tests that the district and
state uses. I'd like to ask you a few questions about your own
assessments--either ones that you create or ones that you use--and
then move on to the district and state tests.

What kinds of assessment do you find yourself using most often in
your teaching?

For example, what kinds of assessment would you use to
accompany the work that I saw you do with your students in class

327

today? [Note: If you saw some things that looked like forms of
assessment that were used during class, you should ask separate
questions probing on each of those. Also, if you see any evidence
in the room of other kinds of assessment--portfolios, for
example, you should ask the teacher to explain what they are and
how they are used. Among the questions you might consider
asking are:

Can you tell me how you use that assessment?
How long have you been doing that?
Where did you get the idea to do that?

Now that we've talked some about the assessments that you use
most often as a teacher, I'd like to spend a little time talking about
district and state level tests.

Can you list for me the tests that are used by your district and
state?

What do you know about each of these?

How have you gotten information about it (them)?

Have you actually seen copies?

Do you know why these tests were introduced?

Do these tests seem different from those that the district or
state was using before? If so, can you tell me how?

Have any of the other teachers commented on these tests? What
have they said?

Has your principaI--or any other administrator--said anything
about these tests? What has he/she said?

How does the district use the information obtained through these
tests? How do you feel about the way that they are used?

Do you have any sense about how parents think about these tests?
Is there anything in particular that the parents of your
students care about regarding these tests?

How do your kids perform on these tests, in general?

Do your students perform differently on these tests than on the
ones they used to take?

How would you compare the several tests that your kids take?
Are the tests testing similar or different things? In similar
or different ways? What do you think of those similarities and
differences?

Do these tests affect your thinking or your work with your class?
In what ways?

328

Are these tests valuable to you? Why or why not? In what ways?

If there were no state or district assessments, would you teach
any differently than you currently do? Why or why not? What
would be different?

Do you prepare your students for these tests in any particular
ways? How? (or why not?)

Do you know how any of your colleagues prepare students for the
tests? How?

Questions aboutTeacher Learning

We've been talking about your teaching of reading and mathematics--
and about changes in each. One of the things we are interested in is
where and under what conditions teachers have opportunities to
learn new things. And we're interested in what they do learn and
what they want to learn.

As you think about what you are doing this year, can you think of
things that you have learned or that you are Ieaming related to your
teaching-in general or related specifically to reading or math?

What? Can you give me a specific example?

How did you learn this?

Has there been anything in particular that has contributed to your
learning?

Has there been anything that has impeded your learning? .

Can you think of anything that you would like to be able to do in your
teaching but are currently unable to do? If so, can you tell me about
that. Can you tell me why you can't do that thing at this time? What
might it take to be able to do that?

As you think about the kinds of changes that are called for in these
reforms that we've been talking about, is there anything in
particular that you think you need to know more about?

If so, how would you go about doing that?

What kinds of resources or supports would be helpful to you?

Have you been to any professional development workshops or
inservices this past year?

If so, could you describe those for me?

Did you find them helpful?

What did you learn?

329

Do you have any plans for attending any professional development
workshops this sspring or summer?

If so, what are they?

Could you describe them for me?

Have you been involved as a teacher or presenter in any workshops?
If so, can you describe that experience for me?
What was your role?
How did you get involved?
What did you Ieam from the experience?

Pedagogical biography

We have found in our work thus far that it helps to know things
about the backgrounds of the teachers we interview. I'd like to ask
you some questions about your own biography so that I can get a
better sense of who you are as a person. If you find any of these
questions offensive or intrusive, please just tell me. The intention
here is for me to gain insight into your personal history and how
that affects your teaching, not to be nosy.

Basic biographical facts:

Can you tell me where you grew up?
Where did you go to college?
What did you major in?
Where did you get your teaching certificate?
What kind of certification do you have?
Have you gone back to school at any time since graduation from
coHege?
If so, do you have any additional degrees?
What are they in?
Where are they from?
When did you receive them?
How long have you been a teacher?
Where have you taught?
What grades?
How long have you taught in this school?
What grades have you taught?
Do you have any children?
If so, what are their ages?
Where do they attend school?

