Introduction
For the past two decades the United States has been engaged in an expansive debate about the purpose, structure and performance of its educational system. No longer was it sufficient to talk about the school's contribution to the nation's "Manifest Destiny" and to the development of positive citizenship traits. In the past the schools had been called upon to build a new, cohesive social order out of a nation of immigrants divided by ethnicity and religion and confronted by powerful regional differences. For a short period it appeared to be working. Education was helping to make the factories "hum" and the fields bloom. We were a nation with a mission; to bring the American form of democracy and way of life to the world.
Then the confidence that the nation's crusade in education was working began to decline, and it happened in dramatic fashion and in a relatively short period of time. When American's began to look outward they noted a shift from the industrial age to the information age. They also saw a revolution in telecommunication, science and technology, much of which was occurring beyond the shores of the United States; and they saw an international marketplace slowly being dominated by aggressive internationally-minded companies and organizations. A closer look at other nation's educational systems appeared to indicate that other youth in the northern hemisphere were being better prepared in the sciences and technology as well as in their capability to compete in the world-wide economy. While nations used to compete for natural resources, it appeared that they were now competing to produce the best educated labor force.
Obviously the United States needed to respond. Previously the nation's social problems were placed at the school house door. Now added to this was the need for the schools to produce the educated person power that would enhance economic growth and increase the nation's competitiveness in the global marketplace. A new sense of urgency was felt and the nation began to move toward educational reform. The clarion call was for a return to excellence.
This paper will trace the evolution of America's national reform movement with specific attention given to the improvement of student's academic performance, the movement toward site-based management and decision making, and the need for more accountability to parents and the community.
By tradition the federal government does not directly involve itself in public education. The U.S. Constitution does not mention education and down through the years very little federal money has been spent on it. Local initiative and state responsibility have been the rule and the law in developing and financing public education. However, the federal government, at times, does attempt to give direction to education. Such a time emerged in the 1980's. It was apparent that some form of educational reform was needed and that direction for the reform had to come from respected national figures. In 1981, Terrel H. Bell, Secretary of Education, appointed a National Commission on Excellence in Education. It was chaired by David Gardner, President of the University of California, and included 17 distinguished educators and lay people. The Commission was asked to complete a nationwide study of the quality of education and to publish a report within 18 months (National Commission, 1983).
The report entitled, A Nation at Risk, was released in 1983. Its strong language and negative tone stunned the American people. The report spoke of a "rising tide of mediocrity" and stated, "if an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war." The Commission's recommendations focused on five areas: (1) curriculum content; (2) more rigorous and measurable standards and expectations; (3) more effective use made of time in the school; (4) the quality of teaching; and (5) leadership and fiscal support (National Commission, 1983).
The report electrified the national and state leaders in education and led to a plethora of additional commissions and reports. At last count over 30 national reports have been issued and most states formed blue ribbon commissions to study the educational scene and recommend a course of action. Since the early 1980's there has been a relentless pursuit in the quest for the type of educational excellence that can lead the nation into the twenty-first century. However, in the minds of many educators the question remains - where is the reform headed and what does it hope to accomplish?
Initial efforts to reform American education seemed to wander all over the landscape. Some states attempted "quick fixes" that often failed. Other reform efforts appeared to have limited imagination in matching goals with popular assumptions about the deficiencies in the schools. Policy makers often blamed the reluctance or incompetence of the practitioners. Educators who worked in the schools and in the classrooms blamed the policy makers for not understanding the real life of the schools. Many blamed the students and parents who were not interested, or not prepared, to participate in the community's efforts in education. The language of reform appeared to focus on distrust.
In an attempt to bring order out of this chaos, educational leaders began to focus on the need to think beyond minor changes, and to restructure dramatically the overall educational system. Most often this restructuring centered on three overarching areas. They were:
1. The centrality of the student in the classroom: the introduction of teaching and learning practices based on validated research over the past 20 years.
2. The empowerment of educators to exercise more control over the conditions of their work; and to improve their skills and judgment within the school.
