ED439138.Pdf
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 439 138 TM 030 672 AUTHOR Wolf, Shelby; Borko, Hilda; McIver,Monette; Elliott, Rebekah TITLE "No Excuses": School Reform Effortsin Exemplary Schools of Kentucky. INSTITUTION Center for Research on Evaluation,Standards, and Student Testing, Los Angeles, CA. SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research andImprovement (ED), Washington, DC. REPORT NO CSE-TR-514 PUB DATE 1999-12-00 NOTE 21p. CONTRACT R305B60002 PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative (142) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Case Studies; *Cooperation; *Educational Change; Educational Environment; Elementary Education; Middle Schools; *Teacher Attitudes; Teachers IDENTIFIERS *Exemplary Schools; Kentucky; *Kentucky Education Reform Act 1990; Reform Efforts ABSTRACT This report follows two elementary and two middle schools in Kentucky where educators not only talked about what they needed to do to meet the needs of the state's educational reform program, but also acted on their ideas, creating a "no excuses" atmosphere. Images of reform suggest that resource decisions are often based on human relationships among faculty members, and that these, in turn, influence the desire to go out into the community to get what is needed to propel learning forward. These schools characterized themselves as "lighthouses" and "universities" where ongoing learning was key. However, the business side of things was less critical than the emphasis on "family." The report demonstrates how four different exemplary schools took on the question of "What is it we need to do?" and formed a shared vision through their dedication to students, staff, faculty, and school. (SLD) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. I S U.S. EPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Offic f Educational Research and Improvement EDU ATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. "No Excuses": School Reform Efforts in Exemplary Schools of Kentucky CSE Technical Report 514 Shelby Wolf, Hilda Borko, Monette McIver, and Rebekah Elliott CRESST/University of Colorado at Boulder A I 1 11 1 , BESTCOPYAVAILABLE 11 2 t I S "No Excuses": School Reform Efforts in Exemplary Schools of Kentucky CSE Technical Report 514 Shelby Wolf, Hilda Borko, Monette McIver, and Rebekah Elliott CRESST/University of Colorado at Boulder December 1999 Center for the Study of Evaluation National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Graduate School of Education & Information Studies University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 90095-1522 (310) 206-1532 Project 1.5 The Effects of Standards-Based Assessments on Schools and ClassroomsHilda Borko, Project Director CRESST/University of Colorado at Boulder Copyright © 1999 The Regents of the University of California The work reported herein was supported under the Educational Research and Development Centers Program, PR/Award Number R305B60002, as administered by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. The findings and opinions expressed in this report do not reflect the positions or policies of the National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum, and Assessment, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, or the U.S. Department of Education. "NO EXCUSES": SCHOOL REFORM EFFORTS IN EXEMPLARY SCHOOLS OF KENTUCKY Shelby Wolf, Hilda Borko, Monette McIver, and Rebekah Elliott CRESST/University of Colorado at Boulder Abstract In our initial discussions with Kentucky Department of Education administrators about exemplary sites, one educator suggested we look for schools that had a "'no excuses' approach": Schools where "you don't say why things can't be done. You say, 'What is it that we need to do?'" In this technical report we will follow two elementary and two middle schools where they not only talked about what they needed to do to meet the Needs of the state reform effort, but they acted upon it, creating a "no excuses" atmosphere. Our images of reform suggest that resource decisions are often based on human relationships among faculty members, and that these, in turn, influence the desire to go out into the community to get what's needed to propel learning forward. Our schools characterized themselves as "lighthouses" and "universities" where ongoing learning was key. But the business side of things was less critical than the emphasis on "family." Thus in this report, we will demonstrate how four different exemplary schools took on the question of "What is it that we need to do?" and formed a shared vision through their dedication to students, staff, faculty, and school. On one of our first trips to Kentucky, we sat in the Frankfort offices of the Department of Education and discussed our research plans with the administrators who watch over the workings of Kentucky's educational reform movement. We were interested in finding exemplary schoolswith the word exemplary defined by Kentucky educators as places where "good things were happening" particularly in light of the reform movement. We cautioned them that we were not searching for what we called "no wonder" schoolsschools with student populations from high socioeconomic status communities, schools too close to universities, or magnet schools for the gifted and talented. We didn't want the schools we selected to invite comments like, "Well no wonder they can do all that! Look at their population. Look at their resources! Why that teacher won the educator of the year award. No wonder!" No. Instead, we wanted schools that served more diverse populations of children, and where we would have to look deeper than surface explanations for 0 why good things were happening. During our conversations, one educator suggested we look for schools that had a " 'no excuses' approach": Schools where "youdon't say why things can't be done. You say, 'What is it that we need to do?' " In this technical report we will follow two 0 elementary and two middle schools where they not only talked about what they needed to do to meet the needs of the state reform effort, but they acted upon it. In our classroom observations and interviews with children, teachers,and principals we saw and heard about process writing, mathematical problemsolving, sound 0 modeling, and students engaged in substantive work. But how does a school go about creating such a "no excuses" atmosphere? Theoretical Framework In their study of school districts involved in substantive change, Spillane and Thompson (1997) borrowed from the work of an economist, J. Coleman (1988), to suggest that "local capacity" is based on (a) physical capital (meaning financial resources), (b) human capital (which entails commitment to reform and disposition 0 to learn by administrators and teachers), and (c) social capital (which encompasses the relationships internal and external to the district). Ball and Cohen (1995, citing Coleman, 1990) further described this triad. They explained, "Physical capital is wholly tangible, being embodied in observable material form; human capital is less 0 tangible, being embodied in the skills and knowledge acquired by an individual; social capital is even less tangible, for it is embodied in the relations among persons" (p. 7, emphasis in the original). Although both human and social capital are considered less and less tangible, they are certainly not tangential. Instead, they are 0 essential elements in understanding what makes a school exemplary in the face of strong state reform movements. Looking at the human relationships both within and outside of a school is I gaining increasing credence in the research literature. For example, Muncey and McQuillan (1996) looked closely at the role of the principal in the Coalition of Essential Schools and concluded that principals were not only "central to the school change process; they were often the central person" (p. 270, emphasis in the I original). Still, they cautioned that "the principal's role was often less directive than traditional conceptions of this position would suggest [, for the role] involved a balancing act, one that required knowing when to be directive and assertive and when to back off and allow faculty to direct change efforts" (p. 270). Other researchers have focused on teachersespecially their attitudes towards teaching and learning. For example, Peterson, McCarthey, and Elmore (1996) suggested that "changing practice is primarily a problem of learning, not a problem of organization. Teachers who see themselves as learners work continuously to develop new understandings and improve their practice" (p. 148). And Schmoker (1996) argued that teachers will "perform more effectivelyeven exponentiallyif they collaborate" (p. 7) Still other researchers focus on the relationships among teachers and students, believing that teachers working together work best when they are moving towards a common goalthe education of children. Forexample, Louis, Marks, and Kruse (1996) suggested that "although taking responsibility for student learning may be thought of as an obligation inherent to the profession of teaching, until lately the notion has received little research attention." They suggested that there are strong positive results when teachers take "collective responsibility for student learning" (p. 764). With this research