330

Does having children of your own affect your thinking about
teaching and learning? If so, how?

Are you involved in any professional organizations?
If so, which? Why?

Do you receive any journals or magazines about teaching and
learning?
It so, which?
Do you find it/them helpful to you in your teaching? If so,
in what ways?

Do you talk with others about teaching?
If so, with whom?

About what kinds of things?

331

APPENDIX B

9 7 I 0 4 I 3 0
Questions to Ask Teachers

1.

10.

11.

Would you say your teaching has changed over the last year or
so? How so?

I'm studying the Title I schoolwide policy. What do you think
the purpose of it is?

Do you think the Title I schoolwide policy is asking teachers to
change their teaching? In what ways?

Has your teaching changed at all due to the policy?
Particularly in mathematics or literacy? Particularly with
students who would have been labeled “Tile I“ students
previously? In what way?

How were you able to make them? Was it difficult/easy?
What made it hard? Did you have to Ieam anything new to be
able to do those things?

Who or what helped you make those changes? learn that?

Did anyone provide you images of what the policy is asking you
to do? Tell me about them.

Do you consider the MEAP at all when you are preparing,
planning or teaching? If so, how?

Does your supervisor play a role in helping you make changes in
your teaching? If not, why not? Is so, then how could your
supervisor be helpful to you?

Does the central office have a role to play in helping you to
make changes in your teaching (along the lines of the policy?)
If so, how could central office by helpful to you?

Who could help you make those changes? Ieam that?

332

Questions to Ask Instructional Leaders

1.

10.

How do or did you decide the way you will work with teachers?
Did you have any role models or images or ideas in particular
that you draw on?

Has that changed over the last year of so? In what way? What
accounts for that?

Was making those changes hard or easy? Why? Did you have to
learn anything to make those changes?

I'm studying the Title I schoolwide policy. What do you think
the purpose of the policy is?

Do you think the Title I schoolwide policy is asking you to
make changes in the way you work with teachers? In the way
teachers teach? In what ways? How so?

Has your work with teachers changed at all due to the policy?
Particularly in mathematics or literacy? Particularly with
student who would have been labeled “Title I“ students
previously? In what way?

How were you able to make those changes? Was it
difficult/easy? What made it hard? Did you have to learn
anything new to be able to do those things?

Who or what helped you make those changes? learn that?

Did anyone provide you images of the what the policy is asking
you to do? Tell me about them.

Do you consider the MEAP at all when you are preparing,
planning or teaching? If so, how?

333

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

Who do you think of as your supervisor? Does your supervisor
play a role in helping you make changes in your teaching? If
not, why not? If so, how could your supervisor be helpful to
you?

Does the central office have a role to play in helping you to
make changes in your teaching (along the lines of the policy?)
If so, who could central office be helpful to you? How could
the central office help you enact the policy?

Who could help you make those changes? How?

Has the way teachers teach in this school changed at all due to
the policy? Particularly in mathematics or literacy?
Particularly with students who would have been labeled “Title
I“ students previously? In what way?

How were they able to make them? Was it difficult/easy?
What made it hard? Did they have to learn anything new to be
able to do those thing?

Who or what helped them make those changes? Ieam that?

Did anyone provide them images of how the policy is asking
them to teach? Tell me about them.

Does the central office play a role in helping them to make
changes in their teaching (along the lines of the policy?) If so,
how could central office by helpful to you?

Who could help them make those changes? learn that?

334

FEFEFEMJES

335

Allington, R. L. and P. Johnston (1989). Coordination, collaboration, and
consistency: The redesign of compensatory and special education

interventions. WR. E. Slavin,
N. L. Karweit and N. A. Madden. Boston, Allyn and Bacon: 320-353.

Allison, G. T. (1969). “Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis.”

WW 63(3) 689- 718

Archbald, D. A. and A. C. Porter (1994). “Curriculum control and
teachers' perceptions of autonomy and satisfaction. Educational

Evaluatmnimmialvsjs 16(1): 21--39

Augustus F. Hawkins - Robert T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary
School Improvement Amendments of 1988 (1988). 20 USC 2701,
100th United States Congress.

