Constructing School Organization Through Metaphor: Making Sense of School Reform Nolia C

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2004 Constructing School Organization Through Metaphor: Making Sense of School Reform Nolia C. Brandt

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

CONSTRUCTING SCHOOL ORGANIZATION THROUGH METAPHOR: MAKING SENSE OF SCHOOL REFORM

NOLIA C. BRANDT

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2004

______Carolyn D. Herrington Professor Directing Dissertation

______Karen L. Laughlin Outside Committee Member

______Sande D. Milton Committee Member

______Terrence R. Russell Committee Member

______Jerome S. Osteryoung Committee Member

______Patrice M. Iatarola Committee Member

Approved:

______Carolyn D. Herrington, Chair, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

ii This work is dedicated to Bill Brandt for his unfailing support, and to the dissertation committee members who made this research possible.

iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dissertation Committee members, past and present, were instrumental in guiding the research. With deep appreciation, the following are recognized and thanked:

Carolyn Herrington, Ph.D., Committee Chair Sande Milton, Ph.D., Committee member Karen Laughlin, Ph.D., Committee member Terrence Russell, Ph.D., Committee member Jerome Osteryoung, Ph.D., Committee member Patrice Iatarola, Committee member Allen Imershein, Ph.D. George Papagiannis, Ph.D. Peter Easton, Ph.D.

The members of the laboratory school are gratefully recognized for their dedication to quality education and their time and generosity in meeting with the researcher.

Dan Nelson, Linda Nelson, and Anne Petty are thanked for their insights during reviews of the work in progress and for their assistance during the editing process.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ...... vii INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 5 “Truth” and “Reality” ...... 6 Presentations of Research and Symbolic Understandings: Science and Perception..... 15 Sociology ...... 20 Mimesis and Phenomenology: Science and Literature...... 22 The Organization of Work ...... 27 The Need for Change in the Workplace...... 28 Job Redesign in the United States...... 31 The Future of the Workplace: Technology and Organizations...... 32 Issues in the Changing Workplace...... 34 Organizations and Metaphors ...... 39 Learning Change ...... 49 Newer Metaphors of Organizations and Organizations as Learning Systems...... 55 Schools as Sites of Production...... 62 Education Reform...... 63 Lab Schools in the U.S...... 76 2. METHODOLOGY...... 78 Methodology Literature ...... 78 Methods in this Case Study...... 81 3. REALITY IN THE LAB SCHOOL: OBSERVATIONS, NARRATIVES, AND FINDINGS ...... 87 Background Information on the State's Lab Schools...... 87 The School...... 90 Changes Impacting the School and Metaphors...... 94 Metaphors in this School ...... 121 4. CONSEQUENCES OF COMPETING METAPHORS ON EDUCATORS AND THE ORGANIZATION...... 158 Changes...... 158 Realities...... 159 Metaphors...... 160 Fostering Change ...... 163 Learning Organization...... 167 APPENDIX A...... 169

v TYPES OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED OF ADULT STAFF MEMBERS ...... 170 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 171 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 235

vi ABSTRACT

Constructing School Organization Through Metaphor: Making Sense of School Reform is an in-depth case study of a K-12 laboratory school affiliated with a major state university. The school was undergoing a series of significant changes, mainly due to mandates brought about through educational reform policy and the upcoming loss and replacement of their school facilities. The study was of a particular period in time, and spanned approximately one year. The directed, open-ended questions asked during interviews with adults in the school were related to changes the school was undergoing, how these changes were being implemented, and how these were affecting teachers in relation to their teaching. Insights about the organization were in part gained by the use of metaphor as a tool for looking at organizational structure, and for viewing and describing the meanings that educators created around their roles, professions, and organization.

Qualitative research was chosen as the best method for studying these research questions:

During times of change, an organization's metaphors are more readily apparent as the actors respond to the pressures of change: this was true at the lab school. Metaphors helped expose how individuals constructed shared meanings about their school, the changes impacting the school, and themselves as members of the organization.

The study provides insights into how metaphor and rhetoric were used by educators and others to help construct the social reality of their school, a reality played out through the school's culture. Great concerns surfaced during the interviews about the role of the teacher, the needs of students, the purposes of education, and issues about reform. At the same time, holding the culture together were certain underlying values, characteristics, and expectations—mainly a commitment to student learning and the best interests of the students. The shared metaphor of "teacher" allowed the culture of the school to survive with some strength, even while co-existing with the dissonance caused by other, competing metaphors. However, the shared metaphor of "teacher" did not reduce the school's struggle with change, and the socializing aspects of the culture did not appear to

vii be contributing to an overall understanding or acceptance of the proposed new school and new metaphors necessary to implement the changes and mandates.

The research is descriptive in nature, and data (observations, interviews, and study of artifacts inside and outside of the setting) were inductively analyzed. The narratives of the people interviewed are the primary data. Aggregated data reported in this study are excerpts from the interviews with forty-seven adults within the school setting, compiled in such a way as to represent the repeated issues and mix of "voices" of those interviewed.

The thick data collected provides information on how educators within the school were making sense and meaning of themselves and their organization as the school underwent great change. The events that took place were observed, recorded, and analyzed through open coding into themes that described the changes, metaphors, negotiations, and processes taking place: these constructed the realities within the school. Metaphors were seen to effect and be affected by a series of changes within the school and by the rhetoric of school members.

As a way of looking at people's behavior, organizations, and life constructs, metaphors serve as tools for understanding, identifying, and describing how educators within the school perceive and construct their organization and manage their work lives. Educators use metaphor to construct their realities of themselves as professionals and of their school as an organization, to share beliefs and realities with others, and to influence decisions. Some of the metaphors found and used in the lab school had to do with organizational issues, others with individual issues, including identity. Understanding the dynamics between the existence and use of metaphors, organization structure, and the people who work in the organization is important to educators and policy makers as schools re-create themselves to meet new mandates.

The narratives describe and give insights into how people in the organization used metaphors to organize their structures and work, and to negotiate, manage, construct, and deal with their realities and relationships with each other. The narratives and descriptions of the research also use metaphors to facilitate readers' understanding of this study and to link the narratives of those interviewed back to the literature review. The narrative data reveals that mandated changes were affecting the identity of teachers as professionals. Educators' typifications of themselves as teachers, with the best interests of students at heart, allowed the educators to function as a school that enjoyed some measure of success, even when their was no consensus around changes in the organization. Paradoxes existed in the form of opposing beliefs and realities of what was happening in the school, and educators talked about the school and its changes in ways that were

viii contradictory to how they behaved as members of the school. Some educators talked about the organization as a dictatorship or other type of organization, while almost all of them behaved in ways consistent with a learning organization. On occasion, educators talked about competing realities within the school. Consternation about changes in the school and individual realities caused a variety of reactions, including fight-flight, avoidance, and engagement. The use of rhetoric to inform, build, or eliminate metaphors was in evidence, and members of the school tended to group with "like minded" people who reinforced their existing beliefs.

People in the school interacted with others based on each person's own stock of knowledge, which was informed, enlarged, reinforced, and changed through metaphor: realities were a constant work in progress. These sets of old assumptions and beliefs helped create paradoxes: the teachers who were interviewed focused on their stressors and distress about the changes in the school, versus the way they interacted as a learning organization with the students and each other in positive and supportive ways. This focus on the negative aspects of changes in the school appeared to be in large part due to the probe questions with which the researcher began the interviews.

While the school's Director focused on organizational metaphors, the teachers were focused on person-centered metaphors. There was no metaphor being promoted by the leaders in the school that was more attractive than the metaphors and identities members of the school were losing, particularly those of "lab" school, "professor," and "families." Organizational literature mainly deals with organization-centered metaphors, whereas the person-centered ones that teachers related to most point to a gap in the organizational literature.

The metaphor of democracy, which is important to site-based management such as the school had, was jeopardized by a lack of participation across stakeholders such as parents, teachers, and students. There were many valid reasons for this lack of participation, as reflected in the study and which were in agreement with findings of other researchers. School members struggled with issues unique to their school, but also those faced by other lab and site-managed schools and the U.S. workforce in general.

Communications appeared to be one of the biggest barriers to effecting change, and the reasons for communication breakdowns were varied. In addition, the school was undergoing a transformation from lab school to professional development school (PDS), yet forty-five of the forty-seven people interviewed seemed unaware of this. The transformation to a PDS reflected the trend of other lab schools in the U.S. that had managed to survive by changing their organizations and identities.

Change brought on other challenges as well: those who taught core or state-tested disciplines were challenged to cover all of the requirements and still keep their teaching engaging, up-to-date, and meaningful. Most of the excitement and innovation in the middle and high schools seemed to come from "elective" courses, with the exception of an integrative arts-based program that included core courses, such as math and science.

ix Although educators focused mainly on the stressors caused by change when questioned about change during the interviews, the majority of them behaved in the sharing and interactive ways of a learning organization. At the same time that the school had most of the attributes of a learning organization, most of the educators did not appear to understand key points of this type organization, particularly that chaos is real and embraceable, that change is constant, quick, and part of an everyday process.

x INTRODUCTION

Qualitative research was chosen as the best method for studying these research questions:

1 The research is descriptive in nature, and data (observations, interviews, and study of artifacts inside and outside of the setting) were inductively analyzed. The narratives of the people interviewed are the primary data. Aggregated data reported in this study are excerpts from the interviews with forty-seven adults within the school setting, compiled in such a way as to represent the repeated issues and mix of "voices" of those interviewed.

The researcher's intention was accomplished--i.e., to examine and consider how the institutional arguments, as reported by stakeholders in the organization, were negotiated through a complex, interactive process. The examination was fundamentally based on the metaphors used by the participants, which both revealed and helped to create their views of the reality of the organization. Metaphors were also used in the production of the study as a means of helping the reader understand what was taking place in this school. As a way of looking at people's behavior, organizations, and life constructs, metaphors serve as tools for understanding, identifying, and describing how educators within the school perceive and construct their organization and manage their work lives. Educators use metaphor to construct their realities of themselves as professionals and of their school as an organization, to share beliefs and realities with others, and to influence decisions.

The study is arranged in a "cascading" or "waterfall" fashion. In order to "see" the use and power of metaphor, one must first understand how people construct their concepts of truth and reality. Therefore, Chapter 1, "Literature Review," starts with a review of how "truth" and "reality" are constructed. Science and perception is next, followed by Sociology as the discipline for studying how people perceive their worlds. Mimesis is presented as the overall process by which truth, reality, understanding, and learning are constructed, along with phenomenology as a part of the mimetic process. How mimesis and phenomenology are presented in science and literature is then explored. After presenting the literature on how humans construct their understandings of the world, the study moves to the organization of work, followed by the arguments made for changing workplaces. Job redesign in the United States follows the literature on changing

2 workplaces. Next is presented the future of the workplace, followed by issues in the changing workplace. From the changing workplace, we move to a review of organizations and metaphors, then to learning change within an organization. Newer metaphors of organizations and organizations as learning systems are presented, followed by schools as sites of production, then education reform and lab schools in the U.S.: reform drove the changes impacting the lab school that was studied.

Chapter 2, "Methodology," does two things. First, it makes the argument for why the study was carried out and reported in the manner it was. Second, it describes the methods used in this case study of a K-12 school.

The third chapter is titled "Reality in the Lab School: Observations, Narratives, and Findings." Within this chapter is 1) a description of the school, 2) a section on changes impacting the school--changes related to legislation, the urgent need for a new site and buildings for the school as the university planned to take over the school's facilities for other uses, block scheduling, a guarantee for every student to be both college and workforce ready, standards, student testing and grading, performance appraisals; hiring practices, and changes in the student population, and 3) metaphors in the school, as found in the narratives of those who were interviewed. The metaphors include political metaphors (such as "democracy," "bureaucracy," "autocracy" and "dictatorship," with "oligarchy" being eliminated), "learning organization," "culture," "the game," "families," "the farm," "the professional," "craftsman" versus "assembly line," "the professor," "lab school" versus "public school," "vocational" versus "academic," and "teacher" versus "educator." Some of the metaphors that came out of the narratives of those interviewed aligned with Gareth Morgan's literature on organizational metaphors, but the majority of the metaphors were person-centered--metaphors not generally used in the organizational literature. When observations showed members of the school acting in ways that contradicted their narratives, an in-depth analysis was done on the behavior of the educators as it related to Michael Marquardt's literature on learning organizations.

The fourth and last chapter, "Consequences of Competing Metaphors on Educators and the Organization," presents the findings. The findings are addressed under the following categories: changes, realities, metaphors, fostering change, and the learning organization.

As a way of looking at people's behavior, organizations, and life constructs, metaphors serve as tools for understanding, identifying, and describing how educators within a school perceive and construct their organization and manage their work lives. Educators use metaphor to construct their realities of themselves as professionals and of their school as an organization, to share beliefs and realities with others, and to influence decisions. The narratives describe and give insights into how people in the organization used metaphors to organize their structures and work, and to negotiate, manage, construct, and deal with their realities and relationships with each other. The narratives and descriptions of the research also use metaphors to facilitate readers' understanding of this study.

The dynamics between the existence and use of metaphors, organization structure, and the people who work in the organization are important to educators and policy makers as schools re-create themselves to meet new mandates. Dynamics in a school are influenced

3 and can be understood through metaphors used to both understand and construct the organization and realities within it.

4 CHAPTER 1

LITERATURE REVIEW

This study, Constructing School Organization through Metaphor: Making Sense of School Reform, demonstrates that individuals use metaphors to understand, describe, influence, and experience their daily lives. Metaphor is a key element in the mimetic process by which our individual stock of knowledge gets constructed and modified, and through which our realities are socially constructed. Through metaphor, we respond to and negotiate the social world surrounding us: besides being a tool for self-expression and analysis, metaphors help us understand and influence others.

Metaphor is used to construct organizations, to imbue them with characteristics that leaders see as being the fittest for the organization's survival; individual members within the organization use metaphor to negotiate or understand each of their places within the organization, and to influence the structure of the organization. Our reality, including that which we experience in the workplace, is socially constructed, and it is this constructive process that was the focus of this study.

The research presented herein was obtained through an in-depth case study of one K-12 demonstration ("lab") school affiliated with the education department of a major state university. The study is of a particular period in time, a year in which the school was undergoing dramatic change induced by external policy demands and other changing environmental conditions. Qualitative research was selected as the best method for exploring these research questions:

• What understandings about the organization and the changes exist? o What organizational metaphors are played out in this school undergoing rapid change? o Are multiple metaphors conflicting or complementary? • What are the consequences of competing metaphors on educators and the organization? The following literature review provides the background for the research, how it was conducted, and the reporting style used. It also ties into some of the findings.

5 “Truth” and “Reality”

The power and use of metaphor are tied directly to how "truth" and "reality" are constructed. Deutsch argues that we interpret truth as the “conformity of the thing to our idea, definition, or conception of the thing” or how closely a statement, proposition, or belief that is usually a "linguistic or mental entity" is "thought to correspond to or with what is in fact the case.” When we compare what we hear or see to what we already know or believe, looking for the "truth" in it, we are using the belief systems, perceptions, and interpretations that are based on what we already know. Deutsch argues against narrowing the definition of “truth” to those espoused by positivists, saying that to limit “truth” to what can be labeled as cognitive versus emotive meaning would be “wrong and unfortunate; for it robs the concept of some of its richest possible meaning.” He argues that the "whole self" should be the accepted means for recognizing individual "truths" (1).

Truth may also be that which is observable and can then be connected through the senses to what the observer perceives as reality. Lewis states, “Empirical truth cannot be known except, finally, through presentations of sense." Lewis argues that empirical truth emerges only by "reference to the content of given experience" (qtd. in Chisholm and Swartz 127-28).

"Given experience," as lived experience, would involve both cognitive and emotive meaning, as seen in this continuation of Lewis:

". . . there could be no empirical knowledge if there were not meanings capable of being entertained without dependence on particular occasions. No experience or set of experiences will determine truth of a statement or a belief unless, prior to such experience, we know what we mean; know what experiences will corroborate our affirmation or supposition and what experiences will discredit it. Apprehension of the criteria by which what we intend may be recognized, must be antecedent to any verification or disproof.” (qtd. in Chisholm and Swartz 127- 128)

The recognition of truth as being that which we already know, understand, or believe is an important concept in later discussions on metaphor, phenomenology, stock of knowledge, and how we perceive and respond to change.

Bogdan and Taylor explain the complexity of reality and truth as being based on a person's "own perspectives: their own interpretations, rationalizations, fabrications, prejudices, and exaggerations." People put different interpretations and focus on different things, creating a "composite picture of how people think about the institution and each other." Bogdan and Taylor also point out that an individual's interpretations are for a point in time, and can be different at different times (9-10).

6 Bogdan and Taylor's assessment of how people think and behave as they sort out truth was validated through the narratives collected for the case study of the school. Their perspective also has implications for the discussion on constructions in science found in this literature review.

Husserl, according to Eagleton, argued that “To establish certainty . . . we must first of all ignore . . . anything which is beyond our immediate experience; we must reduce the external world to the contents of our consciousness alone.” This “phenomenological reduction” meant that “all realities must be treated as pure ‘phenomena’, in terms of their appearances in our mind” (54-55). The science of pure phenomena Husserl termed “phenomenology.” Husserl saw "states of consciousness" that revealed phenomena, rather than disguised it (Bensman and Lilienfeld 12). Husserl put a label on the process of taking in information through the senses, processing it cognitively and emotively, and applying it to our mental and emotional data bases of experience.

The characteristics we expect reality to possess are social constructions. To Semin and Gergen, “Society is an ever present and necessary condition for the psychological realities and activities of both scientists and lay persons. . . . [T]he psychological reality of everyday life must always refer to a corresponding cultural and historical background upon which it is predicated.” One can see this background manifested in “practical activities, conventions, rules, norms and particularly in historically and culturally constituted social representations” (2-3). These representations are “subjectively appropriated in the process of socialization,” and over time become “objective reality” (130-31). As we move further into this literature review and the study of the school, we will see rhetoric and metaphor as means of "seeing" other people's representations.

A common theme about truth and reality among the authors is that reality and truth are perceptions, sometimes starting with external (empirical) observations, internalized through the senses and mentally processed through and against a person’s own existing beliefs. To perceive that he or she is in the presence of reality or truth, a scientist, reader, or individual must be able to recognize an element external to him- or herself as being in some measure of agreement with what the person already believes to be “real” or “true.” As will be discussed in a later section, this process is aided through the use of metaphor, where one is able to associate something that is unknown with another thing that is known by the individual.

Science may, in its attempt to be objective through its methodologies, repudiate or minimize the act of contrasting what is observed against that which is believed by an individual scientist or a discipline. This will be discussed with the work of Thomas Kuhn. Later in this literature review, we will discuss the use of ethnomethodology as a means of countering this tendency.

In attempting to describe reality in science, Natanson (1970, 47-50) argues that the “scientific universe is constructed on the basis of the multiple experiences of the lifeworld” that has been “concealed under a ‘tissue of ideas’ . . . cast upon it like a disguise.” Even in “mathematics and mathematical natural science” he observes that the methods used have become understood as “‘true being.’” Natanson sees the life-world as the “only

7 truly real world,” and by necessity it must be “stripped of the reference to possible scientific explanation.” He sees reality as perceptual experience, the world as “interpreted, apperceived, and apprehended in a specific way . . . a cultural world” (47- 50). To find support for Natanson's beliefs in a "scientific" domain, one only has to contrast applied with theoretical physics. Again, we will see more discussion of this with Kuhn in a later section of this literature review.