3. The accountability of the schools to their main clients - parents and communities (Elmore, 1990).
Teaching and Learning
Central to the restructuring effort are the students and a classroom environment designed to help them learn. The overwhelming amount of research into the teaching and learning process during the past 20 years makes it very difficult to codify. There is still, and will always be, an on-going debate whether teaching is an art or a science and whether learning is taught or caught through experience. However, there are some key indicators that often rise to the surface. Six of them are most prominent.
1. Student - Teacher Contact: one of the most important factors in the teaching - learning process is sustained contact between the learner and the teacher. Most teachers know this, but unfortunately not all teachers practice it. Teachers believe that less bureaucracy and smaller classes will give them more contact time. However, practice in the field indicates two important dimensions about which some teachers forget. The first is the motivational or inspirational aspect of teaching. Some teachers will talk about "readiness" or "setting the stage." Often this is referred to as a personal resource or personality that encourages students to want to learn or to show initiative. More scientifically it means directing students' energy toward achieving internal goals as well as institutional or external goals (Clark and Astuto, 1994).
The second important dimension to student - teacher contact time refers to teaching activities where goals are clear to the students, the time allocated to instruction is sufficient and continuous, and the coverage of the content is extensive. Some educators refer to this kind of teaching as direct instruction organized around highly specific instructional objectives. It has been called "teaching as technology" and viewed as a control mechanism. Others view it as a learning style where the teacher encourages, demands and sustains long term interest to the satisfaction of both the teacher and the learner.
2. Time On Task: This is somewhat related to student - teacher contact. It differs in that the emphasis comes from within the student and is self-directed. Sometimes defined as time plus energy, it builds on the assumption that managing learning time is an important part of being a student. Almost everyone wants to be successful. However, not all students use good judgment and expend the necessary energy to make it happen. Athletic coaches call it a "burning desire" to succeed and the willingness to practice in order to make it possible. However, the goal in athletics is very clear. The challenge to the classroom teacher is to help clarify the learning task, identify the required performance and provide adequate time to ensure the successful completion of the task. One learning task done well and in-depth is much better than superficial efforts in many directions. Often educators are more interested in covering material rather than have students deepen their understanding (Mager, Goal Analysis, 1984).
3. Cooperative Learning: this is not a new concept, but it has been rediscovered and consistently highlighted. Quite often it is linked to the relatively new idea of a cooperative working environment that characterizes high productivity through the sharing of ideas, support for change and a broader perspective on problems related to the work. The concept runs counter to the high value placed on competition found in many societies. After all, many believe it is competition that pushes individuals to higher levels of achievement. Individual hard work should produce individual rewards. The world is composed of winners and losers and it is the role of educators to identify and encourage competition to ensure that winners will emerge at the top. This old precept is now being challenged. Competition isolates individuals while cooperation brings people together. It is cooperative learning that provides the organizational support to help nurture individual achievement. Individual learning does not occur in isolation. Rather it requires mutual reinforcement in a collegial supportive environment. At the heart of cooperative learning is the process of inquiry with shared knowledge and the dynamics of the learning group (Clark and Astuto, 1994).
To build cooperative learning environments, individuals need to exhibit cooperative behavior. Communities seek cooperation, so does the workplace. The school is viewed as an institution that also should foster this democratic ideal. A cohesive society builds together and a classroom is viewed as being analogous to the larger society. The theme of developing interpersonal and cooperative social skills to strengthen our society dates back to the educational philosopher John Dewey, who saw these skills as necessary in order for individuals to participate in a democratic social process (Joyce and Weil, 1972) (Dewey, 1910).
4. Active Learning: most educators recognize that learning is not a spectator sport, but requires active participation and most educators realize that we teach by creating environments for students to learn. If that is the case, why do teachers still dominate the classroom and expect passivity on the part of their students? Interactive learning theorists challenge teachers to change. Too often you find a teacher centered classroom where the presentation of a lesson is followed by a teacher directed question and answer session, followed by a teacher organized evaluation.
This teacher centered method tends to dominate classrooms in spite of research and common knowledge that all of us learn best by doing. Participatory learning is the basic axiom behind a learner centered inquiry and active approach in which exploration guides students to their own discovery and testing of concepts. Correct answers are not the only goal of the teaching - learning process (Darling-Hammond, 1993).