Ball, D. L. (1988). Knowledge and reasoning in mathematical pedagogy:
Examining what perspective teachers bring to teacher education.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. College of Education. East
Lansing, Michigan State University: 425.

Barnes C A (1996) W
W Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New York.

Barnes, C. A. (1997). Understanding curriculum reform in one school: A
competition of ideas and commitments. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation. College of Education. East Lansing, Michigan State
University.

Berman, P. (1986). From compliance to learning: Implementing legally-

induced reform. Wham

WU. L. Kirp and D. N. Jensen. Philadelphia,
The Falmer Press: 46- 62.

336

Berman, P. and M. W. McLaughlin (1978). Federal programs supporting
educational change, vol. VIII: Implementing and sustaining
innovation. Santa Monica, CA, Rand.

Bogdan R C and S K Biklen (1992)_Qualltati1e_reseamh_for_education:
AnimmductionJonmamietbods Boston Allyn and Bacon

Bredekamp, S. (1987). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in early
childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8,
National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Brieschke, P. A. (1987). A study of the implementation of regulatory

policy in the urban elementary school. W.
G. Noblit and W. Pink. Norwood, NJ, Ablex Publishing Company.

Bruner, J. (1990). Amman. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Bryk, A. S., J. O. Easton, et al. (1993). A view from the elementary
schools: The state of reform in Chicago, A report of the Steering
Committee Consortium on Chicago School Research: 45.

Bryk, A. 8.. V. E. Lee. et al. (1993). WWW
good, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Cohen, D. K. (1982). “Policy and organization: The impact of state and
federal educational policy on school governance.” Bantam

W 52(4): 474-499.

Cohen, D. K. and D. L. Ball (1990). “Relations between policy and

practice: A commentary.” WWW
Analysts 12(3). 249- 256.

Cohen, D. K. and C. A. Barnes (1993). Conclusion. A new pedagogy for

policy? WW
magma, D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin andJ. E. Talbert. San
Francisco, Jossey-Bass: 240-275.

Cohen, D. K., T. Corcoran, J. Ericson, S. Fuhrman, M. I. Janger, and J. P.
Spillane (1998 Unpublished Manuscript). Initial state and local

337

responses to the Improving America's School Act of 1994 and the
Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Report to Policy Studies
Associates.

Cohen, D. K. and H. C. Hill (1998). Instructional policy and classroom
performance: The mathematics reform in California. University of
Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education: 48.

Cohen, S. A. (1987). Instructional alignment: Searching for a magic bullet.
EducationaLBeseaLoher 16:16-20

Commission on Chapter I (1992). Making schools work for children in
poverty: A new framework prepared by the Commission on Chapter
1, American Association for Higher Education and the Council for
Chief State School Officers.

Creswell, J. w. (1998). Warns
amdngjvatraditidns. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, Inc.

Cusick, P. A- (1992). IbeeducatronaLsystemznanatumandJoolc. New
York, McGraw-Hill.

Elbow, P. (1986). Embracing contraries in the teaching process.

We. New
York, Oxford University Press. 141-159.

Eliot. G. (1872)- WWW New York. Signet

Classic.

Elmore, R. F. (1990). WWW
educafldnaLLefdnn. San Francisco, Jossey-Publishers.

Elmore, R. F. (1993). The role of local school districts in instructional

improvement. WWW
system. S. H. Fuhmian. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers: 96-

124.

Elmore, R. F. and M. W. McLaughlin (1988). Steady work: Policy, practice
and the reform of American education, Rand Corporation.

338

Elmore, R. F. with D. Bumey (1996). Staff development and instructional
improvement: Community District 2, New York City, National
Commission on Teaching and America's Future.

Featherstone, l-l. (Ed.) (1990). A community of young mathematicians.

QbangingMndeiducationaLExtensienfiendee. East Lansing. 5- 9.

Fenstermacher, G. (1986). Philosophy of research on teaching: Three

aspects. W. M. C. Wittrock. New
York, Macmillan: 37-49.