Phenomenology

Phenomenology is used to construct "reality" and to understand it. Phenomenology may best be understood through the work of Edmund Husserl, as explained by Eagleton:

[Husserl] started out . . . by provisionally rejecting what he called the ‘natural attitude’—the commonsensical person-in-the street belief that objects existed independently of ourselves in the external world, and that our information about them was generally reliable. Such an attitude merely took the possibility of knowledge for granted. . . . Although we cannot be sure of the independent existence of things, Husserl argues, we can be certain of how they appear to us immediately in consciousness, whether the actual thing we are experiencing is an illusion or not. Objects can be regarded not as things in themselves but as things posited, or ‘intended’ by consciousness. . . . The act of thinking and the object of thought are internally related, mutually dependent. My consciousness is not just a passive registration of the world, but actively constitutes or ‘intends’ it. . . . all realities must be treated as pure ‘phenomena’, in terms of their appearances in our mind, and this is the only absolute data from which we can begin. . . . Phenomenology is a science of pure phenomena. (54-55)

Bensman and Lilienfeld credit Alfred Schutz with introducing phenomenology into sociology in the United States:

Schutz tried . . . to treat attitudes that govern social interaction as if they were systems of meaning, and to define their constitutive elements as they underlay social action. . . . Thus, one of the starting points and basic foci of Schutz’s work is the attitude of everyday life, or the ‘natural attitude’ . . . as opposed to the ‘scientific attitude’. . . . In describing and analyzing the attitude of everyday life, Schutz developed a model for understanding the course of social action in terms of motives. (12-13)

Later, we will see Schutz's explanations on how phenomenology is used in the creation of an individual's "stock of knowledge," or that mental/emotive personal data base to which we referred earlier. What is not in our stock of knowledge cannot be retrieved, but we will see, later, how metaphor is used to create and add new knowledge.

A phenomenologist has the task of determining how people interpret the world. “The task of the phenomenologist . . . is to capture this process of interpretation . . . the phenomenologist attempts to see things from that person’s point of view” (Bogdan and Taylor 13-15). In the chapter titled "Reality in the Lab School," we will see how

8 interpretations influence behaviors of the educators in the school. A phenomenological approach allows us to capture the "data" necessary for understanding that which otherwise would only be internal to the individual. We will use the same process for our observations of the tools (such as metaphor) used by an individual to interpret, apperceive, and apprehend his or her socially constructed reality.

Mimesis

By understanding mimesis, we can synthesize the pieces and parts—"truth," "reality," "phenomenology," "stock of knowledge," "rhetoric," and "metaphor"—that both emerge and are used as tools to uncover the social realities being constructed in the school. Mimeses, like so many other concepts, has changed over time. In an earlier sense, it was limited to aesthetics or imitation. Plato made imitation the “general principle of art,” and art was a form of mimesis. He was subsequently criticized for trying to make mimesis pattern itself on science.

Gebauer and Wulf give a more current understanding of mimesis: it "plays a critical role in nearly all areas of human thought and action, in our ideas, speech, writing, and reading." Explanations of mimesis include the "act of resembling, of presenting the self, and expression as well as mimicry, imitation, representation, and nonsensuous similarity." Mimesis as a concept "resists theory building" but has adapted to historical changes:

[M]imesis betrays a distrust of the instrumentalities and procedures of theory kept ‘pure’ of contamination of human practice. . . . Mimesis is not concerned with boundaries drawn between art, science, and life. It causes accepted differentiations to lose their power to distinguish and strips definitions of their conventional meanings. New connections, distinctions, and orders of thought come into being. . . . [M]imetic processes . . . appear in the entanglements of art and literature, aesthetics and science. The productive side of mimesis lies in the new connections it forges among art, philosophy, and science. . . . [Mimesis] has a part in our symbolization of the world and in processes of simulation . . . images become a surrogate experience of reality. Realities are not becoming images here, but images are becoming realities. . . . Distinctions between realities, images and fictions break down. The world appears subject to a making in images. Images come into mimetic relation with other images. (1-3)

Whether in science, literature, art, or daily life, new worlds are created upon old ones. In describing mimesis, we also begin to understand the power and use of metaphor, which will be discussed shortly as a powerful tool in observing, describing, understanding, and creating mimetic processes.

Mimesis may characterize the act of producing a symbolic world, and “the mimetic production of symbolic world refers to other worlds and to their creators and draws other persons into one’s own world. . . . Mimesis in reference to others represents a productive intervention into modes of thinking and speaking that are other than one’s own. . . . “Mimesis makes it possible for individuals to step out of themselves, to draw the outer

9 world into their inner world, and to lend expression to their interiority. It produces an otherwise unattainable proximity to objects and is thus a necessary condition of understanding” (Gebauer and Wulf 2-3). Mimesis as a process can change a person's stock of knowledge and way of viewing the world. It is also used to create shared worlds. In this sense, metaphor has much in common with mimesis, since metaphor allows one to relate the unknown to what one already knows. This creation of shared worlds, according to Gebauer and Wulf, takes place through mimetic processes, which “are not founded on similarities. . . . Similarity is an outcome of mimetic reference. . . . [A]n object or event can only be regarded as an image, replica, or reproduction of another one when there exists between the two a mimetic reference" (316-20).

As mimesis builds on and modifies existing understandings, it is always "intermediary, stretched between a symbolically produced world and another one. . . . Out of a merely possible present, mimesis is capable of creating an immediate one, which, as living memory, stands out prominently in the flow of time. It makes presence and reproducibility possible by laying hold of the sensuous aspects of appearances” (Gebauer and Wulf 315-20). Accepting mimesis in the social construction of reality is an acknowledgment of any point in time being "intermediary": as soon as something is apprehended and integrated, it creates the ground upon which the next level of understanding or change can take place.

The power of mimesis is that its "range of mimetic effects extends into the sphere of practical action: as models of behavior, an enactment of power, the definition of reality" (Gebauer and Wulf 316-20). This power to create world views and to change the relationship between people and their known "truths" is one of the dangers of mimesis. Since we cannot control its presence, it is important to know how to observe and understand its results.

Rhetoric

Reality is constructed mimetically through words, objects, and actions. Human discourse takes place through the spoken language when information is sent and received. The uses of language to create images, to affect one's own and others' stock of knowledge, to organize and make sense, order, and organization comprised a large part of the data collection efforts in the case study. Rhetoric helped create metaphors, and metaphors, in turn, helped construct and reveal the social realities.

Lynch explains that rhetoric is the art of persuasion—the use of language to sway or convince, or the study of this art. Although classic rhetoric refers to persuasion that is spoken, in the modern definition rhetoric also covers written persuasion. In using rhetoric, words and their contexts are framed in such a way as to attempt to achieve an effect or result. Burton tells us that this is done by mastering an understanding of kairos ("the opportune moment"), audience (the reader or listener), and decorum ("fitting one's speech to the context and audience").

10 Burton describes rhetoric's "persuasive appeals" as being of three types: logos (the "appeal to reason"); pathos (the "appeal to emotion"); and ethos (the "persuasive appeal of one's character"). Working together, these types of appeal are used to persuade others.

Wynne references the philosopher, John Searle, who made "the argument that social reality is constructed." Rhetoric is used to aid this construction through persuasion, to convince others and obtain their support, allegiance, or understanding. Source credibility is imperative in this persuasion. St. Clair (2003) describes rhetoric as "essentially a way of thinking about the world [that] is predominately concerned with the perception and description of cognitive structures. It has a structural interest in the presentation of information."

Fieldwork in the case study of the school mainly consisted of capturing the narratives of the adults in the school: identifying rhetoric became part of the analysis. Observing the rhetorical use of metaphor in the narratives allowed for a more complete view of the social construction of reality.

Metaphor

In mimetic learning and constructions of reality, metaphors are the power tools. Metaphors are words that let us think of one thing in terms of another: we are able to understand something new because we can link it to something we know or understand. Unknowable concepts become understood and knowable through metaphor. For instance, the phrase, "he's solid as a rock," provides us with an image of a person who is not soft and who is consistent in being, because that is the nature of a rock. Elgin says that metaphors are "the hottest domain in the field of cognitive science," but that is "unfortunate, because metaphors are the most powerful tools we have for bringing about changes in human feelings and attitudes." Elgin discusses the use of metaphor in mediation: "Metaphors are our most important mechanism for changing attitudes quickly and lastingly because they reframe issues; they are our most common barrier to understanding and consensus because they function as perceptual filters." Elgin applies the use of metaphor to change:

Changes that are brought about by logical argument and 'true facts' take a very long time, often such a long time that they're obsolete by the time they're accomplished; changes brought about by coercion happen quickly, but they last only until someone comes along with a more powerful weapon, a larger bribe, or some other kind of superior force. Changes that result from metaphor, by contrast, happen very fast and . . . are longlasting.

Use of metaphor to construct the social reality in a workplace (such as a school) provides one of the most powerful tools for creating the realities. With the use of metaphor, we can also describe, understand, and study social realities.

Lakoff argues that the "generalizations governing poetic metaphorical expressions" are not in language, but instead in thought. Lakoff's description of metaphor demonstrates why metaphor is thought rather than language:

11 [Metaphors are] general mappings across conceptual domains. . . . [T]hese general principles which take the form of conceptual mappings, apply not just to novel and poetic expressions, but to much of ordinary everyday language. In short, the locus of metaphor is not in language at all, but in the way we conceptualize one mental domain in terms of another. The general theory of metaphor is given by characterizing such cross-domain mappings. And in the process, everyday abstract concepts like time, states, change, causation, and purpose also turn out to be metaphorical. The result is that metaphor (that is, cross-domain mapping) is absolutely central to ordinary natural language semantics. . . . The word metaphor has come to mean a cross-domain mapping in the conceptual system.

St. Clair takes the stance that the use of verbal and visual metaphors is in part culturally based, but that both types of metaphor have importance in creating understandings. Metaphor in its modern definition can refer to printed, visual, or verbal instances. St. Clair discusses its power:

Since the publication of Kuhn's (1970) model of scientific thinking, rhetoricians now realize that metaphors pervade all forms of knowledge. Kuhn, it should be noted, called these shifts in perspective paradigms. Brown (1976), a specialist in the sociology of art, sees metaphors operating in a larger context. He notes that metaphors provide a perspective on knowledge just as scientific paradigms provide a perspective on theoretical knowledge. Chet Bowers and David Flinders see an understanding of metaphors as essential for teachers because they 'provide the schemes or cognitive models that are the basis of thought.' (11)

According to St. Clair, "Metaphors tell us much about those who use them. They provide insight into how these individuals view the world." In the case study of the school, the narratives reveal the metaphors and the metaphors reveal the socially constructed realities of the organization. This allows us to understand how the educators were experiencing and constructing their world within the school.

Organization metaphors provide a way to enhance understanding by relating the way an organization is structured to something with which we are familiar: the use of metaphor increases our ability to integrate new knowledge into our existing knowledge, but this integration from that point forward modifies our existing understandings. People construct social realities within an organization, and one way of understanding an organization is to explore the metaphors used within the organization, while keeping in mind what we see is only at that point in time.

Schools are both organizations and metaphors for organizations. The metaphor of school can be used to infer a setting where learning takes place, usually within some structure. Morgan (1986) did not use the metaphor of schools, and school is not used as a metaphor in this study so as not to become self-referencing. Instead, Morgan’s (and a few others') metaphors of organizations were used as a way to better understand the structure, processes, and perceptions about the school held by those within the school. Metaphors were also used by the researcher to understand and describe to the reader the phenomena being studied.

12 Morgan’s Images of Organization (1986) became an international bestseller by providing ways of viewing organizations through a variety of lenses (lens being a metaphor for tools that help us see more clearly, such as spectacles or a microscope). The lenses that Morgan gave us were metaphors that could be used as templates (template being a metaphor of a construct that can be repeatedly used) for viewing phenomena. Morgan's premise is that humans are shaped by the things they see, hear, and do, that they take in messages from the environment, compare them to what they know, and find ways of seeing one thing as being like another in order to understand it. To Morgan, humans understand and live their lives through the use of metaphors.

Madsen’s understanding of metaphors agrees with that of Morgan. Madsen describes a metaphor as being “an image of something, mostly a link between a well-known figurative object (the “image-part”) and some unknown or abstract matter (the “meaning- part”).” A metaphor allows us to describe something “so that the image-part plays the role of a 'stand-in' for the unknown or abstract concept.” Our ability to understand hinges upon our ability to convert the unknown into the known, to take something with which we are unfamiliar and link it to something with which we are familiar: the metaphor provides something familiar, and allows us to let the metaphor (the known) stand in for the unknown. For instance, Morgan’s organization as machine metaphor conjures up the image of repetitive or mechanical processes performed under fixed rules.

Burgi used Morgan’s metaphors as points of reference for his discussion of organizations, and agrees with Morgan that managers should use many views, or metaphors, of their organizations in order to see the complexities of the organization. Burgi's argument is that "metaphors serve an important practical purpose, as crucial components of the knowledge that organizations have of themselves, and as tools with which managers can understand their environments more holistically.”

Studies of organizations over the past four decades have identified and used metaphors to help frame and define organizations; have been used to create cultures of organizations; and have been used by researchers to describe what they have found in organizational studies. In using metaphor to study schools, Deal (1990) discusses linking "reform success to school culture and symbolic leadership concepts." Deal "presents evidence connecting organizational culture to productivity in business and schools," and discusses the role of the principal in shaping a school culture, in part by providing symbols. He outlined and summarized the tactics that leaders used:

Each of the principals . . . identified what was important, selected compatible teachers, dealt successfully with conflict, set a consistent example, told illustrative stories, and used ceremonies, tradition, rituals, and symbols to display the school's common values. . . . [There must be] an unquenchable desire and commitment to build cultures that support and create excellence.

The creation of culture can be assisted through the use of metaphor. Another of Deal's works (1974) reveals where he thinks administrators might get help managing change: "Since educational organizations must constantly change to meet the demands of a changing society, educational administrators might look to the social sciences for help in

13 managing change and innovation." In the changing lab school, administrators, teachers, and other stakeholders used metaphor to understand, influence, and construct the organization, but the process for using them did not appear to be coordinated.

Lincoln (1986) made the observation that actors within an organization create realities that are often conflicting or multiple. She cautions that, when researching an organization, the researcher must understand that no single construction of reality for the organization exists. With this in mind, a researcher must also understand that metaphors may fall into many categories: biology, computing, economics, education, English, geography, health, legal, military, music, political science, and others. The metaphors a researcher chooses help frame and construct the way phenomena are seen and interpreted. Metaphors in the literature search for this case study focused on the metaphors used for organizations, mainly as described by Morgan (1986 and 1998) and one called "learning organizations" by Marquardt (1996).

The metaphors used in this research give one a place to begin; to understand how the structure of the school is perceived; to observe some of the consequences of organizing a workplace such as a school in a particular way; and to understand how organizational structure only partially explains why individuals act the way they do. Morgan’s metaphors deal with two distinct levels: those that describe operational processes and those that describe social reality construction and psychological processes. Metaphors related to processes deal with how an organization is structured and operates. These include machines or bureaucracies, organisms, brains, flux and transformation, learning organizations, and political systems. The second type of metaphor sees organizations as social constructions and psychological processes in a much deeper way than the process metaphors. These include organizations as cultures and as psychic prisons. Being able to separate these classifications of metaphor allows for culture to stand as an overarching metaphor within which the process and other metaphors can coexist. Each organization, regardless of how it is operationally structured, is a culture—a cocreation of the people within the organization: multiple metaphors can and do exist within this culture.

The use of metaphor for understanding a phenomenon acts as a methodology for the study of the phenomenon. The metaphors selected also shape the research questions asked: if it is a machine, we look for machine-like characteristics. Although organizational structure can influence reality construction and thought processes, reality construction and thoughts also affect the way people act within the structural design of an organization. Leaders in an organization can design structured processes and mandate them, but successful implementation of organizational change will depend on how the participants in the organization respond. The main influence on behavior comes from social and psychological processes that affect the behaviors, although processes and mandates will have an effect on these as well, sometimes in unintentional or negative ways. The following sections discuss the metaphors that Morgan (1986) identified for use in research about organizations and for understanding how members see the organization from their respective perspectives.

14 Presentations of Research and Symbolic Understandings: Science and Perception

In preparing to develop the case study, the researcher attended a gathering of well-known sociologists from U.S. institutions of higher learning. They were gathered to present on “Social Theory ‘After’ Postmodernism: The Next Step?” These sociologists included Allen Imershein, Robert Alford, Robert Antonio, Orville Lee, Stephen Turner, Joan Alway, David Brain, Douglas Litowitz, Hans-Herbert Kögler, and Janet Chafetz. Moderators included Jennifer Lehman, Harry Dahms, Kimberly Barton, and Lawrence Hazelrigg. Postmodernism and what comes after it was the topic, but the subtext in a number of the presentations was related to the actions that can move us beyond postmodernism. These sociologists also addressed research, the way it is presented, target audiences, the effects of research, and components that are studied.

Orville Lee discussed symbolic power—the power of creating power with words: this is turned into social capital. Social forces work through symbolic practices, which create power. Lee would like to de- and reconstruct symbolic practices for the creation of a cultural identity, engaging in transformative politics. The deaggregation and demystification could then reduce symbolic inequality, giving individuals the ability to 1) create culture, and 2) create their own representations of self: people would then have the power to transform culture. To achieve this, Lee argued that we must stop using categories as if they are self-evident (reified) and see how they came about because they are symbolically constructed. Lee sees power as an institution of symbolic practices: “It’s either made or not made.” The delivery of TV and mass culture on a global basis was a major issue tied into how symbolic power works.

Lee sees a future in which “social facts” can be turned into political processes and issues in order to embrace power and make it work democratically. To bring this about, the populace in general must understand cultural symbols, how they are used, and how to consciously transform the use. The understanding and use of cultural symbols may then create power shifts in political processes.

David Brain said one should “not leave biology to biologists and economy to economists, because it is a question of governance. We must analyze how the world of things (material) and symbols are enmeshed.” Combinations of nature and culture become the "stuff" of culture and what we encounter is a materialization of our own “working over of things.” It is language that works “across the grain of artifact reality.”

Action may be structured by the materiality in which it operates, according to Brain. People's material culture may not just manifest the culture, but the material forms may work across culture. Conversely, each culture will interpret the meanings of its own artifacts or material forms. Artifacts are created, and individuals in the culture then learn from the artifacts. Brain said, “Material practices and actions create social realities: material order gets created. The material practice of putting paint on canvas takes into consideration these skills.”

15 Hans-Herbert Kögler asked, “Why don’t more people riot and reject the absurdities?” In answering his own question, Kögler said, “They have taken the role of the other and have accepted the interpretive schemes and internalized them.” There is a symbolic mediation of reality.

Critical theory, according to Kögler, is based on making certain structures visible and making change possible. We must tie research in cultures (cultural studies) to the internalized perception of self, not to existing models, and understand how the person experiences things that can be traced back to collectives.

Brain said that the need to become recognized in one’s own community lets one adopt the speech and other identity constraints that reproduce subordinating perspectives and reproduces power: social forces and the need to be recognized (social recognition) draws us to embrace stereotypes—the symbolism that created this can also be used to break out of these stereotypes. Brain reminded his listeners that the symbolic is never in itself a causation, that creative response can give people the tools to better construct the “me”— this provides the resource for changing symbols and power structures.

The people "outside or marginal in society" have "developed the postmodern dialogue," Brain said. The postmodern emphasis on discourse, knowledge, and communication is needed, but this must be rooted in the material world of real and symbolic inequality, and it should not be mainly conceptualized by sociologists at the individual level, where the range of choices are constrained by the opportunity structure, or by where one is located in this structure. Brain agreed with others that sociologists get in the habit of “talking to ourselves in ways only we understand.” Brian’s discussion seemed to be in line with the idea that change agents, which could include sociologists and educators, must develop the ability to talk to broad audiences in ways that would cause them to engage with the information being presented. Rather than using special “languages” that only fellow academics in their own disciplines understand, ways of making their special languages universal must be found. Studies written along academic strictures and in academic language have their place, but to reach larger audiences, “popular” dialogue for reaching the general public must be used. This might include dialogue written for television, novels, plays, the theater, movies, or other means.