The active learning process requires not only activity, but reflection. Often the process is seen as action - reflection and then more action. The emphasis is to improve the capacity of students to reflect on ways in which knowledge is handled and used. The quality of students' ability to reflect on experience becomes a critical factor in determining the development of a processing system for the world around them.
Benjamin Bloom saw the interactive learning process slightly different. Bloom saw teachers teaching knowledge and testing whether that knowledge was learned, without taking into consideration whether the students understood the knowledge and could apply it. In his cognitive designed educational ladder, Bloom wrote of the need to determine whether students could apply and analyze the knowledge they were learning. Teaching for understanding, and the application of that understanding, requires active participation on the part of the learner. In his mind this required a higher level of cognitive development and it had to be learned through the application of knowledge (Bloom, 1958).
Certainly there is a common ground between the teacher- centered and the learner-centered classroom. Perhaps an eclectic approach is best, but basic to the teaching - learning process is allowing the student, not the teacher, to become the star of the classroom.
5. Respect for Diverse Roads to Learning: consonant with recent research on the teaching - learning process is the acknowledgment that teaching methodologies must vary for students with different learning styles, different stages of cognitive and affective development and for different instructional goals. This requires teachers to connect knowledge to the understanding that individual students bring to the classroom. This necessitates teachers using their judgment of curriculum design, learning theory and child development. It means that teachers must adapt and respond on the basis of individual needs and interactions taking into account the knowledge and experiences of students, their homes, their communities and their cultures (Darling-Hammond, 1993).
The idea that students strive for knowledge and personal fulfillment in quite different ways is understood by teachers. They recognize difference in ability and the need to deal with varying conceptual levels and various degrees of concrete and abstract reasoning. However, to work with this complexity on a daily basis appears to be almost an insurmountable problem. This is especially true in the face of some educational reform movements that require more standardized testing and increased attention to a fixed curriculum.
6. The Need for Prompt Feedback: in the teaching - learning process the need for prompt and realistic feedback is self-evident. In America all teachers are evaluators. In most systems the evaluation can move on a continuum from external evaluation, or standardized testing, to self-evaluation. However, what some educators do not recognize is the importance of validating what students learn. Without this constant validation, students' direction and motivation can wavier.
Those involved in criterion-referenced testing discuss the need for students to develop learning objectives that clearly lead to desired performance; often the kind of performance that can be measured by students themselves. This means helping students learn how to write and decipher performance based objectives. Performances are specific things that students say and do. Students can demonstrate their reading, writing and ciphering ability. They also can solve problems, compare things and recall the steps in a particular procedure. Because students can tell whether they are doing what is asked of them, they can demonstrate to themselves what they have learned and consequently receive instant feedback (Mager, Measuring Instructional Results, 1984).
There is another kind of prompt feedback that emanates from the behavior of teachers. Sometimes referred to as the judicial use of the carrot and the stick, in more conventional educational terminology it means searching constantly for ways in which students can be rewarded. This means not only through the use of paper and pencil tests, but through the ability to isolate acceptable patterns of learning and help students know what they know.
The six teaching - learning processes discussed above are not the only forms of pedagogy, but they are the ones most often discussed in the literature that surrounds the next generation of educational reform as the restructuring of the schools begin for the twenty-first century. Teachers that are preparing the youth for the next century must learn how and when to use them. This is not any easy task, but one required of a professional in the field.
Also at the heart of the restructuring effort is the need to have educators exercise more control over the conditions of their work coupled with improved skills and good judgment relative to that work. The first wave of educational reform endeavored to improve the schools from the top. Merit pay, career ladders and mentoring programs were introduced. Some states legislated competency tests for teachers. State legislatures and local school boards also introduced standardized tests for students and raised academic requirements for high school graduation.
The second phase of reform involved administrative restructuring with a different style of school management, and additional training for teachers to operationalize that style (Midgley, 1993). This meant bottom-up direction and more control by the classroom teacher. In general, three innovative changes evolved. These were the need to:
(1) foster decentralized decision making and site-based management;
(2) strengthen the professionalism in teachers through staff development; and
(3) improve the quality of new teachers through improved teacher education.