Fuhrman, S. W. Clune, R. F. Elmore. (1988). Research on education
reform: Lessons on the implementation of policy. WW

WWW D H Monk andJ

Underwood. New York, Harper Collins Publishers.

Fullan, M. G. with S. Stiegelbauer (1991). Ihenemmeamngniedueational
change. New York, Teachers College Press.

Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994). 20 USC 5801,103d United
States Congress.

Guthrie, J. w. (Ed.) (1990). EducatmaLEvaluatronandEelmAnalvsrs
LEntirersuel 12(3)

Hammond, W. D. (1999). A balanced early literacy curriculum: An

ecological perspective WWW
millennium: 113-135

Hannaway, J. (1989).Manaoecs.manaoino:1henotlsinos.eLan
W New York, Oxford University Press.

Heller, M. F. and W. A. Firestone (1995). “Who's in charge here? Sources

of leadership for change in eight schools.” W
Jeumal 96(1): 65-86.

The Holmes Group (1986). Tomorrow's teachers: A report of the Holmes
Group, Michigan State University.

339

Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (1994). 20 USC 6301, 103d
United States Congress.

Jennings, N. E. (1992). Teachers learning from policy: Cases from the
Michigan reading reform. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. East
Lansing. Michigan State University.

Kirst, M. and R. Jung (1981). “The utility of a longitudinal approach in
assessing implementation: A thirteen- -year view of Title I, ESEA. ”

EducationaLEvaluatinundmmLAnalxsis 14(3) 119-148

Lampert, M. (1990). “When the problem is not the question and the
solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching.”

WW 27(1): 29- 63.

Leithwood, K. A. and D. J. Montgomery (1984). Eattamutgmmnjn
pdncipaLeflagtiyenass. Paper presented at the annual meeting of

the American Educational Research Association, ED246526.
LeTendre, M. J. (1996). “What's new in Title I?” Ednaipal: 30-32.

Lieberman, A. (1995). Restructuring schools: The dynamics of changing

practice, structure, and culture. 1W.

A. Lieberman. New York, Teachers College Press: 1-17.

Lindblom, C. E. (1959). “The science of “muddling through“. ” Eublic
Administiationjexiew 19(||)I 79- 88

Little, J. W. (1990). “The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative

in teachers' professional relations.” W
4(Summer, 1990): 509-536.

Lortie. D. C. (1975). Scbnolteachetmmggicamudv. Chicago, The

University of Chicago Press.

Louis, K. S, S. D. Kruse, and H. M. Marks (1996). Schoolwide professional

community. WWW
intellectuaLguahty.F. M. N. a. Associates. San Francisco, Jossey-

Bass Publishers: 179- 203.

340

Majone, G. and A. Wildavsky (1977). Implementation as evolution. Bandy
siudieeLevlemannual. 2: 103-117

Malen, B. and A. W. Hart (1987). “Career ladder reform. A multi- level

analysis of initial efforts.” EducationaLExaluatienandfielieLAnalysis
9(1): 9- 23.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1976). “Implementation as mutual adaptation:

Changes in classroom organization.” W
77(6): 339-351.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). “Learning from experience: Lessons from

policy implementation.” EducationaLEvaIuatinnanLEolicLAnalysis
9(2):171-178.

Meisels, S. J., F. R. Liaw, et al. (1995). “The work sampling system.
Reliability and validity of a performance assessment for young

children” EarliLQbildbondfleseambfluatteny 10: 277- 296.

Meyer, J. W. and B. Rowan (1983). The structure of educational
organizations W J.
W. Meyer, W. R. Scott, w. B. Rowan andT. E. Deal. Beverly Hills,
Sage Publications: 71-97.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and
evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA, Author.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional
standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA, Author.

Newmann, F. M. and Associates (1996). The interplay of school culture
and structure. WWW
intellectuanuautyf. M. Newmann. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass,
Inc.: 205- 27.

Newmann, F. M. and G. G. Wehlage (1995). Successful school
restructuring: A report to the public and educators, Center on
Organization and Restructuring of Schools, University of Wisconsin-
Madison.

341

Odden, A. (1996). Incentives, school organization and teacher

compensation. WWW
W8. H. Fuhrman andJ. A. O'Day. San Francisco, Jossey-

Bass: 226-257.