"Going out and collecting data alone," Brain said, “leads to abstracted empiricism, but at least the Chicago School tried to direct their discourse toward others, not just themselves.” Brain used the Chicago School as an example of sociologists dedicated to communicating research in ways that broader audiences could understand, and also argued that we need research that is not directed only at academicians. Additionally, theoretical, quantitative, and qualitative studies are still three distinct camps: Brain wants links between these to be created, and says we should ask ourselves how we can participate in this work. In addition, the most important organization in our society, the corporation (and how it influences social reality), is missing: "it is a missing link and a mediating component."

Kögler replied that, for sociology to speak to people in the real world, there should be a “trigger of self-understanding in the agents; and, in the natural science models, there is no

16 need for atoms to self-realize or speak to themselves.” Models besides those based on natural science are needed. Another speaker responded that sociologists should “write at a more popularly understood level. We need to challenge ourselves to do this.”

Many of the sociologists presenting at the gathering appeared to be supporting the idea that social change comes about through changes in common sense (which could also be called stock of knowledge): this, in turn, leads to actions that create change. The ability to communicate with “everyday people” becomes the tool for transferring ideas, promoting growth, and reaching shared understandings and values.

The ethnomethodological study of the lab school and the presentation of findings could be useful for helping to accomplish Kögler's vision, whereby anyone reading the study could understand the challenges, responses, and realities of the educators in the school. By making structures and realities visible and understandable, we make future change possible.

Much of the literature reviewed for this case study concurred with the presenters at the sociologists' gathering. Hutcheon's writings acknowledge that “representation legitimizes and privileges certain kinds of knowledge: our access through narrative to the world of experience—past or present—is always mediated by the powers and limits of our representations of it. . . . Our common-sense presumptions about the ‘real’ depend upon how that ‘real’ is described, how it is put into discourse and interpreted.” Gebauer and Wulf's earlier discussion about mass media creating realities and images becoming realities (2) also echoed those of the other sociologists.

Eisner (1993) argues that “the images created by literature, poetry, the visual arts, dance, and music give us insights that inform us in special ways that only artistically rendered forms make possible. . . . [Susan Langer, in talking about the cognitive contributions of art, says] 'What is artistically good is whatever articulates and presents feeling to our understanding.'" Yet, different forms make different understandings possible. Eisner embraces the need for “a pluralistic rather than a monolithic approach to research. . . . Let us suppose for the time being that . . . forms of representation provide the means through which meaning is made. Let us also suppose that diversified forms of meaning are related to different forms of understanding and that different forms of understanding have great virtue for knowing how to act in complex circumstances. . . . If the ideas that I have described were to take hold in the educational research community, we would see an expanding array of research methods being employed in the conduct and display of educational research. In many ways, this diversity has already begun to happen. We now have a growing interest in narrative and in storied approaches to experience. Jerome Bruner’s (1990) distinction between paradigmatic and narrative modes of knowing provides a conceptual basis for understanding the differences between scientific and narrativistic ways of dealing with the world” (7-8). Eisner expands on his wish to have other presentations of research:

The use of visual, narrative, and poetic forms will have consequences for determining who is competent to appraise what they have to say. When research methods are stable and canonized, the rules of the game are relatively clear. With

17 new games, new rules. With new rules, competencies that were appropriate for some forms of research may not necessarily be relevant for others. Furthermore, the ability to make sense of a form of research depends upon one’s experience with that form and upon one’s conception of what counts as research. . . . What we need to avoid is political polarization as a result of methodological differentiation. Polarization eventually leads to matters of power and control: there is not only a sociology of knowledge; there is also a sociology of method. (9)

Eisner, Sjoberg and Nett address the competencies needed to present research in new ways:

Representation requires the skills needed to treat a material so that it functions as a medium, something that mediates content. . . . As the relevance of different forms of representation for understanding schooling grows, schools of education will be pressed to develop programs that help students learn how to use them. . . . Another offshoot of this development deals with the features of acceptable dissertations. In the future they are likely to take on forms that only a few now possess. (Eisner, 1993, 9)

As we turn from the logical empiricists to the verstehen sociologists—say, symbolic interactionists like Goffman—we find that in their absorption with uncovering sensitizing concepts they pay little homage to technical procedures calling for formal specification of the research design, including the limitations of the latter. Rather the symbolic interactionists, because they convey meaning through sensitizing concepts, must be attuned to the innuendoes of the words and phraseology they employ. They must paint a picture wherein the total effect is more significant than the details. . . . Not only do the more successful practitioners of the verstehen approach write with a flair, but on occasion they employ a novelistic approach in scientific writing. (Sjoberg and Nett 320)

These ways of presenting research, and the competencies required, are critical to studies conducted as ethnomethodology. Although some theorists may think of science as a search for knowledge, or as a pursuit of “reality,” Semin and Gergen quote M. Merleau- Ponty as saying, “We shall no longer hold that perception is incipient science, but conversely that classical science is a form of perception which loses sight of its origins and believes itself complete” (64). In this statement, Merleau-Ponty is in agreement with Thomas Kuhn and others. Semin and Gergen discuss the “intricate relationship” between “common sense” and the “disciplined thought” of science:

‘Constructive interpretation’ is itself something that has to be grounded and common sense may play a role in the grounding, especially if acceptance of the lay community is to be involved. . . . The knowledge emerging from disciplined thought gets accommodated to the criteria of common sense and it is often forgotten that this switching of context means that the same interpretations usually do not prevail. . . . [D]isciplined thought often brings its specialized elaboration by uncritically taking over meanings that belong to common sense

18 and thus may carry over inadequate hidden assumptions for its more specialized context. . . . [N]o matter how important science may be as a corrective to common sense, it is not ultimate. (64-65)

The researcher conducting this case study of the lab school provides thick description and original narratives from the stakeholders in the school. These narratives, along with the researcher's observations, constitute the data. This data will allow other disciplines to overlay their frames of reference and develop new findings and research questions.

Scientists learn and develop their theories through mimetic processes; these processes create “understandings” in the scientist; empirical observation is connected with these understandings in a phenomenological way; mimetic processes are then used to represent the scientist’s “findings” to others. Sjoberg and Nett explain this in the following way:

Some of the major scientific discoveries of the past arose from the unconscious reconstruction of theories after observation had occurred. . . . [The] unconscious mind collates and sorts random possibilities among pertinent variables at a rate that defies the much too slow efforts on the conscious level. . . . Perhaps the human psyche does, in a more or less random way, trace out consequences by systematically correlating through a wide range of possible logical combinations a number of variables that observing scientists consider to be pertinent. . . . This or some similar principle, if found to be true, would take the metaphysics out of intuition and aid in the formulation of a more rigorous logic of retroduction. (53- 54)

When paradigms change, so do the theories and methods. With his 1970 work, Kuhn had a dramatic impact on our understanding of how science is conducted. “In so far as . . . [scientists’] only recourse to . . . [their] world is through what they see and do[,] . . . after a revolution scientists are responding to a different world” (111). “Experiments demonstrate that perceived size, color,” etc., of “experimentally displayed objects . . . varies with the subject’s previous training and experience . . . something like a paradigm is prerequisite to perception itself. What a man sees depends both upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual-conceptual experience has taught him to see” (113). As one example, Kuhn discusses the period of “crisis” when scientists viewed light as “‘sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle,’” which ended with the realization that “light was a self-consistent entity different from both waves and particles” (114-16). Kuhn says it is possible that “two men with the same retinal impressions can see different things . . . [and] two men with different retinal impressions can see the same thing. . . . From the start they presuppose a paradigm” (127-29).

Scientific revolutions are often hard to track historically because science textbooks, popularizations, and the philosophical works modeled on them "record the stable outcome of past revolutions and thus display the bases of the current normal scientific tradition. . . . Textbooks[,] . . . being pedagogic vehicles for the perpetuation of normal science, have to be rewritten in whole or in part whenever the language, problem structure, or standards of normal science change. . . . [T]hey have to be rewritten in the

19 aftermath of each scientific revolution . . . and . . . inevitably disguise not only the role but the very existence of the revolutions that produced them" (Kuhn. 136-38).

What Kuhn describes sounds much like mimesis. In the most current understandings of mimesis, Gebauer and Wulf see the role of mimesis in science as being critical; science, literature, art, and new social worlds are created upon old ones.

Grindal (1993), a leader in the foundation of humanistic anthropology, argues that one of the “greatest strengths" of humanistic anthropology is that "we publish narrative and poetically written materials that capture the felt life of ourselves and . . . those whose lives we have entered and about whom we have chosen to write." Grindal says this "distinguishes us from the countless other subfields that are hell-bent to create ever- increasing piles of formalistic, useless, and often dangerous knowledge." He sees his discipline as being "primarily concerned with human life and experience," and states that humanistic anthropologists must "continue to affect a voice that allows us to communicate those experiences that . . . enhance our sensibility and awareness of the human condition . . . and our intersubjective understandings of these experiences. . . . We must affect a voice that renders the human story both compelling and true” (46-47).

Learning should not be limited to either science or empiricism, according to Eisner (1993). He advocates for students to think in and use different forms of language and media, which allows them to use different forms of thinking. This will, in turn, "lead to different kinds of meaning."

The use of organizational metaphor, as used in the case study, allows us to think about and see organizations in certain ways, and in this manner can expand a person’s thinking. However, a drawback is that metaphors also create distortions, since ways of seeing are also ways of not seeing. Morgan refers to the use of evocative images such as metaphor as “constructive falsehoods” (4).

Sociology

Sjoberg and Nett, discuss certain assumptions about sociology:

We are concerned with direct observation: with the perception of human behavior or of objects in one’s immediate environment, which perception has been conceptualized and is capable of being transmitted to others . . . two kinds of behavior can be sensed ‘directly’: linguistic signs and physical acts. Attitudes, mores, norms, and other concepts sociologists employ are imputations from, and in turn are used to interpret, direct observations of human behavior. . . . We can also distinguish between self-observation, or introspection, and observation of human behavior or objects external to oneself. (160-61)

Observation of behaviors, collection and analysis of narratives, and artifact analysis were used in the case study of the lab school as a means of consequently understanding the socially constructed worlds of the actors in the school.

20 Social science may differ from natural science in that it incorporates the historical and subjective: “Social scientists must . . . take cognizance of both the historical dimension of human action and the subjective aspects of human experience. Unlike the natural scientist, the social scientist can ‘get inside’ his subject matter. . . . [Weber’s argument] in broad terms, was that if social scientists are to comprehend the actions of individuals and groups they must learn to ‘take the role of the other’ (to employ Mead’s terminology). They must gain an understanding of the author’s view of social reality: his symbols, attitudes, and values” (Sjoberg and Nett 5).

As with most forms of science, social science attempts to reveal patterns, increase understanding, and in some ways aid prediction. But one can also speculate whether or not the process followed for knowledge building aids in developing the predicted future. “Although social science depends on lay concepts as the foundation of its analysis,” Burawoy explains, “it also tries to go beyond the lived experience of participants. We are interested not only in learning about a specific social situation, which is the concern of the participant, but also in learning from that social situation. In contrast to the participants, we want to be able to make causal claims that have validity beyond the situation we study. It is the task of methodology to explicate methods of turning observations into explanations, data into theory. . . . there is a circular movement in which social science built on the reconstruction of common sense feeds back and transforms that common sense [emphasis added]. Our newspapers and media are full of watered-down social science, which in part explains why social science doesn’t appear to grow. The new theory of today becomes the conventional wisdom of tomorrow” (5-26). With this explanation, Burawoy shows that the conduct and outcome of qualitative research in social science is a mimetic process.

Qualitative Research

Goldenberg discusses interpretive methods of qualitative research by starting with a quote from Louis Wirth, 1949: “Objects can be known purely from the outside, while mental and social processes can be known only from the inside” as well as through the shared meanings and interpretations we give to the objects. “Hence, insight may be regarded as the core of social knowledge. It is arrived at by being on the inside of the phenomena to be observed. . . . It is participation in an activity that generates interest, purpose, point of view, value, meaning, and intelligibility as well as bias. . . . Interpretive methods begin with a commitment to what we have called an ‘insider’ perspective, which in turn involves a determination to somehow get inside the actor’s mind.” Methods for doing this may include participant observation, introspection, personal experience, life history, film or visual sociology, ethnography, intensive interview, qualitative content analysis “and its relatives, semiotics, conversation or discourse analysis and hermeneutics” (321-22).

Creswell tells us that Merriam (1988) developed “six assumptions of qualitative research designs:

1. Qualitative researchers are concerned primarily with process, rather than outcomes or products.

21 2. Qualitative researchers are interested in meaning - how people make sense of their lives, experiences, and their structures of the world.

3. The qualitative researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and analysis. Data are mediated through this human instrument, rather than through inventories, questionnaires, or machines.

4. Qualitative research involves fieldwork. The researcher physically goes to the people, setting, site or institution to observe or record behavior in its natural setting ["natural" being defined as spaces people inhabit in their everyday lives as opposed to a laboratory setting].

5. Qualitative research is descriptive in that the researcher is interested in process, meaning, and understanding gained through words or pictures.

6. The process of qualitative research is inductive in that the researcher builds abstractions, concepts, hypotheses, and theories from details.” (145)

According to Bogdan and Taylor, qualitative research methods take a phenomenological approach to the social sciences. There are two major theoretical perspectives which “have dominated the social science scene.” The first is positivism, traced back to Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim: “the positivist seeks the facts or causes of social phenomena with little regard for the subjective states of individuals.” The second perspective, led by Irwin Deutscher and stemming from Max Weber, is the phenomenological approach. Although phenomenology was discussed more thoroughly in an earlier section, it is briefly summarized here by Bogdan and Taylor:

The phenomenologist is “concerned with understanding human behavior from the actor’s own frame of reference. . . . The phenomenologist examines how the world is experienced. For him or her the important reality is what people imagine it to be. . . . When we reduce people to statistical aggregates," such as is done in positivist research, "we lose sight of the subjective nature of human behavior." The researcher must "be able to stand back from subjects’ perspectives," seeking "not truth and morality, but rather, understanding." The task of the qualitative researcher "is to cut through commonsense understandings of ‘truth’ and ‘reality’” ([emphasis added]). (2-10)

Mimesis and Phenomenology: Science and Literature

At its most profound, as a concept, mimesis might be said to be the process by which “truth” and “reality” are socially constructed. What we learn and internalize even affects our interpretation of what we receive through the senses. Berger discusses the social construction of reality while Chisholm and Swartz link empirical knowledge to our apprehensions and experience.

22 Reality is socially constructed, and the process of this construction is best studied phenomenologically. The man in the street takes his reality and knowledge for granted, but the sociologist understands that individuals have different interpretations of reality, and this reality is the study of the sociologist:

The world of everyday life is not only taken for granted as reality by the ordinary members of society in the subjectively meaningful conduct of their lives. It is a world that originates in their thoughts and actions, and is maintained as real by these. . . . [Sociologists] must attempt to clarify the foundations of knowledge in everyday life" and to understand the "objectivations of subjective processes (and meanings) by which the intersubjective commonsense world is constructed. . . . The method we consider best suited to clarify the foundations of knowledge in everyday life is that of phenomenological analysis, a purely descriptive method. (Berger, 1966, 1-2, 20).

Social sciences must include phenomenological approaches: “The phenomenological analysis of everyday life, or rather of the subjective experience of everyday life” is a study of “commonsense,” and if we are to "describe the reality of commonsense we must refer to . . . interpretations, just as we must take account of its taken-for-granted character—but we do so within phenomenological brackets. . . . Commonsense knowledge is the knowledge I share with others in the normal, self-evident routines of everyday life. . . . The social reality of everyday life is . . . apprehended in a continuum of typifications. . . . Social structure is the sum total of these typifications and of the recurrent patterns of interaction established by means of them. As such, social structure is an essential element of the reality of everyday life” (Berger, 1996, 20-23, 32). This reality of everyday life becomes the subject of investigation in an ethnomethodological study such as that conducted in the lab school.

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn discusses how scientists generally publish for a fairly closed audience of “professional colleagues . . . whose knowledge of a shared paradigm can be assumed and who prove to be the only ones able to read the papers addressed to them” (20). Kuhn sees a widening gulf between scientists in one field and those in others. Once one field of scientists shares a paradigm, research becomes “an object for further articulation and specification under new or more stringent conditions” (23). The paradigm is always “prerequisite to the discovery of laws” such as Boyle’s Law relating gas pressure to volume, because “Boyle’s experiments were not conceivable ... until air was recognized as an elastic fluid to which . . . concepts of hydrostatics could be applied” (28). Normal science, as Kuhn calls it, will focus on “increasing the extent of the match between those facts and the paradigm’s predictions, and by further articulation of the paradigm itself. The scientific enterprise seems an attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies.” If new phenomena present themselves, they are often not seen because they do not fit the paradigm or the “box.” If outcomes do not fall within defined ranges anticipated, the result is usually considered a research failure. The network of commitments that scientists make to the practice of normal science includes conceptual, theoretical, instrumental, and methodological commitments (43). Scientists do not ordinarily aim to invent new theories, and “are often intolerant of those invented by others” (24). Reformulations of

23 paradigms may result from empirical work, where adjustments to the paradigm are part of the process when phenomena cannot be explained except by elaborations of the paradigms.

Kuhn supports normal science for what it is, since the methods that restrict vision in normal science also are essential to the development of science: confidence in existing paradigms allows scientists to “investigate some part of nature in a detail and depth that would otherwise be unimaginable” (24). During this process, “special machines and instruments may be built to help prove or demonstrate the ‘truth’ of theory” (27).

Through the process of representation and replication, scientists learn their craft. But, what occurs when a spark of creativity or insight (thought by Einstein to be from some universal well of knowledge) diverts a scientist from the mold which has been created? Kuhn says that, in spite of the focus imposed on scientists by existing paradigms, normal science relaxes the restrictions that “bound research whenever the paradigm from which they derive ceases to function effectively. At that point scientists begin to behave differently” (26). When scientists desert a paradigm, scientific revolutions can, and do, occur (34).

Discovering a new phenomenon involves “recognizing both that something is and what it is” (Kuhn 55). Kuhn notes that “scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternate candidate is available to take its place.” Rejecting one paradigm for another involves “the comparison of both paradigms with nature and with each other. . . . If positivistic restrictions on the range of a theory’s legitimate applicability are taken literally, the mechanism that tells the scientific community what problems may lead to fundamental change must cease to function” (77, 101).

Normal science does not lead to changes in paradigms through deliberation and interpretation, “but by a relatively sudden and unstructured event like the gestalt switch. Scientists . . . often speak of the ‘scales falling from the eyes’ or of the ‘lightening flash’ that ‘inundates’ a previously obscure puzzle, enabling its components to be seen in a new way that for the first time permits its solution. On other occasions the relevant illumination comes in sleep. . . . Though such intuitions depend upon the experience . . . gained with the old paradigm, they are not logically or piecemeal linked to particular items of that experience as an interpretation would be. Instead, they gather up large portions of that experience that will thereafter be linked piecemeal to the new paradigm but not to the old” (Kuhn 122-23). Does science at this point become an act of creation or a higher understanding based on knowledge that has gone before? Both occur in mimesis. Einstein once said that he did not invent the theory of relativity: instead, the theory of relativity was there for anyone to grasp. He understood the theory of relativity by ceasing to think of “what is,” and instead thinking of what “could be.” In this manner, Einstein created a scientific revolution that started in his mind. “Natural” scientists pursue ways of understanding and interacting with the physical world; social scientists strive to also understand how humans interact with, interpret, and create their worlds. All forms of mimesis are necessary in the complexity of the human condition.