For many educators efforts to restructure the schools can only begin when primary decision making is shifted to the school level. Few question that school systems are bureaucratic and hierarchical. Added to that are state governments that have assumed more control and demanded accountability from the state capitol.
For restructuring to be effective the top-down approach to management must be replaced by a bottom-up system. This means that individual schools must be freed from mandates that directly affect the classroom. A decentralized system should offer students, teachers and principals the opportunity to adjust what is taught based on the conditions of the school and community. If people at the school level are to be empowered to make decisions about what is taught, then they must have control over instructional material and the means to measure success. Traditional authority figures must learn to facilitate and support rather than mandate. The state can no longer demand a centralized curriculum and centralized testing. Superintendents can no longer select school-wide sets of text-books and principals can no longer evaluate teachers by themselves.
Building principals and teachers must understand that site-based management means team-building, collective decision making and individual accountability. The goal is for all teachers to be more fully involved in the life of the school beyond the classroom door. To assume this role means that training programs must be developed to support school level decision making. Skills in problem-solving, conflict resolution, goal setting and group decision making become important. Decentralization is not just a proclamation. Rather it is a carefully thought through design that requires a degree of cooperation not often seen in a bureaucratic school system (Tye, 1992) (David, 1994).
Reconstruction of the schools means capacity building staff development programs. A strong comprehensive program is an investment in human capital that nurtures professional development and builds the school's capacity for organizational learning. Well prepared teachers that can make sound decisions about teaching, curriculum development and school management are essential. The ability to use new modes of instruction that produce learners who can think critically, inquire independently, work cooperatively and utilize high order cognitive skills does not occur without adequate staff development. Neither does the ability to develop school based decision making.
An effective staff development program should be school based. There are times when knowledge in specific content areas can be enhanced by additional graduate course work at local colleges and universities. However, a productive program requires modeling or demonstrations of teaching skills and strategies in the school setting; and it requires practice with the students taught every day. Most important it requires a system of structured feedback to teachers so they can become aware of their behavior. The program also should provide the time for teachers to prepare instructional material for their classroom based on the needs of the students (Joyce, 1986).
An in-house staff development program should view the teachers as part of a learning community that organizes itself into study circles in order to pursue specific areas of interest or concern. Within study circles, focus groups can be organized by small parties of teachers that want to do research or in-depth study into a particular facet of teaching and learning. The study circles should share what they have learned, not only within their own school, but beyond. This produces opportunities for networking beyond the annual meetings of professional associations. A systematic and effective staff development program leads to a richer and better learning environment for students and revitalizes teachers as members of a productive team.
Teacher Education
Restructured schools require a restructuring of teacher preparation. The complexity of teaching in the information age is dramatically different from teaching in the industrial age. Virtually all of the national and state commissions that have studied education over the last decade have argued this point. The nation needs a different and better prepared teaching force. To respond to this challenge two large studies were conducted by those involved with teacher education. Both studied the problems with the present status and made specific recommendations for a new structure (Goodlad, 1990) (Holmes Group, 1986).
The first major problem had to do with the image of teacher education programs on college and university campuses across the nation. Very few university presidents would identify the preparation of teachers as central to the mission of their institutions. In general, teachers in our society suffer from low status and prestige and so do the programs that prepare them. A certain portion of the low status has to do with the remnants of sexism. Ninety percent of those students found in engineering are men; conversely, ninety percent of the students majoring in education are women. When the two populations were compared in academic ability by standardized testing and class rank in high schools the young women ranked higher. However, when these same women entered teacher education programs at universities they were considered academically deficient. That image is slow to change.
The second problem is related to the first. How to attract the best and the brightest young people into the teaching profession who can better represent the population of students to be taught. The quality of teaching is closely tied to both the quality of those recruited as well as the quality of their education. To attract bright people into the profession requires more than a "calling" or mission in life to help young people. It requires a career ladder and commensurate pay scale as a beginning point. Competent young people will be attracted if the rewards of teaching and the opportunities for professional advancement become a reality.