Peterson, P. L. (1990). “The California Study of Elementary
Mathematics.” EducationaLExaIuatiomaniflolimLAnalysjs 12(3)

Peterson, P. L, E. Fennema, andT. Carpenter (1991) Using children's

mathematical knowledge WW

WW8 Means C Chelemer
and M. S. Knapp. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers: 68- 111.

Peterson, P. L, S. J. McCartney, and R. F. Elmore (1996). “Learning from

school restructuring” AmericaniducationaLBeseameoumal
33(1). 119-153.

Pinnell, G. S. andl. C. Fountas(1998).MLQ£d_mat1&rs;leachmg_nhQniQ$
WWW. Portsmouth, NH,

Heinemann.

Policy Studies Associates (1994). We
DLQIBEIS. Washington, D. C.. U. S. Department of Education.

Poppink, S. and J. E. Lanier (1995). The Michigan public school

professional: The labor force and employment trends, academic
year 1990-91, Report to the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Purkey, S. C. and M. S. Smith (1983). “Effective schools: A review.” Ine
Elementamficboououmm 83(4): 427-452-

Resnick, L. (1987). W. Washington, D. C.,

National Research Council. National Academy Press.

Rosenho'tZI 3- J- (1991). WWW
SQDQQIS. New York. Teachers College Press.

Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for
the organizational design of schools. W

342

 

WC. B. Cazden. Washington, D. 0., American
Educational Research Association. 16: 353-389.

Rowan, B., L. Guthrie, G. V. Lee, and G. P. Guthrie, (1986). The design and
implementation of Chapter I instructional services: A study of 24
schools. Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and
Development.

Elmer- M- J- (1982). W
Wm Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Sarason. S. B. (1982). WWW
change. Boston, Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Schmidt, W. H. and R. S. Prawat (1999). “What does the third
international mathematics and science study tell us about where to
draw the line in the top-down versus bottom-up debate?”

EducationaLEIIaIuaticmandflolicLAnalysis 21(1): 85-91.

Shulman, L. S. (1983). Autonomy and obligation. The remote control of

teaching. WWL. S. Shulman and G.
Sykes. New York, Longman: 484- 504.

Smith, M. S. and J. A. O'Day (1991). Systemic school reform. 312419111195

W. S. Fuhrman and B. Malen. Bristol, PA,
Falmer Press: 233- 267.

Spillane, J. P., P. L. Peterson, R. S. Prawat, N. E. Jennings, J. Borman
(1996). “Exploring policy and practice relations: A teaching and

learning perspective.” JQumaLgLEducatmEQljgy 11(4): 431-440.

Spillane, J. P. and C. L. Thompson (1997). “Reconstructing conceptions of
local capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious

instructional reform” WW
19(2): 185- 203.

Sproull, L. S. (1981). “Response to regulation. An organizational process

framework.” WW 12(4): 447- 470.

343

Stake, R. (1994). WWW Thousand Oaks, CA,
Sage.

Sykes, G. (1990). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools.

.‘ I0 III' l‘l‘.10“l‘-0IO ‘0 -0l- ‘0“.
R. F. Elmore and Associates. San Francisco, Jossey-Publishers: 59-
96.

Sykes, G. and P. Plastrik (1992). Standard-setting as educational reform,
National Council on Accreditation of Teacher Education.

US. Department of Education (1993). Executive Summary. Reinventing
Chapter I: The current Chapter I Program and new directions. Final
report of the National Assessment of the Chapter I Program.,
Author.

Weatherley, R. and M. Lipsky (1977). “Street-level bureaucrats and
institutional innovation: Implementing special-education reform.”

tlamandfiducationaLBexiew 47(2): 171-197-

Weick, K. E. (1976). “Educational organizations as loosely coupled

systems” W21: 1-19

Wilson, S. M., P. L. Peterson, D. L. Ball, D. K. Cohen. (1996). “Learning by
all.” Wm 77(7): 468-476.

Zinsser, W. (1988). W. New York, Harper 8. Row Publishers,
Perennial Library.

344