24 Sjoberg and Nett describe processes which show natural scientists working in a much more phenomenological manner than one might expect: much as Kuhn also describes, the scientists’ internal understandings have been learned through scientific methodologies and theories. According to Hanson, the theory allows the scientist to observe phenomena in a certain way: theories are not pieced together through observation; instead, observation is based upon underlying theories. Sjoberg and Nett see a process whereby there is some allowance for “unconscious reconstruction of theories after observation has occurred,” where the mind collates what has been observed and ties it into logical possibilities. They believe that the acceptance of this part of the process would “take the metaphysics out of intuition,” allowing for a “logic of retroduction,” and therefore legitimizing what was previously disparaged as “intuition.” They describe the ability to see something anew more as a subliminal construction of fragments of observations into a whole rather than as the “scales falling from the eyes” that Kuhn describes.

There is no disagreement from any of the theorists or authors quoted herein that there is a corporeal (physical) world that exists despite us. If a person stands in front of a moving bus, he will be injured or dead, regardless of whether he has ever seen a bus before or understands its nature. There is also no argument that “natural” or “normal” science has its place: literature never put a man on the moon, except in his mind. But, it may have prepared him to believe it was possible. Thus, the structured methodologies of normal science, for all of the reasons discussed, need to be continued at the same time that scientific methods, such as ethnomethodology, are used.

What remains an issue, although less so than before the advent of humanistic anthropology, is the use of literary techniques such as those used in this study when reporting the outcomes of science. To this there is still resistance, even in the social sciences, although researchers such as Liebow and Goffman stretched the limits of structured reporting. The fear that seems to emerge when sociologists argue about presentation format is that literary techniques might in some way mask the reader’s ability to reach his or her own understanding of what the social scientist saw and heard, or prevent the reader from seeing the foundations upon which the researcher's narratives were built. As with all science, there is also the danger of being caught up in the internalized understandings of the researcher without fully understanding how these came about. All types of data and presentation have their place, as long as they are fully described, and the justification for using one “reporting technique” over another is related to the purpose the researcher hopes to accomplish. It is the task of the researcher, as Eisner and others argue, to be skilled at whatever methods are used.

When paradigms change, so do the theory and methods. So also does the world we perceive and in which we react. New paradigms have a way of becoming building blocks to new realities. In both the arts and sciences, “reality” and “truth” are, in large part, created through mimesis and phenomenology: mimesis is the process that feeds phenomenological interpretations, which then lead to common sense understandings. Mimesis is at the heart of science, art, literature, and the construction of the reality of our everyday lives. Plato, himself, used mimesis in teaching others—even after warning of its dangers. The mimetic tools we choose will affect how we and the people we influence view the world, and how they, in turn, help to create subsequent realities.

25 Ethnomethodology

Mehan and Wood (1975) see ethnomethodology as a science, but not as "a body of findings, not a method, nor a theory, nor a world view" (3). Instead, they see ethnomethodology as "a form of life[,] . . . a way of working which creates findings, methods, theories; it enables its practitioners to enter other realities (e.g., Castaneda, 1968, 1971, 1972), there to experience the assembly of world views" (3).

Mehan and Wood argue that the "socio-cultural system is accepted as the 'most complex' system science encounters. . . . Ethnomethodology can be seen as the study of the broken symmetries that appear when sociology's symmetries are placed within a broader organizational arrangement. Ethnomethodology is an attempt to display the reality of a level which exists beyond the sociological level" (4-5). The following discussions further explicate Mehan and Wood's views of ethnomethodology:

Sociological theories assume there is a meaningful external world independent of social interaction. This assumption is an implicit resource when such concepts as 'norms,' 'rules,' 'structures,' and 'exchange' are used. Ethnomethodology investigates the interactional work that sustains this assumption. It differs from sociology much as sociology differs from psychology. . . . Sociologists define 'social interaction' as a process in which people communicate using symbols with common meanings. . . . Such definitions view meaning as a stable thing. They assume that interaction occurs within a world that is independent of interaction, and that interaction exchanges information (or symbols) about that external world. Ethnomethodologists treat sociology's implicit resource of an external world independent of interaction as a phenomenon. . . . For them, interaction is activity that accomplishes a sense of an external world. Meaning is viewed as ceaseless sensuous activity (cf. Blum, 1970b qtd. in Mehan and Wood). (4-5)

Understood as a scientific activity, ethnomethodology fits neatly within the general systems approach[;] . . . alone among the sciences it treats meaning itself as a phenomenon. . . . [E]thnomethodology understands itself and other realities to be phenomena dependent upon ceaseless (1) reflexive use of (2) bodies of social knowledge in (3) interaction. As this reflective interactional work assembles the reality, without it, the reality could not be sustained. Hence, each reality (4) is fragile. Insofar as people may experience more than one reality, realities are said to be (5) permeable. (6)

People act and their actions alter the world. This altered world then appears before them as an autonomous reality. It is external and constraining. Past interpretations enter understanding and engender new possibilities. The next interpretation must contend with that previous interpretation, now integrated within understanding. . . . This image places people within a spiral of meaningfulness. People create meaning, but the world comes to them independently of their interpretive activities. There are times when persons are aware of this creative force and others when they are not. (193-94)

26 While Mehan and Wood talk about the differences between sociology and ethnomethodology, others see it as a qualitative research method that is appropriate for sociologists to use.

At a deeper level, Mehan and Wood's descriptions of ethnomethodology reflect the same arguments used in describing mimesis, and to some extent, metaphor. Ethnomethodology allows for the exposure of the relationships between the actors' perceived external worlds and the internal ones and the beliefs and world views of the actors, and provides a milieu for understanding and feeding the mimetic processes involved in the social construction of reality. This case study of a lab school can be classified as ethnomethodology, but for clarification, the researcher is making these distinctions: mimesis is the "what" and "how" of social reality construction, and metaphor is the tool used both externally to the individual and internally (the "brain mappings" described earlier).

The Organization of Work

An American engineer who died in 1915, Frederick W. Taylor, founded what is now known as scientific management. Taylor's ideas were similar in application to those of Frederick the Great: a rational, "scientific" approach to production, with strict control of labor. Taylor emphasized financial incentives as the key determinant of worker motivation, work methods, and work control. Over time, Taylor shifted to "an organizational view of work performance, embracing authority, work flow, machinery and payment systems as means for controlling labour" (Kelly, 1982. 205). In application, Taylor's theories created a work environment wherein workers were treated as part of the machinery for production, as replaceable parts with discrete tasks to perform. He shifted responsibility for the way work was organized to managers; prescribed that work would be done in precise, efficient ways based upon scientific methods; and recommended careful selection, training, and monitoring of workers. The introduction of technology into production (particularly into the assembly line) in some ways led to "submission of both workers and employers to the 'objective' laws of science." Taylor promoted the idea that scientific management would lead to "the man at the head of the business . . . [being] governed by rules and laws which have been developed through hundreds of experiments just as much as the workman is, and the standards which have been developed are equitable" (Larson. 142).

During Taylor's time, the view was that technology would lead to expansion of output (production) and input (resources), and would lead to continuous economic growth and continuous increases in productivity (Larson. 142). This philosophy appealed to workplace owners, according to Larson, because it supported the capitalistic need for excess value (product) in order to gain profit. Industry was ready to embrace scientific management because of the benefits to be gained in increased productivity and control.

German sociologist Max Weber pointed out the similarities between mechanization of industry and bureaucratic forms of organization: bureaucracies routinized administration just as the machine had routinized production. He defined bureaucracy as "a form of

27 organization that emphasizes precision, speed, clarity, regularity, reliability, and efficiency through the creation of a fixed division of tasks, hierarchical supervision, and detailed rules and regulations" (Morgan, 1986, 24-25).

Weber saw bureaucracies as a mode of social domination, and he was interested in how bureaucratic organizations created and continued structures of domination. He predicted that domination would occur when "one or more persons coerce others through the direct use of threat or force" or when an individual can impose his or her will on others "while being perceived as having the right to do so[,] . . . [whereas rulers] see themselves as having the right to rule, and those subject to this rule see it as their duty to obey" (Morgan, 1986, 276). Bureaucracies would routinize and mechanize human behaviors, "eroding the human spirit and capacity for spontaneous action" (Morgan, 1986, 25), and were a threat to democratic forms of organization.

Weber identified three types of social domination: the charismatic, the traditional, and the rational-legal. The ability to place authority over others required the development of administrative apparatus that would set up the conditions between the ruler and those ruled. Weber found that "each mode of domination was accompanied by a particular kind of legitimacy and by a specific form of administrative organization." Bureaucracies posed a threat to "the freedom of the human spirit and the values of liberal democracy, since those in control have a means of subordinating the interests and welfare of the masses. . . . He saw bureaucracy as a power instrument of the first order and believed that where the bureaucratization of administration is completely carried through, a form of power relation is established that is 'practically unshatterable'" (Morgan, 1986, 276-77).

Of all the organizational philosophies in the twentieth century, the one that had the greatest impact on the way work in the United States was organized was that of Frederick Taylor, who modeled his modern organization on the principles of Frederick the Great. Max Weber called attention to the issues inherent in mechanization and bureaucratization of work, laying the groundwork for considering other alternatives as being better ways of organizing.

The Need for Change in the Workplace

Formal organizations which arose from hierarchical societies were class based: those who were not involved in producing goods necessary to sustain human life, such as traders, priests, and scribes, became a "middle class." Britain's merchant-craftsmen were organized in craft guilds with their own stratifications: entry into work and working conditions were controlled by the guilds. This intermediate level of "class" may also be found in modern societies and in organizations with the differences between owners, managers, and workers. During the case study of the lab school, the guild system was actually brought up by an educator as an argument in favor of a "craftsman" approach to the profession of teaching: the irony was in his not tying it back to a class structure, although one was believed to exist in the school.

28 The industrial revolution in Britain in the 1760s and that in the U.S. in the early 1800s extended the class system into factories and other workplaces. Factory production increased the growth of urban areas and self-employed tradesmen and craftsmen sold their labor and services, usually on a wage basis.

U.S. manufacturing in the nineteenth century started the replacement of cottage industry and small businesses, drew people away from agriculture, and created larger systems of wage labor. At the same time, there was a rise in the professions and management.

Management became necessary to oversee wage labor, where wasted time would mean a profit loss. Labor time became increasingly controlled, as did production processes. As with most wage labor systems, strict and precise organization, close supervision, and standardized jobs grew. "Skilled and semiskilled workers were increasingly replaced by cheaper unskilled workers, leading to . . . 'degradation' or 'deskilling' of work" (Morgan, 1986, 283).

Mechanized processes of production that had workers operating as standardized and replaceable parts were a part of the deskilling and routinization of jobs. The mechanization process gave increased managerial control over the workforce, reduced labor costs, and facilitated centralization of planning and control of work and labor. This process led to jobs of uniform skill levels, which could be quickly learned—a technical process referred to as "homogenization" and "Taylorism." During the case study of the lab school, teachers talked about their fear of schools becoming places for producing factory workers for corporations.

The mechanistic approach to organization was found to work well "(a) when there was a straightforward task to perform; (b) when the environment is stable enough to ensure that the products produced will be appropriate ones; (c) when one wishes to produce exactly the same product time and again; (d) when precision is at a premium; and (e) when the human 'machine' parts are compliant and behave as they have been designed to do" (Morgan, 1986, 34). With the mechanistic approach came these severe limitations: "(a) [they] can create organizational forms that have great difficulty in adapting to changing circumstances; (b) can result in mindless and unquestioning bureaucracy; (c) can have unanticipated and undesirable consequences as the interests of those working in the organization take precedence over the goals the organization was designed to achieve; and (d) can have dehumanizing effects upon employees, especially those at the lower levels of organizational hierarchy" (Morgan, 1986, 35).

The routinization of work became highly developed under bureaucracies, with standardized regulations, increasing specialization of tasks, and the use of standardized equipment and training. New technology was accompanied by mechanization of human behaviors (Morgan, 1986, 23-24). Decision-making and control were in the hands of "leaders" or "bosses," which promoted "alienation, deskilling, reification of organizational forms, and dysfunctional organizational structures . . . acceptance of a leader requires abdicating authority to a power outside the self" and an unwillingness by workers to take initiative (Gemmill and Oakley 124-25).

29 Problems created by the mechanized or technology-controlled workplace included an indispensable workforce with a strong sense of shared interests and militant class consciousness leading to strong unions. These in turn led to new strategies of control in the form of "fragmented class consciousness" and emphasis of differences and institutional divisions among various kinds of workers (Morgan, 1986, 284).

Distinctions in job class established a market for "career-type jobs that were especially crucial, or which called for a high degree of skill and detailed knowledge" (Morgan, 1986, 284). This market grew as bureaucracies and technocracies grew.

The lower-skilled, lower-paid workers in offices, factories, and "open-air work" had little corporate investment in education and training, and could be hired or fired as business cycles changed. These laborers provided a "buffer" for business cycle expansion and contraction. Increasing bureaucratic and technological controls constrained both higher skilled and lower skilled laborers. The U.S. assembly line method of production, established to direct and control the work of employees, helped put power in the hands of the unions through job standardization and collective action, and was believed to have reduced workers' feelings of responsibility for the end product and its quality. Technology applied in this manner also provided workers with the ability "to outwit the work-study experts attempting to set work standards . . . to control the use of their technology to improve their wages and control their pace of work" (Morgan, 1986, 173).

The quest for surplus value led companies to try to reduce the cost of labor by "increasing the length of the working day for the same wages; by attempting to reduce wage levels; by increasing the productivity of labor through better organization of work or through use of machines; by increasing the degree of control exercised over the use of labor time, e.g., through supervision; by using cheaper forms of labor whenever possible, such as women, children, migrant workers, or people in countries known as the Third World; and by replacing labor by machines whenever profitable" (Morgan, 1986, 259-60). The mechanistic approach suffered from absenteeism, turnover, and poor job performance (Kelly 211), and the approach started to fail when changing environments, technology, and market conditions presented new problems and challenges.

After the 1930s, professions and unions added to the fragmentation by emphasizing their own distinctive qualities. They created barriers to entry into different types of work, and created artificial requirements based on education, training, experience, and other factors. Professionals became, according to Hughs, "practitioners [with] income of such a level that they will be respected and such manner of living that they may pursue the life of the mind."

Most of the members of a recognized profession since the 1960s resisted unions, terming them "unprofessional." They had established their own levels of special power and prestige, based upon "special competence in esoteric bodies of knowledge linked to central needs and values of the social system" (Larson x), and in this manner separated themselves from the trades. As they established themselves as professionals, they defined what a professional would be. Common to most professions was 1) a specialized body of knowledge and techniques applied to their work; 2) the training to master such

30 knowledge and skills; 3) norms which cover the service orientation of professionals; 4) professional ethics; and 5) self-regulation, autonomy and prestige. Professional associations, schools, and self-administered codes of ethics created institutional supports for the professions. As time went on, most professions turned to the powers of the state for a protected position under the auspices of certification and licensure, which further rarified and stratified them from others of the working classes. With the growth of professions, new markets for nontangible goods and professional services had to be developed. Professionalization became the process by which "producers of special services sought to constitute and control a market for their expertise" (Larson xvi), just as the guilds had in Great Britain, and the unions were doing for some of the "working classes" in the U.S.

Unlike earlier cultures in Britain and the U.S., birth, status, and wealth were no longer the only means to reach socially defined higher class status: education and intellectual activity provided a pathway. Professionalism became the linkage between education and the marketplace, and created the possibility of gaining status through work.

By engaging in production, "humans create the need for the regulation of how they can co-operate, or not, in their productive activities[;] . . . they create the need for the regulation of the exchange of the products, for the circulation of the objects they make in their work" (Barton and Walker 264). Under the Marxist viewpoint, the issue of productivity promotes the development of "new technologies, inventions, ideas or instruments of product. The very appearance of these renders existing ideas and practices of production, and the forms of social relations which have emerged to support such practices, obsolete, and thus forces a change within the system" (Barton and Walker 266). Morgan (1986) says that "Organizations, like governments, employ some system of 'rule' as a means of creating and maintaining order among their members. Political analysis can thus make a valuable contribution to organizational analysis." In studying employment and job redesign, it is impossible to ignore the balancing act between Democracy as a value and Capitalism as an economic system.

The organizational and workplace issues discussed in this section will surface again in the chapter on "Reality in the Lab School." Educators were dealing with many of the same challenges affecting the rest of America's workforce.

Job Redesign in the United States

Two popular concepts of job redesign are that 1) job redesign is for reconciling the different interests of employers and workers, and 2) job redesign is manipulation of the worker by management under the guise of worker empowerment and improvement in the workplace. However, most modern job redesigners claim an emphasis on improving job content (variety, task wholeness, responsibility and autonomy), which will lead to an increase in worker satisfaction and productivity. Organizational design and redesign provide insights into organizational power structures:

31 Since people often preserve existing structures in order to protect the power that they derive from them[,] . . . one of the ironies of bureaucratic organization is that job and departmental designs that were originally introduced to control the work of employees can also be used by employees to control their superiors. . . . [R]ules and regulations are often created, invoked, and used in either a proactive or retrospective fashion as part of a power play. (Morgan, 1986, 164-65)

Technology has a major impact on power structures and relations, which is why changes in technology can create major conflicts within an organization. When assembly line production was introduced as a way for managers to increase control over work processes, this mode of production unintentionally increased the power of workers and their unions because of the standardization of the jobs, which increased collective action and its power.

In contrast to assembly line production, autonomous work groups and other "cellular technology" separates the interests of workers. "The interests of an employee . . . often become more closely associated with those of his team than with those of a general type of employee or occupational group, making unionization and collective action much more difficult, especially since competitive relations may develop between different work teams. Since under the group system a withdrawal of work does not affect overall operations unless other work groups do the same, the power of workers and their unions over the organization as a whole tends to be reduced" (Morgan, 1986, 172-73). Employees usually have a clear understanding of the power structures in place, and will resist forces threatening to change their positions. This is one reason that new production methods, machines, computers, communications equipment, and other technological change (including processes and organization) become issues.

Within the lab school, the changes brought about through a change in philosophy and direction created or caused to surface major issues having to do with school redesign. The effects of those changes are reflected in the narratives of the educators in the chapter titled "Reality in the Lab School."

The Future of the Workplace: Technology and Organizations

Past organizational structures had managers reducing knowledge, ability, skill, and job variety to achieve greater internal consensus and maximum control by the supervisor. This practice reduced worker initiative and the organization's ability to build around multifunctional teams necessary to address changing problems and market demands. Teams would have required overlapping skills and knowledge bases, but could be formed and unformed around changing issues.

For true restructuring of organizations to take place, the logic undergirding how our society deals with problems must be changed (Wood 271), and we must change the way we change—away from power struggles between opposing forces to mutual recognition of, and commitment to, working toward common goals. Under new organizational

32 designs, developments in technology, particularly computing and micro-processing, can be used to facilitate the new styles of organization. "In many organizations the full implications of . . . technology are not always realized, because new information- processing systems are often used to reinforce bureaucratic principles. . . . [W]e often find computing facilities increasing centralization and hierarchical, top-down control" (Morgan, 1986, 108). Conflicts between learning and self-organization, power and control will occur if the new organizational design of increased autonomy and self- organizing limits the ability of those in power to monitor and control day-to-day activities. The degree of openness and self-criticism that is needed in a learning environment is not within traditional management structures.

Technology, in its broadest sense, is applied science—a technical method of achieving a practical purpose and the totality of the means employed for human sustenance and comfort. With each new "tool" introduced into our environment (be it spears or computers), technology and human society changes. Although it cannot be unequivocally said whether or not social changes lead to creation of the "tools," or the "tools" create the social changes, Lincoln (1985) quotes David Clark as saying the paradigm comes before the tool, "Stable paradigms produce and are then supported by intricate technologies" (50-51).