There is another related problem to the recruitment of potential teachers. Today's teaching force is largely white, suburban and female. However, the nation's demographics are dramatically shifting. The twenty-first century will be the first post-European century in American history. A majority of children born in the next century will be born of parents from other than European backgrounds - African, Asian and Hispanic.
In the 1990 census 68 percent of all public school children were white, 16 percent were black, 12 percent were Hispanic and 3 percent were Asian. For the same year 86 percent of the teachers were white, 9.2 percent were black, 3.1 percent were Hispanic, and 1 percent were Asian. Theoretically it should not matter whether the teacher and the student share a common background. However, teachers do more than just teach content. They also personify content and model behavior. If we want young people to see themselves as future scientists, writers and educators, they should see examples of such people who can mentor and guide them in the schools.
Reconstruction within teacher preparation programs differ extensively within the more than 1100 teacher education programs across the country. Two major reforms are most notable. To make the education of teachers intellectually sound, more programs and more states are now requiring prospective teachers to receive first a broad liberal arts education with a major in the arts or sciences at the undergraduate level. Teacher education then takes place at the graduate level. This is often referred to as the 5th year. The idea is to remove the substantial time spent on pedagogy at the undergraduate level and replace it with essential knowledge of subject matter. Often permanent certification does not become possible without a Masters Degree (Holmes Group, 1986).
The second major reform is to link teacher education programs more closely with schools. There is a growing realization that to improve teacher education more attention must be given to the contributions of practicing teachers. In some cases this means the majority of a teacher preparation program taking place in the schools, not on the university campus. It also means closer cooperation between university based professors and practicing teachers. One study called for the establishment of professional development schools where there would be a working relationship between university professors, teachers and administrators. These schools would be similar to teaching hospitals in the medical profession. In such schools research and practice would come together and there would be a forum for experimentation in the development of new forms of practice and structure (Holmes Group, 1986).
Reform in teacher education is one important key to the successful reconstruction of American education. Teacher educators know what they must do - attract talented young people, link their training more closely to the schools, prepare them for an expanded role in teaching and management in the schools and increase the time for reflective practice. However, if teachers are to be stewards of schooling in a democratic society, they must also understand how they can help to better prepare good citizens. These are challenges that at times appear to be insurmountable; but they are necessary elements to bring about reform in the schools.
In restructuring the schools the need for more accountability to parents and the community become very evident. Reform does not occur in a vacuum. It requires the approval and cooperation of the community. To promote successful change the community must be convinced that it is both necessary and beneficial. Restructuring means major change and the change must be seen as desirable to the students, parents and community. This is not an easy task. It requires systematic input on school decisions from parents and other citizens. It also means making clear to the community what the schools are attempting to accomplish and what they are doing to reach these goals.
To ensure more accountability and closer cooperation many school districts have developed individual school advisory committees or councils. Composed of a representative sample of the neighborhood, these councils are the eyes and ears into the community and help to provide feedback to the local school. The power of these school councils differ from community to community. Some are only advisory, others are involved in decision making in such areas as teacher selection and curriculum design. It is too early to determine how effective the school councils will be in linking the schools with their communities, but it has helped to develop a sense of partnership in the educational enterprise (Elmore, 1990).
Another form of accountability is more controversial. It is the growing demand by parents for school choice. The central idea driving school choice is that parents want high quality education for their children and are motivated to find it. The idea began with magnet schools within a school district. Magnet schools emphasized distinctive programs usually in one or two curriculum areas such as art, science, language or commerce. At times they were used to maintain racial balance in large urban school districts. Students and parents were attracted to the magnet schools by the reputation of the quality of their programs (Fantini, 1986).
The thought behind magnet schools grew to the schools of choice concept. Within a school district this meant the deliberate diversification of schools so that each school developed its own unique programs that were distinctive in some way. Parents were then invited to select a school depending on the individual student's particular interests, needs or family preference (Elmore, 1990).