Braverman argued that the introduction of increasingly sophisticated technology into the workplace degraded "blue-collar" work into "simple operations that did not require skilled workers to perform." Other writers tied technology into a view of two forms of control: "Technical control involving designing of machinery and shaping the flow of work to achieve greater efficiency, and bureaucratic control which shapes organizational rules, procedures and regulations" (Dickens 27). The organizational and structural changes caused by technology, "such as job classifications, rules, promotions, lines of responsibility, and wages have been dramatic" (Dickens 31). Wood sees new forms of management as "essentially managerial responses to new problems of control or attempts to destroy remaining areas of worker control" (9-10).

Zuboff is quoted by Vallas as saying that information technologies gave rise to new forms of skill that were different from the older, manually based knowledge and skills. Johnston and Packer argue that, "It is impossible to fully and accurately predict the impact of new technologies on the economy and on the work place. However, it is clear that there will be a necessity for constant learning and constant adaptation by workers due to the new technologies" (37). According to Senge, as organizations focus on the "customer," technology will continue to be used to shorten the delivery time and reliability of a product or service to market, to improve the quality of the product or service, and to increase production capacity.

The increased movement toward team work and multifunctional job categories are not just due to the introduction of technology, but are also due to demands on the organization as a result of flexible products, specialized markets, and the pace of change. These conditions favor 1) less specialization in the work process, 2) general purpose machines, and 3) modular systems that can be adapted to a variety of different uses (Beneria and Stimpson 210).

33 Issues regarding the future workplace and, therefore, how and what students should be taught were major points of contention in the lab school. Strong opinions on educating for the workplace will be seen in the narratives of educators.

Issues in the Changing Workplace

Carr describes change as "the process of aligning people, resources, and culture with a shift in organizational direction" (iii). In dynamic environments, transition is not easy or possible for everyone. Successful change "requires clear vision, an appreciation for behavioral challenges, understanding the difference between process and function, riveting focus on the target, and conviction that new heights of performance are possible" (iii). Change, when it fails, causes other unanticipated problems. Carr gives his recipe for successful organizational change:

Employees must understand the compelling need for change from the status quo, and need to see that their innovative ideas for improvement are readily accepted. Consciously managing change itself predicted success: setting realistic expectations of an organization's ability to change; introducing change at a pace that the organization can assimilate; and ensuring that change leaders have a strong internal base of support. (iv)

Restructuring of workplaces in the United States is said to be driven by a need to improve production, particularly in accelerating productivity increases in service industries, which are America's fastest growing job market. Prosperity will depend on how fast the output per worker increases in the services industry as opposed to manufacturing, due to the decline in manufacturing and related employment. U.S. prosperity will depend primarily on how fast the work economy grows and on how fast domestic productivity increases. With a reduction ("downsizing") in the workforce at the upper and middle levels, work performance quantity and quality may be a growing concern. The assumption is also being made that privatizing government business will lead to reduced costs and improved efficiency and productivity. These are some of the same issues raised in a later section of the literature review about schools as sites of production and education reform, particularly related to workplace preparedness.

The changing nature of the workplace is in part due to the shifting demographics of the workforce. With shrinking numbers of young people, there is an increased need to maintain the dynamism of an aging workforce, particularly when it comes to adaptability and willingness to learn. With women and minorities making up larger shares of the workforce, there is a growing need to reconcile the conflicting needs of women, work, and families, and to integrate black and Hispanic workers fully into the economy. Workforce diversity will continue to increase, and attention will have to be given to changing individual attitudes and social institutions: there must, at some point, be shared belief systems, and development of common definitions and terminologies. Social groups will continue shaping the values and attitudes of the particular subculture to which they belong (Johnston and Packer 174). Johnston and Packer want the traps of favored ways of

34 thinking or those distorted by group processes to be avoided. Development of flexible teams could help to promote common values and shared beliefs (174).

Education and training have been perceived as not meeting the changing needs of America's workplaces for a variety of reasons. The amount of education and knowledge needed to make a productive contribution to the economy has become greater, while functional illiteracy in the United States is said to be a major problem. Members of the labor force may become discouraged as investment in long years of education is compared to potential income under new work environments. Elementary reading and writing skills are believed by some to have been used for the most part only to further assimilate neo-literates into relationships of domination in the workplace. If this is true, workers may change relatively little in their own cognitive development or in the social formations around them (Easton, 1989, 431).

An emphasis on improving the education and skills of all workers has been demanded by employers: employers will be most interested in investments/payoffs with rapidly changing technologies. At the same time, a reevaluation of education requirements in light of the growth of low-paying, low-skill service sector jobs should be conducted (Easton, 1989).

Technology advances have led to a need for continuous retraining. Those who are successful in tomorrow's job market will have mastered learning to learn and have shown willingness for continual learning. Employers and workers alike will struggle with how to meet the demands of production versus time for learning. The worker-oriented jobs will have an expansion of work-based training to include staff time to attend and there will be training on adapting to constantly emerging new technologies, new work methods, new markets, and complex work environments. Unfortunately, U.S. businesses buy billions of dollars in state-of-the-art technology, with little employee training, and there is a history of insufficient expenditures for workplace education. Broad-based employee and management training in learning, communication skills, adaptability, personal management, group effectiveness, and organizational leadership is needed as the workforce diversifies and faces the challenge of changing organizational structures and technologies. Additionally, retraining of workers who have been displaced should increase, as should training of older workers in addition to younger workers (Easton, 1989).

For each workplace, an evaluation of the kinds of literacy required and projected changes to these requirements will be needed. Education and vocational programs will need to do a better job of connecting school, training and the "real world." Apprenticeship and mentorship programs should be strongly encouraged. Most recent research emphasizes that the way and the context in which literacy is acquired and used is the key factor in determining its effects (Easton, 1989, 431). Technology in adult literacy programs will grow as technical occupations becoming increasingly analytic and require ever-increasing amounts of specialized education. Organizational change and training based on strong theoretical concepts and proven applications should be improved. Opposition to these ideas was very apparent in the lab school, although there was some support for programs designed to accomplish these goals.

35 Supervision and control over the workplace are two of the top issues in organizational restructuring, with conflicts between efficiency and humanitarian and professional concerns adding to the debate. Management may view workers as resistant to organizational change if distrust has not been first overcome. Since more production with fewer people is the goal of "downsizing" and workers see their history as one of losing ground, distrust is not easy to remove. In addition, many firms redesigned jobs in response to competition in product markets, not labor markets, and workers have been left feeling that their interests are of no value to corporate decision-makers. Workers do not want to be viewed as replaceable parts, but rather as valued employees: however, there is an understanding among workers and employers alike of the conflictive relations between capital and labor.

Restructuring may have a dramatic impact on middle managers' status, particularly if the organizational structure is "flattened." This may cause resistance to change. Added to this are some of the poor models in current leadership, and a strong division between conception (planning) and execution (doing). Workplaces may experience changes in technology tools but not in processes; old structures may still be in place and vested with authority. Informal relations may go unchanged. There may be "tunnel vision" that cannot see beyond the prevailing mode of production. Alienation and reification about existing structures and power authority may exist. Workers and managers alike may view organizations and what exists at the time as inevitable or immutable; there may be limited awareness and lack of experimentation with alternate realities, which leads to a strong acceptance of the status quo. Participatory management and evaluation, thought to be one of the benefits of some modern restructuring, cannot exist under the old paradigms.

Workers as well as middle managers may realize that the restructuring of the workplace and the technology therein, particularly if assembly line processes are developed, leaves workers little choice about how they do their jobs. This restructuring of technology is in itself a form of supervision. Electronic monitoring of workers has become an issue, as has privacy in the workplace. Methods for monitoring of tasks through means other than direct supervision eliminate blame on the supervisor and supervisor's personal responsibility for the production process. Mechanized or rule-governed control treats workers as a system of related parts (in both assembly line technology and bureaucracy). Restructuring will lead to debate about self-pacing versus other controls. Problems of conceptualization and measurement about changes in skill level and related benefits will continue to be an issue.

Redefining power and leadership also becomes a major issue. "Information technologies [may] actually deepen the subordination of workers to the dictates of their employers. Seeking to translate workers' productive capacity into the maximum amount of labor actually performed, management is forced to loosen workers' grip on technical knowledge and expertise, which had provided a critical means of resisting managerial controls; there is a danger of reduction of decision-making to a set of self-contained rules . . . implementable by a computer" (Vallas). Workers have been known to use microcomputers to break away from central authority and choose their own tools to manipulate their own data. This autonomy could be aided with standardization of hardware and software. Past practices of controlling information flows and knowledge,

36 with managers and "elite" workers acting as gatekeepers, will need to change under restructuring: multiple points of access to common data bases and information will be developed, facilitating self-control rather than centralized control (Morgan, 1986); power shifts due to technology will occur. Layoff protection in the form of information hoarding will become a thing of the past.

Technology that emerges in poorly planned implementation of microcomputers increases stress. There may be an information overload with workers having to remember and deal with millions of technological details. Standardization and streamlining of hardware and software would facilitate ease of learning and retention. Additionally, working with people and machines at the same time, as well as issues of client satisfaction and the use of technology will have to be addressed. Technology security is always an issue (ERIC Technology and Stress).

Technology-driven workplaces are those that adapt the people and work processes to the technology, as opposed to people-driven workplaces that have workers determining the job to be done, the technology needed to do the work, and the resources needed to acquire the technology. One job quality study of the impact of information technology on a sample of white-collar workers in the workplace found that for 70%, computerization improved job quality: only 6.7% of those studied showed net decline. Net gains of female workers were significantly higher than males. Net gains were also higher among clerical workers as compared to technical and managerial respondents. There is a need for strong leadership (not necessarily management) to lead the way into new technology. Enabling technology can become an equalizer. In work restructuring that upgrades employee skills rather than downgrades them (deskilling), skill concepts will be applied to work structures, not to people, and everyone will be given the opportunity to broaden job roles. These work environments will recognize that social relations shape workplace technology rather than the reverse: skill rests on relationships fundamentally social and political in nature, rather than technical outgrowths (Vallas). Use of, and access to, enabling technology will be equitable. Loss of worker commitment to the job and the organization due to layoffs and other changes might be somewhat offset by skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and job feedback, all of which lead to increased satisfaction with the workplace.

Workers will struggle with job choices for meeting a variety of personal needs: risk- taking versus a need for security; "willingness to experience . . . angst and pain, feel frightened, to . . . expose [one's own] inadequacy or incompetence" (Gemmill and Oakley 126). They may experience discomfort with nontraditional "work ideology" and discomfort with participation in decision-making, and with a loss of "safety nets" in the form of others' responsibilities and changing environments and benefits.

Other issues that workers may face are 1) the urge to go back to old ways of reacting when under pressure; 2) the effort it takes to change ineffectual behaviors; 3) the surrender of labels such as "professional" versus "technician"; 4) the ability to deal constructively with hidden agendas and coalition building; 5) the propensity for enacting and reacting to prior structures because experientially and behaviorally people are unable

37 to transcend them (Elmer 125); 6) losses and gains from salary redistribution due to restructuring (Rosenblatt 170); and 7) the loss of mid-level jobs.

Regardless of the form of restructuring an organization chooses, there will still be a need for checks and balances in the workplace (decision-making processes). Additionally, there must be some method for decision-making if negotiation has failed: "Power is the medium through which conflicts of interest are ultimately resolved. Power influences who gets what, when, and how" (Johnston and Packer 158). Even workplaces of the future will need some ultimate authority (but not necessarily an individual) that has end- of-negotiation control over decisions related to scarce resources, particularly during times of "downsizing" and restructuring. This "ultimate authority" under more democratic workplaces may look very different than it looks in corporate America today.

The need to resolve conflict arising over the scarcity of resources is built into organizational structures, roles, attitudes, and stereotypes. Workers and management alike might benefit from conflict resolution training, anger management, and negotiation skill training. "Even when people recognize the importance of working together, the nature of any given job often combines contradictory elements that create various kinds of role conflict. . . . [Conflicts] often rest in part on the fact that they are being asked to engage in activities which impinge on each other in a negative way" (Morgan, 1986, 157).

Organizations, Marquardt (1996) explains, are faced with new paradoxes: power and control; being both big and small at the same time; being autonomous but within bounds; encouraging variety but within a shared purpose; individuality but also partnership; and global yet local. People must be autonomous yet working toward a mutual purpose; they must be well-informed and creative; they must be able to trust and rely on each other (not bound or managed by hierarchy and control); they must be decentralized yet interdependent, with power spread throughout the organization; and they must be flexible rather than static. In learning organizations, power must be delegated to “the lowest possible point in the organization” for creative solution-making, flexibility, autonomy, and decentralization (9).

Ritzer (1996) says high-tech organizations have created work spaces, "where people can be insulated from routine organizational demands and do their work as they see fit ... [emphasizing] creativity and innovation, not conformity." Ritzer references Peters and Waterman, who described these organizations as "singularly nonrational, even irrational work settings." Ritzer elaborates on this irrationality: "'They were creating almost radical decentralization and autonomy, with its attendant overlap, messiness around the edges, lack of coordination, internal competition, and somewhat chaotic conditions, in order to breed the entrepreneurial spirit. They had forsworn a measure of tidiness in order to achieve regular innovation'" (197).

The modern world had grand narratives, scientific management, and rational processes. Today's postmodern world is in constant change; images and understandings are built from fragments of information, from sound bites; there are expectations to do more with less, to transfer information and knowledge rapidly; we expect to have every product in

38 end production stage with fewer steps (such as "photo ready" documents from individual computers); and escalating amounts of information must be managed and assimilated at faster and faster rates. In this environment, Ritzer (1996) describes the dilemma of new ways of organizing:

Nonrationalized times and places tend to be conducive to creativity. It is difficult to be creative in the face of incessant, externally imposed, and repetitive demands. Thus, working in a nonrationalized setting serves not only the individual, but many employers and society as well. All need a steady influx of creative new ideas and products, which are far less likely to emanate from rigidly controlled bureaucratic settings than they are from [those protected from routine organizational demands]. . . . Even in highly rationalized organizations, people can carve out a range of nonrationalized work spaces and times. . . . [N]onrationalized niches of creativity need the support of rationalized systems . . . [but] no large-scale organization can exist composed of nothing but such niches. The result would be organizational chaos. . . . [N]ot everyone wants to work in such nonrationalized niches; indeed many people prefer their work days to be highly routinized. . . . However, I do assert the need for more nonrationalized niches in an otherwise highly rationalized world. (197-98)

This is the organizational dilemma that schools must address, with their structures and accountability measures, while being innovative and fostering creativity. A question about teachers and schools was posed in a number of ways by educators during the case study. They wanted to know if teachers were expected to meet modern, rational demands for processes and accountability, while performing their jobs in a constantly changing environment, and teaching students to excel in a world in which changes were happening faster than they could be managed.

Production in the United States is now mainly of two types: information (with constantly changing environments), and service industries (thought to be the new factories). In high technology jobs, learning and production are becoming one and the same. Learning is said to be a new type of labor. As a new capital, information and knowledge requires a different kind of organization: one that can change rapidly and consider learning, restructuring and change as part of organization. How educators in the lab school addressed these and other issues will be found in the chapter on "Reality in the Lab School.

Organizations and Metaphors

Ritzer (1996) uses Post-Industrial Lives (Hage and Powers) to show how "a new postindustrial organization has arisen and that it coexists with the classic industrial organization, as well as other organizational forms. The postindustrial organization has a number of characteristics, including a leveling of hierarchical distinctions, a blurring of boundaries between organizations, a more integrated and less specialized organizational structure, an increase in behavior that is not bound by rules, and hiring policies that

39 emphasize the creativity of potential employees. . . . Postindustrial organizations are also characterized by customized work and products, while standardized work (everyone follows the same procedures, scripts) and uniform products are the norm in McDonalized [modern] settings" (149). Postmodern organizations are increasing, says Ritzer, as are modern organizations in a somewhat contradictory way. He quotes Hage and Powers, who "envision a broader change in society as a whole in which the emphasis has come to be on creative minds, complex selves, and communication among people who have these characteristics," those jobs which are organized along modern lines demand "uncreative minds, simple selves, and minimal communication dominated by scripts and routines," such as those found in the service industries (150). Wood tells us that, for true restructuring of organizations to take place, the logic of how our society deals with problems must be changed , and we must change the way we change—away from power struggles between opposing forces to mutual recognition of, and commitment to, working toward common goals (271).

Postindustrialization "coexists with McDonalization," Ritzer says, "where modern processes are of increasing importance," and he notes that this "stands in contrast to the position taken by Hage and Powers who argue that not rationalization, but 'complexification will be the prevailing pattern of social change in post-industrial society'. . . . [B]oth complexification and rationalization will prevail but in different sectors of the economy and the larger society" (150). This creates the question of what will happen when workers (such as teachers) who consider themselves to be professionals in a postmodern, complex world are required to work in modern ways under "scientific management" principles, where "economies of scale" are being superimposed on schools in the same way that "larger factories producing larger numbers of products can manufacture each individual product more cheaply than small factories producing goods in small numbers" (151). Larger schools, more students in the classroom, teachers being expected to "do more with less" are all part of the economy of scale that schools have experienced.

Organizational structures in the postmodern world hold options beyond the bureaucracies and hierarchies of the modern world's grand narrative of turning the workplace into the perfect machine through scientific management. There are other options and metaphors for organizations in the postmodern world, many of them organic and people-centered. The following pages summarize organizational metaphors used as tools for the study of the school.

In mechanical organizations or bureaucracies, there are certain tools that help instruct and determine how work will be performed: “manuals that set standards and codify performance in minute detail," which lets employees know both what is expected and not expected of them, reducing their responsibility, "well-developed recruitment and training plans, and comprehensive systems of job evaluation.” However, mechanical organizational approaches can “create organizational forms that have great difficulty in adapting to changing circumstances." They are not designed for innovation. Morgan (1986) sees these types of organizations resulting in "mindless and unquestioning bureaucracy. . . . They] have unanticipated and undesirable consequences as interests of those working in the organization take precedence over the goals the organization was

40 designed to achieve . . . [and] can have dehumanizing effects upon employees, especially those at the lower levels of the organizational hierarchy” (28). Mechanical organizations may teach dependency or reinforce the quiet pursuit of individual agendas.

When problems arise in a mechanical organization, rather than being used for improvement and learning, problems are “often ignored because there are no ready-made responses,” or problems are approached in “a fragmented rather than a holistic way so that they can be tackled through existing organizational policies, procedures, and patterns of expertise.” Mechanical organizations may suffer from “inaction and lack of coordination,” distortion of information, people hiding errors, management receiving issues inappropriately defined, and distorted information about possible solutions and the nature and scope of the problem. Rather than allow information to flow freely, people learn to hide or distort it. In recent years, the rigidity and “dysfunctional consequences” of mechanistic organizations have come under attack, particularly because they are not structured to meet the needs of a constantly changing environment such as exists today (Morgan, 1986, 29).

Organizations can also be viewed as organisms, as dependent on their environment to have various needs met (Morgan, 1986, 33). As in nature, certain "species" of organization would better fit specific environmental conditions, leaving bureaucratic organizations as best surviving in stable or protected environments, and other organizational forms better able to survive in competitive and turbulent conditions (such as high-tech, aerospace, and microelectronics industries). The organism metaphor causes one to focus on “understanding and managing organizational ‘needs’ and environmental relations," on survival, and on organizational effectiveness (6).

One of the advantages of viewing organizations as organisms is that employees may be seen as having “complex needs that must be satisfied if they are to lead full and healthy lives and to perform effectively in the workplace” (Morgan, 1986, 35). This means that workers' preoccupations and attitudes and their lives outside of work become important: unplanned interactions and informal organization of friendship groups exist alongside the formal organizational structure and impact upon it. Employees are viewed as valuable resources under the organism model, with individuals and groups being equated to molecules and cells in biology.

Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs became a way of understanding workers’ needs in an organization operating as an organism: enriched jobs would lead to workers improving self-control and creativity. Meaningful jobs were seen to include autonomy; participative, democratic, and employee-centered leadership; and employee responsibility and recognition as opposed to the mechanical view that workers were primarily motivated by money and job security. Managers saw the organism model as providing opportunities for increased employee involvement and commitment by meeting employees’ higher level needs without increasing salaries. Human resource management for integrating the human and technical aspects of work took hold within the organism model; organizations became understood as “sociotechnical systems” (Morgan, 1986, 38).

41 Problems can arise in an organization constructed as an organism metaphor when conflicts between departmental and team loyalties and responsibilities lead to an inefficient bureaucracy. This is particularly true in matrix organizations where project team responsibilities are superimposed over a hierarchical structure.

Some of the disadvantages with the organism metaphor are that it may lead to organizations and their environments being viewed in much too concrete a way, whereas both are a socially constructed phenomenon. Organizations adapting to their environment (contingency theory) and environments selecting the organizations which are to survive (population ecology) “tend to make organizations and their members dependent upon forces operating in an external world rather than . . . [them being] active agents operating with others in the construction of that world” (Morgan, 1986, 69). Morgan does not want the adoption of an organism metaphor to undermine people's power to "make their own futures." He also notes, "Organizations, unlike organisms, have a choice as to whether they are to compete or to collaborate” (69). In addition, the organism view that organizations can operate with functional unity is belied by observation: in most organizations, “different elements . . . are usually capable of living separate lives and often do” (70).

The organizations as brains metaphor focuses on the brain as an information processing system. Recent interpretations of the brain metaphor look to holography, which uses “lensless cameras in a way that stores the whole in all the parts. Interacting beams of light create an ‘interference pattern’ that scatters the information being recorded on a photographic plate” (hologram), which can then be illuminated to “recreate the original information…if broken, any single piece can be used to reconstruct the entire image. Everything is enfolded in everything else” (Morgan, 1986, 75). In this manner, the parts can represent and create an image of the whole.

Certain neuroscientists see the brain functioning in much the way as holograms when “memory is distributed throughout the brain and can thus be reconstituted from any of the parts” (Morgan, 1986, 75). This holographic, decentralized, parallel processing view of brain functioning, with pattern and order emerging from the process, goes beyond the centralized information processing view. However, the holographic view fails to make it clear that the brain is both holographic and specialized, as shown in “split brain” research, and in the identification of certain areas of the brain performing key processes (76).

Morgan (1986) elaborates on the brain metaphor by discussing the interconnected ways an organization can operate: “as information processing brains"—communication and decision-making systems; as "complex learning systems"; and as "holographic systems" combining centralized and decentralized characteristics” (78).

Two major criticisms of the information processing view are that 1) there is a “left brain bias” which overemphasizes the centralized view of organizational intelligence and the use of logic and rational, analytic and reductive processes, and slights the more intuitive, “right brain” processes; and 2) the single individual with his or her limited information processing capacities is emphasized, leaving out much of the newer understanding of

42 “networked intelligence” (Morgan, 1986, 81). Other limitations of the brain metaphor are that it amounts to brains looking at brains and becomes a self-referencing metaphor; there is “no coherent image [or metaphor] of the brain to which everyone subscribes"; and it may overlook conflicts that “can arise between learning and self-organization . . . and the realities of power and control” (117).

One of the main strengths of the brain metaphor is that it encourages creation and identification of the requirements of learning organizations. This includes new information technology and how it can be used to support learning and distribute information, leadership, and control.

In viewing organizations as cultures, we understand that organizations create social realities. Culture is an “ongoing, proactive process of reality construction. . . . [I]t must be understood as an active, living phenomenon through which people jointly create and recreate the worlds in which they live. . . . [Therefore] we must root our understanding of organization in the processes that produce systems of shared meaning” (Morgan, 1986, 141). Morgan also describes Karl Weick’s concept of enactment, peoples’ active role in creating their realities (134-35). In an organization, the way it is structured, its rules, job descriptions, policies and procedures, goals and mission statements can “act as primary points of reference for the way people think about and make sense of the contexts in which they work” (138). Of all of Morgan's metaphors, it is the cultural one that calls attention to how actors socially construct and enact their realities. Culture can act as an overarching metaphor that allows all others described by Morgan to exist within the same organization: other metaphors can be used to describe structure, processes, perceptions, and behaviors that are acted out within the culture.

Croft argues that organization “is not strictly a part of organization design,” and that culture and organizational design must “complement each other in order for the organization to function smoothly.” Croft sees culture as a set of values of what the organization stands for and how it operates, and that communicates acceptable and unacceptable behavior to its members. This culture is a frame of reference for decision- making and organizational activities.

In contrast to the cultural view, public opinion appears to depend on demonstrated rationality and objectivity, which is sometimes called by Schein the “myth of modern society.” Mechanical models place primary emphasis on organization structural design and organic models on adaptive processes. Both of these feed the rationality/objectivity myth. The culture metaphor, on the other hand, looks to creating the organization by “influencing ideologies, values, beliefs, language, norms, ceremonies, and other social practices” (Morgan, 1986, 147), which at any point in time might cross the line into manipulation, social engineering, ideological control, or values engineering while putting the benefit of the organization before that of its members. Or, it may be perceived to have done so: once it is perceived by a workforce that they are being manipulated, it “may well be accompanied by resistance, resentment, and mistrust” (151). There are some dangers in the cultural metaphor and in trying to manage the culture of an organization. Culture “is not something that can be measured on a scale because it is a form of lived experience . . . [and] enactment is usually seen as a voluntary process under the direct influence of

43 the actors involved,” although it may become “infused with a political flavor” (152). Cultural outcomes are not as easy to control as hierarchical behaviors, and therefore might be less appealing to managers.

In the cultural metaphor, a person is “seen and experienced as being,” not as what a job title or description says the person is. This also helps create one of the strengths of the metaphor: it makes “people own their impact on the way things are and shows that it is their responsibility to change when appropriate.” The metaphor helps us realize that the relationship between the organization and environment is also socially constructed and can be acted upon or interacted with and changed: organizations are not just adapting or reacting to a world which is “independent of their own making” (Morgan, 1986, 148-49).

When viewing organizations as political systems, we understand that interests in the organization are multiple, diverse, and divergent. The political metaphor provides "a means of allowing individuals to reconcile their differences through consultation and negotiation." It is possible for competing interests to be reconciled in noncoercive ways. Political systems range from "highly authoritarian to model democracies." Organizations can be understood by the “political principles involved” in whatever political metaphor is in operation (Morgan, 1986, 154-55).

In an autocracy, there is an absolute, sometimes dictatorial, power associated with one ruler. Power and authority is “fairly stable and clearly defined,” as it is in bureaucracies, whereas in technocracies “it is often in flux as different individuals and groups rise and decline in power along with the value of their technical contributions.” Besides autocracies, political organizations may be 1) run through codetermination “where opposing parties combine in the joint management of mutual interests,” 2) representative democracies, where rule is “exercised through the election of officers mandated to act on behalf of the electorate and who hold office for a specified time period or so long as they command the support of the electorate,” or 3) direct democracies—systems where “everyone has an equal right to rule and is involved in all decision-making.” There is also “industrial codetermination,” where “owners and employees codetermine the future of the organizations by sharing power and decision-making” (Morgan, 1986, 156-58).

A political organization may be assessed by learning the interests, goals, values, desires, expectations and other “orientations and inclinations that lead a person to act in one way rather than another." Task interests that are “connected with the work one has to perform” may affect a person’s response, as may career interests that are “independent of the job being performed,” or extramural interests (personal values and lifestyles) from outside of work. Morgan (1986) says these shape the way we act "in relation to both job and career" (161). Simply stated, personal agendas in a political organization may underlie actions and activities at work. Coalition building is an important dimension of a political organization, but members of the organization may also "compete and collaborate" while "competition for limited resources, status, and career advancement” also cause workers to pursue the goals of their organizational units, rather than those of the organization as a whole, creating role conflicts (166-68).

44 Pluralism, one form of political organization, supports "the free interplay of interest groups[;] . . . different groups bargain and compete for a share in the balance of power and use their influence to realize . . . a negotiated order that creates unity out of diversity," whereas a unitary political philosophy “pictures society as an integrated whole where the interests of individual and society are synonymous." Subordinating oneself for the good of the whole or the state "in the service of society" is practiced in unitary politics (Morgan, 1986, 199-200).

The political metaphor surfaces the "tensions between private and organizational interests” (Morgan, 1986, 210-11), but may have limited use when individuals or groups want to avoid imputing motive for actions within organizations—yet the ability to do this may also be one of its strengths. The use of politics to create social order also puts strength in the metaphor; it has the ability to “explode the myth of organizational rationality . . . [since] [r]ationality is always political. . . . [O]rganizational goals may be rational for some people’s interest but not for others” (209). The metaphor may help identify whose interests are being served, and how. Any of the ideologies listed (or others) may be used to determine the character and political nature of the organization. Ideologies may also be used by managers to accomplish their ends. Organizations can almost always be analyzed from a political perspective (212).

Organizations may also be seen as psychic prisons, where people are “trapped in webs of their own creation . . . [with] organizations created and sustained by conscious and unconscious processes … [in which] people can actually become imprisoned . . . or confined by the images, ideas, thoughts, and actions to which these processes give rise” (Morgan, 1986, 215). People create and maintain their psychic prisons. Organizations may contribute to anxiety, with the structure, process, culture and environment of an organization as a field of play for defense mechanisms “developed by its members to cope with individual and collective anxiety." Defenses against anxiety can take on a number of forms: dependency where the group looks for a rescuing person and becomes "paralyzed," and fight-flight, where workers project fears "on an enemy of some kind" and feel they must fight or leave (231-33). The psychic prison metaphor allows dysfunctional projections to occur and interferes with an organization's ability to change. The presence of this metaphor also indicates a need to understand the links between the rational and irrational, which are “part of the very same phenomenon” (245-46). Although the metaphor may provide insights, Morgan says, it does not liberate us, and we should not be looking for ways to manage the unconscious. With this in mind, the mechanical view and psychic prison view of organizations might be a good match: perhaps the rules, regulations and tight control over behaviors found in mechanical organizations were the most efficient way to control for unconscious manifestations of the psyche.

The flux and transformation metaphor for organizations, according to Morgan, follows much of the work of David Bohm, a theoretical physicist, who described the universe as “a flowing and unbroken wholeness." Morgan sees flux and change as fundamental (Morgan, 1986, 251-52). He asks the reader to imagine a whirlpool in a river: although it appears to have a constant form, its only existence is in the movement of the river. “Explicate order flows out of implicate order in accordance with a coherent process of

45 transformation,” and we must understand the generative processes linking the two orders. Morgan calls our attention to “logics of change”: the first theory is that of autopoiesis; the second chaos and complexity theory; the third from cybernetics (“change enfolded in the strains and tensions found in circular relations”); and the fourth is metaphorical, “explaining how the explicit reality of organizational life is formed and transformed by underlying processes that have an order or logic of their own” (252). The theory of flux and transformation leaves open the possibility of organizations "enacting their environments as extensions of their own identity," and problems may relate to "the kind of identity that they try to maintain” (256).

Another angle on the flux and transformation metaphor is that if organizations want to understand the environment, they must start by understanding themselves: they are part of their environment rather than discrete entities. Egocentric organizations have a fixed idea of what they are or want to be and they attempt to impose this identity, overemphasizing “the importance of themselves while underplaying the significance of the wider system of relations to which they exist” (Morgan, 1986, 259). The impact of this egocentrism may be felt by communities and even nations.

In chaos theory, “system behaviors tend to fall under the influence of different ‘attractors’[;] . . . events are unique yet patterned, and . . . the behavior of the system can ‘flip’ from one pattern to another. . . . [Y]ou are caught between two ‘attractors’ that define the context of two completely different situations” (Morgan, 1986, 263). In looking at “shifting attractors” as being the logic behind chaos and complexity, Morgan once again turns to autopoiesis, emphasizing the links between environment and organization. He says it is “wiser to view organization and environment as elements of the same interconnected pattern . . . In evolution it is the pattern that evolves.” Chaos and self-organization theory and complexity theory “contribute important elements to a holistic theory of change” (161). Organizations and ecologies have “multiple systems of interaction that are both ordered and chaotic.” But over time, coherent order always emerges out of the randomness and surface chaos. . . . New order is a natural outcome” (262-63).

Autopoiesis, chaos, and complexity help us understand that change unfolds in circular patterns of interaction—loops, not lines—and that there is mutual causality when “organizations evolve or disappear along with changes occurring in the broader context.” The idea of mechanical causality is replaced with mutual causality, with an organization belonging to the same “system of circular relations,” with change information looping through the process of positive and negative feedback, explaining why “systems gain or preserve a given form and how this form can be elaborated and transformed over time” (Morgan, 1986, 274).

The flux and transformation metaphor has certain strengths and limitations: survival under this form is seen as survival with an environment, not against it. But looking at systems as open rather than closed “perpetuates the illusion of separateness” (298). Understanding change as “an emergent phenomenon offers a powerful mind-set for managing change." We cannot control change and are just "part of an evolving pattern." Only in hindsight does order become apparent to us. The weakness in the metaphor may

46 be that, if managers want to “organize, predict, and control” (297-300), outcomes under flux and transformation cannot be predicted as Frederick Taylor believed they could when organizations operate as machines.

Organizations seen as instruments of domination invariably leads to examples of organizations pursuing their own self-interests while exploiting other “system elements,” including profits at a cost to individuals and societies. “Organizations are often used as instruments of domination that further the selfish interests of elites at the expense of others, and there is an element of domination in all organizations. . . . [A]symmetrical power relations . . . result in the majority working in the interests of the few.” Organizations can be seen as a blend of “achievement and exploitation,” and may be best understood by their mode of domination: bureaucracies (according to Max Weber) use threat or force, rules and regulations, a mind-set that those in authority have a right to command others who have a duty to obey; charismatic “rules by virtue of his or her personal qualities”; traditional where the “power to rule is underwritten by a respect for traditional and the past”; and rational-legal where “power is legitimized by laws, rules, regulations and procedures” (Morgan, 1986, 303-05). Bureaucratic organizations can have oligarchic tendencies, where modern organizations “typically end up under the control of narrow groups, even when this runs against the desires of the leaders as well as the led” (306).

Under the instruments of domination metaphor, organizations are seen as using and exploiting their employees, and in the national and international economies, whole communities may also be used and “thrown away.” The metaphor may not make clear that exploitation and domination may actually be an unintended side effect of “an otherwise rational system of activity,” and this may be a weakness of the metaphor. Other limits of the metaphor are that we may “blind ourselves to the idea that nondominating forms of organization may be possible,” and some believe that the metaphor “merely articulates an extreme form of left-wing ideology . . . adding to the difficulties of managers in an already turbulent world” (Morgan, 1986, 344). A strength of this metaphor is that it helps draw attention to the view of rationality: “What is rational from one organizational standpoint may be catastrophic from another. . . . [The question is] Rational for whom?” This metaphor forces us to “recognize that domination may be intrinsic to the way we organize and not just an unintended side effect. . . . [It may also be used to create an] organization theory for the exploited” (340-41).

Despite whichever metaphors are used, organizations and society are changing. Lincoln (1985) describes the “emergence of a new world view” and organizational shifts that in many ways parallel the points made by Morgan. Lincoln describes these shifts:

• "From simplicity to complexity; • From hierarchy to heterarchy; • From mechanical to holographic; • From determinacy to indeterminacy; • From linearity to mutual causality; • From assembly or construction to morphogenesis (fluid participation, crystallizing around issues, solutions looking for problems, and new coalitions and alliances

47 based on attention given to any issue; in sharp contrast to notions of building an organization based on tasks and separation of powers); • From objectivity to perspectival orientation" (138-39).

Learning organizations, as described by Marquardt (1996), “exude flexibility, openness, freedom, and opportunity. Boundaries are highly permeable, which maximizes the flow of information and opens the organization to its experiences. . . . As tasks, needs and people change, the structure changes” (82). Management-focused bureaucracy is rooted out.

People must be empowered in a learning organization. This includes developing an intolerance when essential information is blocked, developing trust and eliminating fear throughout the organization, and striving for the highest standards in quality and service. In addition, management has to set certain rules and play certain roles: respecting everyone’s knowledge; soliciting problem-solving ideas and encouraging unsolicited ideas; listening to ideas that are different from their own; responding to 100 % of the suggestions in a timely way; putting the power for decision-making with the person who knows the most about the task; giving people the authority to act when they must and backing that person up; learning from mistakes by forgiving them, finding out why they happened, and preventing them in the future; taking care of people and recognizing jobs well done; facilitating self-directed work teams, seeking out motivated people for the teams, and giving them the tools they need; and encouraging advancement and promotion.

Marquardt (1996) lists the “important dimensions and characteristics of a learning organization":

• Learning is accomplished by the organizational system as a whole, almost as if the organization were a single brain.

• Organizational members recognize the critical importance of ongoing organization wide learning for the organization’s current as well as future success.

• Learning is a continuous, strategically used process—integrated with and running parallel to work.

• There is a focus on creativity and generative learning.

• Systems thinking is fundamental.

• People have continuous access to information and data resources that are important to the company’s success.

• A corporate climate exists that encourages, rewards, and accelerates individual and group learning.

48 • Workers network in an innovative, community like manner inside and outside the organization.

• Change is embraced, and unexpected surprises and even failures are viewed as opportunities to learn.

• It is agile and flexible.

• Everyone is driven by a desire for quality and continuous improvement.

• Activities are characterized by aspiration, reflection, and conceptualization.

• There are well-developed core competencies that serve as taking-off points for new products and services.

• It possesses the ability to continuously adapt, renew, and revitalize itself in response to the changing environment (19-20).

Morgan (1986) describes how organizational arrangements can be seen as transitional phenomena that “play a critical role in defining the nature and identity of organizations and their members and in shaping attitudes that can block creativity, innovation, and change” (237). The concept of transitional phenomena gives insight into the idea that “change will occur spontaneously only when people are prepared to relinquish what they hold dear for the purpose of acquiring something new or can find ways of carrying what they value in the old into the new” (238). This concept becomes important when looking at the transitions that educators at the lab school were experiencing.

Learning Change

Actors’ lives and behaviors are shaped through the process of mimesis, which can be loosely defined as learning and teaching through representations and actions. When actors internalize what they observe, it helps to create their realities. This creation of reality or understanding of the world around them is internalized by the actors through phenomenological processes. During the course of creating their realities, actors use metaphors to make sense of their environments and of the actions of others: they learn through associating something new with something they already understand. For instance, when one teacher during the course of this case study said the rapid change within the school felt like a “roaring train,” she was providing the researcher with the image that changes in the school were frightening and too fast.

This perspective of reality creation is supported by the work of Baez and Abolafia, who discuss three assumptions upon which institutional change is based. The first assumption is that actors within an organization interpret and make sense of their organization, and that they act upon their interpretations. The second assumption is that pressures from the environment can shift and change, and that this affects the actors within the organization.

49 The third assumption is that the amount of environmental pressure for change can "disrupt or even sever actors' attachment to old institutional practices." This disruption increases the possibility of institutional change because the actors' behaviors are more likely to change from familiar or known practices to new practices.

Educational systems are "complex and emergent social structures," according to Gill. She sees organizational change as individually and collectively being a "meaning-making process as social relationships are negotiated within a social context." Organizational meaning is continuously "constructed and reconstructed," as the culture is transformed. Throughout the process, information must be reconciled with existing information and structures.