In many cases school choice spread beyond a single school district. In 1987, the State of Minnesota introduced an open enrollment option where students could switch to any public school in the state as long as space was available. The idea has now spread to include non-public schools. In this situation tuition vouchers are given to parents who can utilize them in their choice whether it is private or public as long as it is located in the state. The recent addition to school choice has been the development of "charter" public schools. Under this system certified teachers are given the opportunity to create new and distinctive schools and to attract students to them through a tuition voucher system. In exchange for freedom from bureaucratic rules and regulations, the schools are held accountable for students' academic progress as measured by standardized tests. Within the past two years eight state legislatures have approved charter school plans including the State of Massachusetts (Martinez, 1994).
The danger of school choice plans are evident to the profession. School choice could mean "white flight" and additional racial imbalance. It also could mean that poorer school districts will get poorer as parents use vouchers to move their children to wealthier districts.
Accepting the Challenge
It has become obvious that the citizenry is not satisfied with the condition of the nation's educational system. A substantial demand for restructuring public education stems from the charge that the schools are failing to adequately prepare the youth for the challenges of the twenty-first century. They are failing the nation in preparing the next generation to work in an interdependent global society with an international marketplace. More than one state has attempted to respond to this dissatisfaction. One of the most recent is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Massachusetts Story
Education provides the opportunity to enrich and empower the lives of the people of this commonwealth. The foundation of a quality education provides the basis of a strong democracy, develops an innovative and skilled labor force to enhance economic development and international competitiveness and offers a shared responsibility of state government, local communities, businesses, parents, students and school employees... The coordination of all is essential for students in Massachusetts to achieve the standards and skills necessary to be competitive in the twenty-first century (Massachusetts, Reform Act, 1993).
There is little doubt that the leadership in restructuring the nation's educational system has been taken over by state governments. On June 18, 1993, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts joined the growing ranks of states that have passed legislation addressing the need for state-wide systematic school reform. The Educational Reform Act of 1993 was one of the most comprehensive restructuring programs in the nation. It demanded dramatic change that went to the very foundation of the state's 350 school districts. The Act contained four essential components.
1. New programs and standards that will ensure high achievement for all students.
2. A fair and equitable system of school finance.
3. A governance structure that encourages innovation and accountability at all levels.
4. Standards and processes that will enhance the quality, professionalism, and accountability of all educational personnel (Massachusetts, Reform Act, 1993).
The Act charged the State Board of Education to set policies relevant to the Act that were to be implemented by the Commissioner of Education and his Department of Education. By October, 1993, the Commissioner had an implementation plan in place, and the primary work necessary to implement the Act had begun (Massachusetts, Implementation Plan, 1993).
Academic and School Performance Standards
The Act required that the state establish educational goals, academic standards, curriculum frameworks, and a system for evaluating individual schools and school districts. In the event that schools failed to improve the education program provided to students, the Act provided drastic penalties ultimately authorizing the State Board of Education to place school districts into receivership.
Under the law the Board of Education was directed to have the Commissioner of Education develop academic standards in six "core subjects." They were: (1) mathematics; (2) science and technology; (3) history and social science; (4) English; (5) foreign languages; and (6) the arts. The standards were to be established for all grades, kindergarten through high school, and would describe skills, competencies and knowledge "that students will be expected to know at the end of a given grade or cluster of grades." The law directed that the standards "set high expectations of student performance" taking into account the recommendations of national organizations and those of the "most educationally advanced nations in the world" (Massachusetts, Implementation Plan, 1993).
The academic standards were to include criteria for three determinations or certificates.
1. The "Competency Determination" assessment was to be made of all 10th graders in the six core subjects. Satisfactory mastery was to be a condition for high school graduation.
2. The "Certificate of Mastery" was to be given to those high school students whose academic performance was "comparable to that possessed by high school graduates in the most advanced educational systems in the world."
3. The "Certificate of Occupational Proficiency" would be conferred on those students who successfully completed a comprehensive program in a trade or professional skill area. To receive this certificate a student first had to acquire a "Competency Determination."