Baumrind's change philosophy is similar to Gill's. Baumrind sees the culture as the grounding for beliefs, and the culture is constantly changing in the face of contradictions. The culture of an organization may have "multiple standpoints" and also "distinctive values shared by members of a culture." Organizational change is seen by Pietersen as interaction of the actors who must implement the changes. He advocates for change studies being conducted from an interactionist perspective.

Paradox in relation to change began appearing in organization studies more in the 1990s than at earlier times. Paradox is highly likely during times of organizational change and it is during times of change, according to Lewis, that paradoxes become more evident. Lewis found paradox being used to describe "conflicting demands, opposing perspectives, or seemingly illogical findings" in organizational studies. Actors within the organization create the paradoxes as they try to simplify, understand, and make meaning out of changes, and the inability of actors and managers within an organization to reconcile tensions and realities contributes to the paradox. Paradox “denotes contradictory yet interrelated elements—elements that seem logical in isolation but absurd and irrational when appearing simultaneously” (Lewis).

Cameron and Quinn recommend that researchers study the ambiguity, complexity and diversity of an organization through the exploration of its paradoxes. This would allow one to see both plurality and change, and the multitude of different perspectives and experiences that exist within an organization. Research between 1991 and 1996 found there was inherent paradox when studying individual, group, or organization exemplars. The paradoxes had both tensions and reinforcing cycles, which both hampered and promoted organizational development. Plurality and change spurred paradoxes.

According to Lewis, researchers have defined paradox in organizational studies in different ways:

As “contradictions embedded within a statement (e.g., Murnighan & Conlon, 1991), human emotions (e.g., Vince & Broussine, 1996), or organizational practices (e.g., Eisenhardt & Westcott, 1988). Others describe paradox as an observation that counters common beliefs (e.g., Davis et al., 1997) or as an unintended consequence (e.g., Sitkin & Bies, 1993). Koot et al. (1996) use

50 Wittgenstein’s notion of paradox as something surprising, whereas other researches avoid explicit definition altogether (e.g., Westenholz, 1993).”

As cited by Lewis, Ford and Backoff define paradox as having three characteristics: 1) a “wide variety of contradictory yet interwoven elements,” 2) constructed when actors “attempt to make sense of an increasingly intricate, ambiguous, and ever-changing world, they frequently simplify reality into polarized either/or distinctions to conceal the complexity,” and 3) actors can become “stuck in these paralyzing and often vicious cycles via greater cognitive and behavioral complexity.” Paradox is ongoing and cyclical, and cannot be studied as a linear progression: the grounded theory approach of this case study helped expose and accommodate this cyclical nature of paradox.

The tensions that underlie paradox are perceptual—“cognitively or socially constructed polarities that mask the simultaneity of conflicting truths” (Lewis). Pietersen identified a paradox that he calls the “Mark Twain Dilemma” (“I’m for progress. It’s change I object to”) at the organizational level, and the “organizational life cycle” intensifies this dilemma. Pietersen sees all “life” as self-limiting because there is a process of growth, deepening maturity, decline, and death. This pattern can be changed or defeated by organizations that “launch themselves” onto a series of “new curves" that require change. But, the paradox is that the best time for a successful change is when an organization is successful, not when it has begun to fail. Further, when people are successful, there is a strong resistance to change, and less resistance to change when an organization is failing. This was a major issue in the lab school, as shown in the chapter titled "Reality in the Lab School."

With change comes paradox: paradoxes increase and become more evident when organizations undergo change, because the actions of individuals within the organization become more pronounced as they move to affect change. Using metaphors as templates for viewing phenomena helps us to see the paradoxes. However, the use of metaphors also creates paradoxes, since metaphor is both a way of seeing and of not seeing. Metaphors, by describing an experience in terms of another, both specify and constrain how one thinks and experiences (Lawley and Tompkins).

To effect change within an organization, the culture must change. Culture is not static, but is “a dynamic process subject to change in response to internal contradictions and critical social thought. . . . [T]here are multiple standpoints within the culture, as well as distinctive values shared by members of a culture” (Baumrind). In Baumrind's context, culture, change, the organization, and individuals are interwoven. Wertheimer and Zinga argue that school reform cannot occur unless there are at least four elements: the change conforms to an agreed-upon standard; institutional shifts occur to support and sustain the change; the change is internalized by the majority; and the individual or cultural change is irreversible.

Learning is the key process by which organizations change. Houle listed three types of learners: goal-oriented, activity-oriented, and learning-oriented. Morstain and Smart’s six factors for participation in learning were social relationships, external expectations, social welfare, professional advancement, escape/stimulation, and cognitive interest. In most

51 studies, motivation for participation is found to be related to jobs—mobility and performance. Being “better informed” was also a high motivator. Wlodkowski describes the influences on learning and subsequent behaviors: attitudes influence behavior; needs promote desire; stimulation maintains attention; effect motivates behavior; competence builds confidence; and reinforcement enhances learning.

Besides having its own metaphor, "learning organizations" could also be created from those operating as “brains”, “organisms”, and “flux and transformation.” Culture and political metaphors cut across all forms of organization, regardless of an organization’s other metaphors.

Van Wart describes “seven modern and contemporary causes of organization change,” which can create a need for additional learning in the organization. All of these were present in the lab school:

1) Concern with quality of work life and career development; 2) Change in management style; 3) Increase in internal training and education programs; 4) Explosion in technology and information; 5) Economic pressures to do more with less; and 6) Rising tide of systems redesign and organization restructuring.

Cooperative learning comes about through positive interdependence where the group goal is to learn material and make sure everyone in the group learns it. There is individual accountability based on personal responsibility, and group processing about what each person learned in the group, how they worked with the group, and how the group worked. Social skills such as communication and conflict resolution are learned through face-to- face interaction. Cooperative learning is one of the foundation blocks of a learning organization.

Technology of human relations training may be didactic, where the meaning is external to the learner or it may be experiential, where the meaning is internal to the learner. Methods of learning described by Gilley and Eggland include reading, lecture, experiential lecture, discussion, participation training, case study, role playing, instrumentation, structured experience, and intensive growth groups. The experiential learning cycle is made up of experiencing (activity, doing), publishing (sharing reactions and observations), processing (discussion of patterns and dynamics), generalizing (inferring principles about the ‘real world’), and applying (planning more effective behavior).

Svinici and Dixon describe experiential learning as a cycle of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentations. Concrete experience may be obtained through laboratories, observations, primary text reading, simulations and games, fieldwork, trigger films, readings, problem sets, and examples. Reflective observation is performed through logs, journals, discussion, brainstorming, thought questions, and rhetorical questions. Abstract conceptualization comes through lecture, papers, model building, projects, and analogies. Active experimentation can

52 include simulations, case study, laboratory, fieldwork, projects, and homework. Marquardt's requirements of a learning organization include action learning, which looks much like Svinici's and Dixon's description of experiential learning.

Task-oriented, so called “objective” knowledge, works well under a technical or mechanical organizational metaphor, where knowledge and skills are to be “prescriptively mastered, modified or applied.” This type of learning involves the ability to observe cause-effect relationships under clearly defined problems.

Under an interpretive paradigm, the learning needed is that of being able to interpret a situation based on “description, past experience, and personal judgment.” Learning must be in the form of understanding the “viewpoint of all parties in a situation and the meaning of actions,” and would work well in learning organizations. If the paradigm is strategic, there must be “joint critique of underlying assumptions, values and beliefs through full and free dialogue.” A person must be able to perceive and analyze “taken- for-granted norms, rules, and intersubjective agreements that may no longer be functional” (Marsick 1). This strategic assessment and dialogue should be followed with new action and feedback, which is also a characteristic of a learning organization.

Organizations may take various approaches to learning. The behaviorist approach makes the assumption that the facilitator will ensure that learners attain the learning objectives, which are previously defined and clearly observable. A humanist approach meets learners’ felt needs by satisfying educational demands and wants that the learner expresses, many times in the manner that the learner determines. The critical learning approach uses facilitators to encourage learners to “scrutinize critically the values, beliefs, and assumptions they have uncritically assimilated from the dominant culture” (Stephen 205), with facilitators emphasizing that social and political reality is socially constructed, values and beliefs contextually created, and all of these serve the interests of dominant groups. A cognitive approach to learning looks at the whole rather than its parts—at patterns rather than isolated events. It deals with mental processing of information, and is often seen as a useful approach in learning how to learn. This is somewhat of a contrast to a social learning approach, which is oriented toward the idea that people learn from observing other people; through attention, memory, behavioral rehearsal, and motivation, learning will take hold.

Symbolic interactionism in learning is useful in the workplace. This deals with “the process of constructing shared meaning[;] . . . definitions of situations are learned from past experiences while being altered in present interactions . . . whereby actors come to know each other’s role and to typify each other as likely to behave in certain ways” (Turner, 1986, 329). Humans carry in their minds rules, social “recipes,” ideas about appropriate conduct, and other information that helps them interact with their social world. Through this “stock of knowledge,” individuals interpret events and act on the world. Turner makes certain points about this stock of knowledge, based on the work of Alfred Schutz:

1. People’s reality is their stock of knowledge

53 2. The existence of stock knowledge that bestows a sense of reality on events gives the social world . . . a taken-for-granted character

3. Stock knowledge is learned[,] . . . acquired through socialization within a common social and cultural world, but it becomes the reality for actors in this world

4. People operate under a number of assumptions that allow them to create a sense of ‘reciprocity of perspectives’[;] . . . others with whom an actor must deal are considered to share an actor’s stock knowledge

5. The existence of stock knowledge, its acquisition through socialization, and its capacity to promote reciprocity of perspectives all operate to give actors in a situation a sense or presumption that the world is the same for all and that it reveals identical properties for all

6. The presumption of a common world allows actors to engage in the process of typification. Action in most situations . . . can proceed through mutual typification as actors use their stock knowledge to categorize each other and to adjust their responses to these typifications. With typification, actors can effectively deal with their world, since every nuance and characteristic of their situation does not have to be examined[;] . . . typification facilitates entrance into the social world. (101, 330)

In learning organizations, stock of knowledge would be constantly challenged and would continually grow. Within the mechanical organization, stock of knowledge might have the opportunity to grow or be allowed to atrophy.

Learning also takes place through the culture of the organization. Schein argues that leaders both create and destroy cultures. Some common meanings that must be understood in the culture of the organization include these:

1. Observed behavioral regularities when people interact 2. The norms that evolve in working groups 3. The dominant values espoused by an organization 4. The philosophy that guides an organization’s policy toward employees and/or customers 5. The rules of the game for getting along in the organization 6. The feeling or climate that is conveyed in an organization by the physical layout and the way in which members of the organization interact with customers or other outsiders. (1-22, 381, 384)

All of these teach members about the culture of their organization—their shared assumptions and beliefs, which are learned responses of group experience (Schein). Organizations may transmit knowledge intentionally through human resource development (HRD), organizational development, and career development programs.

54 Learning that combines cognitive, emotional (“felt”), and experiential qualities is that which will be retained the longest. Interactive, experiential learning appears to be most highly recommended in the literature about learning organizations. Organizations that are learning systems must have an understanding of learning how to learn, with knowledge about learning, learning styles, and skills needed to improve learning proficiency. The absence or presence of various types of learning activities within an organization help identify and determine the nature of the organization and the corresponding organizational metaphor. An assessment of learning activities within the lab school was part of the research. As will be seen in the section titled "Reality in the Lab School: Observations, Narratives, and Findings," there were a variety of learning activities within the school.

Newer Metaphors of Organizations and Organizations as Learning Systems

All citations in this subsection, except where otherwise indicated, are for Morgan's Images of Organization, 1986.

Organizations that act as organisms exchange information and identify opportunities and problems, modify products, have open communication and collaboration across levels of seniority and departments, and develop project teams: sometimes jobs shape themselves as needs change. Rapid technology change would mean that workers must have the capacity to learn new technologies. Workers learn that they must be skilled at coordination, collaboration, and conflict resolution, and have an ability to learn from each other and their environment. Adhocracies (temporary by design to accomplish certain tasks and dissolve after the task is over), “virtual teams,” “virtual organizations,” and matrix organization may be used to accomplish the goals of the organic organization. Information exchange, functional expertise, and shared learning are ongoing and constantly changing shape. In this type of environment, change is institutionalized and is an ongoing process, which means that human resource development, organizational development, and learning must be ongoing as well. “Appropriate authority and rewards are stacked in ways that encourage dynamic teams” (54) in an effective organism organization. People learn and are reinforced for embracing change and learning.

In organizational ecology under an organism model, there must be the development of “informal learning networks,” generating “domain-based exchange and discussion,” promoting “shared appreciations of concerns and problems,” facilitating the “emergence of common values and norms, and . . . [finding] new solutions to shared problems” (66). Employees soon learn that information hoarding and pursuing one’s self-interest do not work well within this model.

The organism organization survival model moves the focus on “specific operational goals” to having specific goals framed “by a more basic and enduring process that helps prevent them from becoming ends in themselves.” Focusing on needs also “encourages us to see organizations as interacting processes that have to be balanced internally as well

55 as in relation to the environment . . . we see strategy, structure, technology, and the human and managerial dimensions of organization as subsystems with living needs that must be satisfied in a mutually acceptable way” (67). Collaboration becomes the learned practice. Organism forms of organization also emphasize that managers and others always “have choice and that effective organization depends on the quality of choice” and allows for innovation, where “flexible, dynamic, project-oriented matrix or organic forms of organization will be superior to the mechanistic-bureaucratic.” Organizational development, especially “through the contingency approach” is spurred on, as is innovation and flexibility (68).

Seeing the organization as brain leaves open the possibility of the “virtual organization,” where “information technology is used to dissolve the constraints of space and time, linking ‘knowledge workers’ and factory operators in remote locations across the globe into an integrated set of activities,” as shown with the “just-in-time” systems of manufacturing (82). Information exchange creates an ongoing information processing and learning environment; which allows for “self-regulating behavior” through negative (course correction) feedback (84). People learn by doing and through organizational processes in an ongoing manner.

In the brain type of organization, single-loop learning (“ability to detect and correct error in relation to a given set of operating norms”) can be augmented or replaced by double- loop learning (“being able to take a ‘double look’ at the situation by questioning the relevance of operating norms” and initiating appropriate action) (87). Although bureaucratic organizations can obstruct learning by encouraging single-loop processes and hierarchical and horizontal divisions of information and knowledge (with different parts of the organization operating “on the basis of different pictures of the total situation”) (88), brain-like organizations can create processes and operations systems which encourage double-loop learning and new ways of seeing and performing.

“Learning organizations must develop capacities that allow them to do the following:

• Scan and anticipate change in the wider environment to detect significant variations.

• Develop an ability to question, challenge, and change operating norms and assumptions.

• Allow an appropriate strategic direction and pattern of organization to emerge….

• Evolve designs that allow them to become skilled in the art of double-loop learning, to avoid getting trapped in single-loop processes, especially those created by traditional management control systems and the defensive routines of organizational members” (90).

Organizations patterned on organism or brain metaphors can be learning organizations, embracing the “creation of insight and knowledge,” becoming skilled at “the art of representation . . . able to create appropriate maps of the reality with which they have to

56 deal.” The skill in seeing possible futures is “not just cognitive but intuitive, emotional, and tactile as well.” Learning organizations must understand products and services from the customers’ points of view, and be “skilled in breaking the boundaries separating it from its environment,” by experiencing the environment as fully as possible (90-2). The organization becomes a new system of learning, as opposed to the mechanical or bureaucratic focus on division of labor, top-down thinking, and following clearly delineated rules, policies, procedures, and processes.

To accomplish double-loop learning and challenge norms that may ultimately be destructive, organization members become skilled in understanding and challenging assumptions and frameworks, paradigms, metaphors, mind-sets, and mental models that are the basis of the way the organization operates in order to develop new ones when needed. Brainstorming and other creative techniques may be used in this process. Disagreement can be used as a catalyst for creating consensus and for creating change, and teams may create the environment for exchange.

The learning organization frees up and disseminates information throughout all levels of the organization so that it can become a “new source of intelligence and growth throughout an enterprise,” and the whole can become encoded in the parts in a holographic way (104). This can bring about independent, yet shared, work; increase shared understanding of issues and problems; broaden the range of investigation; open the process to “random variation”; counteract “premature ‘groupthink’”; create “fertile ground in which promising ideas or innovations can strike resonant chords of acceptance and appreciation”; broaden (obtain multiple) skills and mind-sets; increase the range of functions that individuals and teams can perform; create more effective ways of approaching work; create a system where one can substitute for another, and establish a capacity for self-organization in every part of the system (110-11).

Building the parts into the whole can be accomplished organizationally by creating a holographic structure of teams or units which are small enough to be effective and holistic, but can be interconnected (networked) to accomplish more; are diversified in their roles; are responsible for entire processes; and have individuals who are trained in multiple skills so that they can “function in a flexible, organic way.” Team meetings and discussions about production, diffusion of work, issues, problems and improvements, and hiring should take place. Morgan even suggests that team members set their own hours of work and production schedules and conduct their own quality control, acting in turn as leader, manager, resource, coach, and facilitator—performing planning, personnel work, training, quality control, and engineering (106-07). Through implementation of the principle of “minimum critical specification,” where managers “define no more than is absolutely necessary to launch a particular initiative or activity,” the system will have the capacity to self-organize and innovate. Learning to learn becomes part of the organization that functions as a brain.

In looking at organizations as culture, Morgan notes that the United States “stands supreme in the extent to which a concern for winning and direct reward for appropriate behavior have established themselves as important features of the culture and corporate life” (129). Understanding this is particularly important since individual competition can

57 be an impediment in the learning organization, where information is disseminated and helping each other learn is a norm.

Morgan sees organizations as having their own corporate culture, as being “mini-societies that have their own distinctive patterns of culture and subculture.” This includes shared meaning (patterns of belief), which are “supported by various operating norms and rituals” which “exert a decisive influence on the overall ability of the organization to deal with the challenges that it faces” (129). A corporate culture is created and sustained by “social processes, images, symbols, and ritual . . . often embedded in the formal structure of the organization” (132). Other things that sustain corporate culture may include leadership style and gender (when organizations are shaped by "male" or "female" value systems). Culture may create a form of “‘blindness’ and ethnocentrism … providing taken-for-granted codes of action that we recognize as ‘normal’[,] . . . [leading] us to see activities that do not conform with these codes as abnormal.” Morgan argues that, if organizational cultures move toward "female" styles of management, workers and managers become inclusionary, with relationships “characterized by trust, support, encouragement, and mutual respect[,]. . . [becoming] organizations that are truly ‘networked,’ where the process of doing things is as important as the end result or product.” When organizations have competing value systems that “create a mosaic of organizational realities rather than a uniform corporate culture” different norms and patterns of behavior develop. Organization cultures with a "male" leadership style Morgan says are more "logical" with "linear modes of thought and action" that are driven for results "at the expense of network and community building" (129, 136-37).

Although different norms and patterns of behavior—diversity—can facilitate creative problem solving, “organizations can become plagued by a kind of subcultural warfare. Different norms, beliefs, and attitudes to time, efficiency, or service can combine to create all kinds of contradictions and dysfunctions. . . . [D]ivisions may also arise because organization members have divided loyalties." In this type of case, coalitions can develop "into forms of counterculture, in opposition to organizational values espoused by those formally in control. . . . Typically, these divisions usually result in a struggle for control” (137-38). When organizations are seen as political, conflict may be used in either constructive or destructive ways. The ability of leaders and all organization members to negotiate, collaborate, co-opt, or manipulate will help determine what needs are met, as will the ability to wield power and control. The skills needed by members of organization cultures may include those which aid competition, collaboration, compromise, accommodation, or avoidance.