Under the law each school and school district had to establish an annual evaluation system for each student and maintain individual records. If the school failed to improve the educational program, as determined by student assessment results, the school would be designated as "underperforming." Within six months after this determination the school must present a "remedial plan." If "significant improvement" is not demonstrated in 24 months the school principal would be immediately removed. Thereafter the superintendent may appoint a new principal vested with "extraordinary powers" to dismiss any teacher or other employee for "good cause" with a five day notice (Massachusetts, Implementation Plan, 1993).
New Responsibilities of State and Local Agencies
The new law vested more power in the state through the assessment of student performance and the authorization to take steps against schools which consistently failed to have students adequately perform. It also had the power to set minimum lengths for the school day and year in order that the amount of time that students spent in school "reflect prevailing norms in advanced industrial countries" (Ibid).
At the local level the responsibilities of locally elected school committees was reduced. They became policy making boards with day to day authority to manage the schools placed in the hands of the superintendent and the building principals. The decentralization of authority was designated to make the principal much more accountable for the academic performance of the students. With that accountability, principals had the power to hire and fire, and to suspend, teachers, subject to review by the superintendent.
A new and very important change at the local level was the requirement that "school councils" be established in every school. The law granted the principal the right to define the composition of the council so that it was "broadly representative of the racial and ethnic diversity of the school and community." The composition had to include parents, teachers, one high school student and lay people from the community. The school council was charged with: (1) adopting educational goals; (2) identifying the educational needs of students attending the school; (3) reviewing the annual school budget; and (4) formulating a school improvement plan. The idea was to provide the local community with the responsibility and opportunity to serve as active participants in the creation of a "high quality learning environment." It also ensured that the principal and teachers work closely with the community (Ibid).
To ensure that school councils functioned effectively the law called for the training of council members and all teachers in the skills necessary for site-based and participatory decision making. The skills identified in the Implementation Plan were team building, effective interpersonal relations, problem solving, principled bargaining and consensus building (Ibid).
Professional Teacher Status
One of the most tough-minded provisions of the new law dealt with the status of teachers. Strategic goal IV was to enhance the quality and accountability of all educational personnel. This was to be accomplished by requiring all educators to engage in ongoing professional development throughout their careers, and by offering early retirement incentives to make way for a new generation of educators. In addition, tenure was replaced with an expedited dismissal process and all school personnel were held accountable to performance standards. These provisions of the Act were especially disconcerting to teachers (Massachusetts, Implementation Plan, 1993).
The tenure law was repealed and in its place teachers with three years experience were given "professional teacher status." The power to fire teachers was taken from the school committee and given to the building principal. Added to the grounds for termination was failure on the part of the teacher to satisfy teacher performance standards. The Act required all school personnel to bargain over standards of performance and the procedure for evaluation. The bargaining had to follow the provisions stated in the Act and guided by "principles of evaluation" established by the State Board of Education. Beginning teachers were to be evaluated each year; teachers with "professional teacher status" at least every two years.
To ensure satisfactory teacher performance, each school district was to adopt and fund a professional development plan that had to include training in teacher curriculum frameworks, participatory decision making and parent and community involvement. Each teacher was to develop a professional development file or portfolio which was to include transcripts, and careful documentation of attendance at seminars, institutes, conferences and the like. The actual number of clock hours spent in each activity were to be recorded (Massachusetts, Statewide Plan, 1993).
Teacher Education
The education of teachers was not overlooked. The law already had promulgated changes that were the result of a report by a "Joint Task Force on Teacher Preparation." The report reflected the state's commitment to upgrade teacher preparation through:
- a requirement for a major in the liberal arts or sciences at the undergraduate level;
- a two stage certification process: stage one involved a five year provisional certificate for those graduates who pass communication and subject matter tests and enter district-based teacher preparation programs; or are graduates of approved college and university teacher preparation programs; and
- stage two included a full "standard" certification after five years of successful teaching that must be renewed every five years.
The reform Act introduced the principle of recertification every five years for all teachers. Teachers were required to maintain professional skill development and subject matter knowledge in order to have their "standard" certificate renewed. The Act also introduced a district level alternative certification route. Provisional status could be granted to teachers who held a bachelors degree and participated in seminars and heightened supervision during the first year of teaching (Massachusetts, Statewide Plan, 1993). The Act placed more importance on subject matter rather than pedagogy and more importance on practical classroom experience in place of college supervised student teaching.
A School Choice law was enacted in the state in 1991. It permitted any student to attend a Massachusetts public school whose district participated in the program. School committees had to vote affirmatively to participate in the program. During the 1991-92 school year, approximately 1,100 of the state's 840,000 public school students enrolled in the program. During the next year the number rose to about 3,000 in 50 districts. The law required that the "sending" districts pay tuition to the "receiving" district. During 1993 the "sending" districts lost five million dollars (Massachusetts Teachers' Association, 1993).
Under the new Act, Massachusetts added another approach to school choice - "Charter Schools." The reform Act joined five other states in establishing charter schools. Under the new law a charter could be granted by the Secretary of Education for a school to function independently of any school committee. A charter school could be established by any organization -business, or corporate entity - and required two or more certified teachers and ten or more parents to join together. Such a school would be governed by a board of trustees and would be exempt from some state regulations.
Charter schools would have to be open to all students, but they may establish "reasonable academic standards" for admission. The charter is good for five years and an annual report must be submitted that describes the school's progress toward the achievement of its mission. The funding would come from the "sending" school districts.
The proponents of charter schools argued that they would foster educational innovation and encourage direct parent involvement. Opponents of the schools argued they would pave the way for private elite schools that would enjoy the benefits of private funding without accountability (Massachusetts Teachers' Association, 1993).
The authors of the Massachusetts Education Reform Act obviously had done their homework. The new law contained provisions for the kind of change advocated in national and state reports over the past ten years. There also was a close parallel to the findings in educational research over the past twenty years. The academic growth of the student was to be paramount and a new structure was to involve close interaction between the education professionals and parents and the community. Teachers were to begin a new period of opportunity to participate in site-based management, and to grow professionally on the job. New teachers would have a solid academic grounding in a subject matter discipline. The goal was excellence at the local, state and national level, and student performance was to equal or surpass the students found in educational systems in the industrialized nations of the world. Noble goals that would require a noble effort.
However, there could be a few problems along the way. Barbara Tye once referred to the deep structure of American schooling that could stand in the way of any reform movement. She wrote of the uniformity of the classrooms and curriculum, and the orientation toward student control. She also noted America's reliance on the textbook and standardized testing (Tye, 1987). None of these imbedded practices would disappear overnight if at all.
There also are other characteristics of American education that appear to mitigate against the restructuring of the schools. Historically the system has been inclusive of all students. There is an abiding democratic commitment to provide educational opportunity for all youth and allow them to go as far up the educational ladder as they find possible. How this equality can be balanced with the need to prepare a quality educated cadre who can compete in the international marketplace is still under discussion. Equality and quality must go hand in hand.
Much discussion has centered on the need for students to spend more time in school, both through a longer day and a longer school year. Time on task is essential to learning and American students spend less time in the schools than any other industrialized nation. However, attempts to change this challenge the very rhythm of American life with the work patterns of parents as well as the need for students to earn money over an extended summer vacation to help pay for college.
The growth of state control and power at times impedes reform. A plethora of new laws and regulations make the schools more bureaucratic, not less. The delicate balance between state directed change and site-based management has yet to be found. People in power positions are reluctant to give it up. Superintendents and principals see themselves as authority figures, not individuals who must share leadership. This restructuring will take time.
Finally, the teachers themselves. Good teachers are more concerned with their students than with school restructuring. It is not so much that they are resistent to change. They just are too busy and too tired to seriously engage it. The reality is that the day to day grind and emotional involvement drains most teachers. There are too many students, too few resources and not enough time. They would like to have more time for innovation, but it appears difficult to find. Most have family responsibilities added to their professional responsibilities. The competing demands for time must be resolved. Time away from the classroom for serious planning must be built into any systematic reform.
In spite of these problems, educational restructuring must, and will, take place. Throughout American history the schools have been called upon to respond to the changes in society. Such a time is now. As the nation approaches the new information age, the schools must rededicate themselves to the search for the kind of excellence needed in the twenty-first century.
George E. Urch
C.I.E.
July, 1994