Peters and Waterman emphasize building “cohesive cultures around common sets of norms, values, and ideas that create an appropriate focus for doing business." They believe that to do this, an organization and its leaders must "transform prevailing organizational mind-sets and political patterns[,] . . . transforming . . . visions, paradigms, images, metaphors, beliefs, and shared meanings[,] . . . creating a detailed language and code of behavior through which the desired new reality can be lived on a daily basis[,] . . . inventing . . . a new way of life.” An organization’s structure, rules, policies, goals, missions, job descriptions, and standard operating procedures may perform an interpretive function and act as “primary points of reference for the way people think

58 about and make sense of the contexts in which they work. . . . [T]hey are cultural artifacts shaping the ongoing reality.” Culture is “embedded in the routine aspects of everyday practice[;]. . . every aspect of organization is rich in symbolic meaning” (142-44).

Viewing organizations as psychic prisons leads one to understand that organizations are socially constructed realities, but also that “these constructions are often attributed an existence and power of their own that allow them to exercise a measure of control over their creators” (Morgan, 1986, 215). The psychic prison is a metaphor for a "socially constructed world" that prevents the "emergence of other worlds.” In a psychic prison, people may share illusions and “operating norms that interfere with their ability to think critically and to engage in . . . reality testing” (219). People become trapped in the world they have created. Unconscious anxiety may affect coalition building, the politics in the organization, and leaders’ and other members’ abilities to develop relationships and to conceptualize. Underlying preoccupations and concerns must be addressed in order to create change and learning organizations out of psychic prisons.

Organizations acting as flux and transformation interact narcissistically with themselves and may want to project “representations of themselves, their organizations, and the environment in a way that helps orient action to create or maintain a desirable identity.” Artifacts in the organization, such as charts on the walls, may be seen as “mirrors . . . [allowing] members of the organization to see themselves within the context of their ongoing activity. . . . [T]hrough this process of self-reference . . . organizational members can intervene in their own functioning and . . . participate in creating and maintaining their identity." This enactment process emphasizes some things while "ignoring or downplaying others. It is a core process that projects, defines, and produces a particular way of existing” (258). Egocentric organizations under the flux and transformation model define themselves and their self-interests too narrowly: a “more fluid and open identity of the system to which they belong” needs to be developed (260).

Complex organizations under the influence of a flux and transformation metaphor must consider five ideas to guide the management of change:

• Rethink what we mean by organization, especially the nature of hierarchy and control • Learn the art of managing and changing contexts • Learn how to use small changes to create large effects • Live with continuous transformation and emergent order as a natural state of affairs • Be open to new metaphors that can facilitate processes of self-organization. (266)

Innovation may be seen as “creative destruction” under the flux and transformation model: “new innovations in effect lead to the destruction of established practice. . . . In turn, they define the frontier for the next phase of innovation, creating a pattern where problems tend to generate new solutions, which set the basis for new problems, which lead to new solutions . . . and so on” (295). Managers must put their “heads above the flux and see the dialectical contradictions that are shaping detailed organizational life.” They must become skilled at managing paradox, with contradictory tensions: system

59 development must be seen as continuing elements of counter development, since opposites are always generated and both sides of a contradiction usually have merit. Paradox is a product of “internal tensions produced by the fact that elements of both sides of the paradox may embrace equally desirable states." Managers must find ways of "creating contexts that can mobilize and retain desirable qualities on both sides . . . to develop new understandings that will reshape the mindsets through which a particular paradox is approached” (293-94). But managers must not let destruction become over- emphasized: it must be seen as a consequence of flux and transformation, not an aim. The view of systems as flux and transformation appears to give managers a large responsibility for their own learning of new mindsets and visions, and for setting up learning opportunities for other members of the organization.

Regardless of the organization's metaphor, one of the greatest challenges for an organizational leader is that the members may be operating under different metaphors themselves: some may be acting as if in a political arena, others as if they work in psychic prisons, yet others in the way of organisms. There may be no single vision within the culture of the organization, no shared metaphor. Morgan tells us that organizations function best when the metaphor is intentional and is understood and shared by members of the organization.

During times of change, "managers … are part of the flux.” To manage change well, managers must develop mindsets that allow them to “facilitate the process and flow with the change, rather than try to predesign and control in a more traditional way” (266-67). In this manner, staff can also learn to be flexible and change oriented.

Managers must find ways to create a new context as change is occurring. This can be done by transforming mindsets of key people, “mobilizing a powerful coalition of key individuals that can launch and protect a prototype of a new system,” or transferring the “responsibility for delivery of these services to a completely new organization . . . through some kind of subcontracting arrangement.” Managers can create the environment for change, but they cannot control it, since it will emerge. Change can be shaped or nurtured, however, by “opening the old system to new information, new experiences, new modes of service delivery, new criteria for assessing quality." New contexts help create new understandings of situations and these new contexts can be created through new actions: “New actions can catalyze new understandings” and “small changes can create large effects” (269-71).

Ways of thinking about problems must be looked at through positive and negative feedback loops as revealing patterns of relations. Senge stresses that “many systems tend to be inherently unstable because of delayed feedback and response between elements, which leads people to underplay or exaggerate their behaviors . . . [although in some situations] delayed action may be the best response because problems may prove to be nonproblems and disappear on their own." Senge also argues, "Solutions depend on the development of shared understandings of the problem and an ability to reframe system dynamics so that short-term individual interest and long-term sustainability and development become more balanced and integrated" (281-82).

60 The organization of the workplace may help determine whether or not it will be an instrument of domination when nondominating forms of organization may be possible. Leaders and managers have the power to change things; so do workers if they organize. Organizations that are instruments of domination teach leaders and managers that they have the power and are in control, until such a time as workers are able to organize and temporarily shift some of the power onto themselves and their counter-organizations (such as unions). Under a domination system, workers will learn to comply or will develop opposition to management, rather than work in collaboration (Morgan, 1986, 344).

Instead of instructors and presenters to help workers learn, newer organization designs will focus on coaches, mentors, facilitators, and both structured and unstructured shared learning, where learners, rather than instructors, control what they need to know and learn. The new vision of what learning means goes beyond taking in information. Instead, the process enhances capacity to create in preparation for action, and learning is viewed as a social phenomenon, taking place in great part through dialogue, interaction, and relationships with other people. Learning moves from information being handed down from some authority to the individual. Since some learning is dysfunctional, people and organizations may have to unlearn before constructive learning can take place, particularly if a mechanical or bureaucratic organization is attempting to change.

Six major obstacles that hinder organizational learning and prevent people from acting on the vision of the learning organization are listed here:

• Bureaucracy, where policies, regulations, forms, and busywork become more important than change

• Competitiveness, which emphasizes individuals rather than teamwork and collaboration

• Control, which may provide a ‘high’ for those in control, but is always a ‘low’ for organizational learning

• Poor communications, which result from filters, conscious and unconscious biases, narrow listening, and delays [and message modification or distortion of meaning either intentionally or unintentionally]

• Poor leaders, who neither preach nor practice learning, and are most concerned about protecting their turf

• Rigid hierarchy, which forces people and ideas to go up and down narrow silos. (214)

61 Schools as Sites of Production

School grading based on student test scores, teachers' salaries and schools' money being affected by the scores, and school grading are viewed by some stakeholders (who have published editorials and filed lawsuits) as an attempt to bring a form of scientific management into education at a time when education is most in need of being able to teach students to perform well as members of learning organizations. With much of the United States’ workforce needing to be reeducated or retrained every four to five years to keep up with the changes in the workplace, lifelong learning is a critical factor in the economy and for quality of life issues. The ability to learn is important for workplace survival and social development. But under the new rationalization of school outcome measures, some educators are concerned that the social development factor may be overlooked.

Marquardt (1996) sees modern organizations as not embodying the Darwinian “survival of the fittest,” but rather as the survival of the “fittest to learn.” New organizations (including those that have been “reengineered” and “restructured”) will “enjoy greater knowledge, flexibility, speed, power, and learning ability to better confront shifting needs of a new environment, more demanding customers, and smarter knowledge workers”— all in the creation of the learning organization. Organizations must perform in certain ways if they are to be learning organizations:

• Anticipate and adapt more readily to environmental impacts • Accelerate the development of new products, processes, and services • Become more proficient at learning from competitors and collaborators • Expedite the transfer of knowledge from one part of the organization to another • Learn more effectively from its mistakes • Make greater organizational use of employees at all levels of the organization • Shorten the time required to implement strategic changes • Stimulate continuous improvement in all areas of the organization. (1-2)

Learning organizations are always transforming themselves. As opposed to the old bureaucratic types of organization, these new “survivors” will manage knowledge better and in a more holistic way; will fully utilize available technologies and create new ones; will empower people; and will provide opportunities and expectations for the learning of all of its members. This provides learning organizations with the ability to adapt to changes.

Knowledge has become the new economy and “provides the key raw material for wealth creation and is the fountain of organizational and personal power” (Marquardt, 1996, 6). This creates special challenges for managers, who must make certain that knowledge is learned, generated, and transferred throughout the organization: the “intellectual capital” of the organization must reside at all levels.

Although resources of an organization include financial, market position, technology, capital assets, and manpower, many view knowledge as the main resource in today's

62 nonservice organization. Creating an organization in which workers (and their “environments”) can and will increase and share knowledge is one of the main jobs of its leaders.

Numerous educators who participated in the lab school study believed that basing student promotion on standardized test scores and tying teachers' pay incentives to student's performance on these tests was the type of incentive used under scientific management and assembly line processes, such as happened in auto factories. At a time when the control of schools was being decentralized, they saw the use of student test scores and school grading as the implementation of "rational" accountability. They believed that policymakers, in their quest for school accountability, were looking to schools to produce uniform products—students who achieved certain test scores. Yet, a national award winning teacher observing a "failing school" in her state found that the school was doing an outstanding job of working with the English as a Second Language, low income children who populated that school: because of the children's inability to test well at that point in time, the school was labeled as "failing." The newer accountability approaches used for schools were not supported by W. Edwards Deming, as seen in the next section. Deming was credited with designing organizations in Japan that turned them into world- class, top-quality producers.

Education Reform

Public policy on educational reform has created mandates for change in the K-12 school systems. Deming, at an interview in the early 1990s, was very critical of looking at the parts of a system rather than the whole, and the way educational reform was being shaped and measured. He contended that, in education, people were important, not procedures or measures: method is what counts, not goals, and method cannot be simply measured outside of its systems, contexts and environments. Deming said, “The climate of an organization influences an individual’s contribution far more than the individual himself. . . . The way people work together is what produces excellence.” He argued that an institution’s shared assumptions about itself produced working relationships and shared understandings, and that fear, competition, and divisiveness could defeat excellence. He also argued that cooperation, mutual reinforcement, and education operating as a system would create an environment for excellence.

The way an organization is structured, and the perceptions and actions of the workers within the organization, help create or defeat excellence. Schools are changing to meet new mandates, and understanding the dynamics between organization structure and the people who work in the organization is important to educators and policy makers.

Ongoing school reform intensified during the 1950s, with the space race between the United States and Russia that began when the Russians launched Sputnik. Much of this reform impacted curriculum and standards (Hudelson).

63 The National Commission on Excellence in Education released A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform in April of 1983. This report raised the concern that America was losing its global lead in science, industry, commerce, and technological innovation. The Commission found that education in America was being "eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very nation." America had "squandered the gains in student achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenges," and our society and its educational institutions had "lost sight of the basic purposes of schooling and of the high expectations and disciplined effort needed to attain them" (5). America was also losing its global competitive edge on "knowledge, learning, information and skilled intelligence," which were believed to be the "new raw materials of international commerce" (7):

We are raising a new generation of Americans that is scientifically and technologically illiterate. (10)

The Commission said that "educational reform should focus on the goal of creating a Learning Society" for all ages (13); that "the professional working life of teachers is on the whole unacceptable"; that a "serious shortage of teachers exists in key fields" (22); and without a well-educated nation, our very democracy was at risk (7). Recommendations were made for addressing the problems:

• Strengthen high school graduation requirements • Require new basics (24) • Adopt more rigorous and measurable standards and higher expectations for academic performance and student conduct (27) • Devote "significantly more time" to learning the new basics (29) • "Improve the preparation of teachers or making teaching a more rewarding and respected profession" (30) • Citizens should "hold educators and elected officials responsible for providing the leadership necessary to achieve these reforms," and citizens should provide the "fiscal support and stability required to bring about the reforms." (32)

Throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and into the beginning of the twenty-first century, school reform took on many targets: improvement of the way teachers teach and their professionalism; discussion of where the power and authority for curriculum, decision- making, and budgets resided; the efficacy of organizational structuring; the use of measurement devices to determine how students, teachers, and schools were performing; the impact of social influences on children and schools; student motivation and how to influence them; the political and social contexts of education; the educational and organizational processes in the schools; and the people who participate in the lives of students and schools. Some felt that schools fail or succeed because of teachers and their professionalism—education, certification and experience; the question of teachers as technicians who teach specific information that can be tested versus professionals teaching how to learn was debated. Included in the dialogues were teacher motivation, student motivation, parental involvement, and community and social factors (Clark and Astuto).

64 During the 1980s, educational change was focused on professional reform. The William T. Grant Foundation’s Commission on Work, Family and Citizenship published “The Forgotten Half” in 1988. This report indicated that over half of the high schools students would not graduate from college, and contrasted the amounts being spent to subsidize college-bound students versus those planning to enter the workforce. The report called for an approach that would meet and integrate the needs of both groups. In 1987, the Labor Department’s “Workforce 2000” discussed the U.S. workforce, changing demographics, and anticipated training problems (Hudelson).

Educational reform in the 1990s focused on accountability. The Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce issued “America’s Choice: High Skills or Low Wages” in 1990. This was an economic analysis of workforce productivity and wages. It contained a plan for reforming education to better perform workforce preparation. The 1990 RAND Corporation’s report, “High Schools with Character,” tried to identify the characteristics of successful urban schools, and indicated that these schools focused on clearly developed student experiences, including vocational-technical schools and other types of schools that were career-centered. In 1991, The Secretary of Labor’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) started implementing “America’s Choice” recommendations by defining work-readiness skills for schools to teach and test against. Also in 1991, "Connecting School and Employment: Report of the Council of Chief State School Officers" was released. This report was developed by an organization of heads of U.S. departments of public education (Hudelson).

The October 1992 Vocational Education Journal's “Work Force Education Reform” gave an overview of five major proposals that had affected school reform:

• SCANS—The U.S. Department of Labor's Commission defined three foundation skills and five competencies that students needed for the workplace. The competencies to be “infused into the curriculum” from K through 12 would mean that different teaching methods and a reinvention of schools would be needed for teaching SCANS skills.

• The National Advisory Commission on Work-Based Learning's "Job Training 2000" was similar in many ways to the America’s Choice report.

• "America 2000 – Excellence in Education" proposed money for starting nontraditional schools, tailored to meet the community’s needs; established a Merit Schools reward program for schools that progressed in achieving the National Education Goals; recommended assistance with teacher certification programs; offered more flexibility in use of categorical funds; improved the Chapter 2 grant program and authorized funds being used for parents’ choice of schools; amended Chapter 1 Compensatory Education to let parents use vouchers for private schools; funded local education agencies to promote public and private school choices; created a grant program to promote choice; authorized state data collection on student progress in certain subjects beginning in 1994; and permitted states’ voluntary use of National Assessment tests.

65 • The National Education Goals proposed by the National Governors Association, Congress, and the White House set year 2000 goals for education.

Federal sponsoring of public school and for-profit company partnerships started in the 1990s. Corporations claimed that poorly educated employees were leaving them behind in global competition and lobbied for ways to fix the problem through the education system, rather than having to remediate poor education once the students were in the workplaces. School voucher incentives were promoted so that public/private interests would encourage businesses to be involved in education and fund school projects, and would create free-market competition in the school system, thereby improving education. It was also believed that parental choice would feed this free market; good schools would thrive (including private schools) and poor schools would die (Magnusson; also, Moffett).

In the 1990s and into the twenty-first century, school-based decision-making was promoted as a means of enhancing both teaching and learning: parents, teachers, and administrators would be jointly responsible for the students’ learning. Decision-making councils and teams would be given decision-making authority over curriculum and instruction, and would have budget authority. However, the power and authority never shifted down from the school boards, central offices, or the state authorities. Additionally, the stakeholders—teachers, students, and parents—did not participate to the degree expected in decision-making, communication, nor instituting new procedures or developing new skills. It was also difficult to clearly state goals and articulate how these goals would be met (and through what processes), and to carry out change processes. Clear mission statements were not often developed and those involved in school reform were not able to find the time to devote to the new workload inherent in participatory decision-making and implementation. Other problems included a lack of experience and expertise in carrying out the job of educating while also managing and changing the organization and teaching practices. Cultural constraints were also a problem—teachers and parents had not previously been participants in policy issues, budgets, and personnel decisions. Avoidance problems surfaced when school-based councils did not appear ready to deal with teaching and learning issues. Motivation was also problematic: assuming that parents and teachers would readily get involved in decision-making proved to be wrong (Guskey and Peterson).

Bracey, in his twelfth “Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education,” described the politics and public policy used in creating perceptions about how well America’s schools had been performing. Bracey revealed the “fuzzy” logic, “fuzzy” numbers, and creation of public perception that went into “school reform.” His arguments went back in time over Bracey’s earlier reports, providing an overview of the political and policy battles that turned America’s school systems into social experiments having great impact on both students and teachers. Bracey made a case for the social construction of reality as it applied to perceptions about America’s schools.

In recent years, educational issues have included decentralization and site-based management; market place competition, such as use of school vouchers and development of charter schools; assessing, testing and measuring student, teacher, and school

66 performance; performance incentives and rewards for students and teachers, including student scholarships, teacher certification and performance incentives for teachers.

The stated purpose of reform efforts was to advance student learning and to force schools and educators to perform better in this effort. Yet, linking reform to outcomes has been difficult to do. A number of the reforms were based on the belief that school-based decision-making that gave administrators, teachers, and parents who understood the schools, communities, and contexts in which they operated more local control would lead to improvement and a better education system. This same premise was behind school vouchers, the charter school movement, and other ideas. However, high stakes testing, school grading, student scores linked to the school's grades and teacher incentives based on students’ abilities to score high on exams geared toward particular subject areas coexisted with the local control movement. Some educators and parents alike publicly declared the outcome indictor policies to be unfair and amounting to micro-management of policy makers over local schools. Conversely, there was also support for the outcome measures.

Criticisms of recent educational policy include loss of control of student learning, teachers being deprofessionalized and forced into the position of “teaching to test,” and of a school’s grades and subsequent funding being affected by dynamics outside of the school’s control. This lack of control includes student demographics, local economy, parent involvement, and other social issues.

Guskey and Peterson make the point that a number of key issues affect the reform of school-based decision-making: power (bureaucratic controls); implementation (“new forms of authority, communication, and decision-making”); ambiguous mission; time (for council and other meetings versus teaching and other priorities); expertise (in “the most current ideas and research on student learning”); cultural constraints (the behavioral norms and assumptions of the organization and its workforce); avoidance (of issues related to actual teaching and learning); and motivation (particularly of parents and teachers). Narratives of the educators involved in the lab school case study and the organizational metaphors used in this research helped to explore these issues.

Clark and Astuto make points similar to those of Guskey and Peterson. They focus on site-based management systems in high schools, making the argument for cooperative work environments that characterize high-producing organizations due to the sharing of ideas, allowing “idiosyncrasy to be a strength rather than a weakness, support[ing] innovation and change,” and allowing perspectives on work problems to be much broader. Clark and Astuto promote “organizational structures that are consistent with the principles of community” and that involve the following communities in the work of schools:

• Professional community • Various learning communities • Stakeholder community

67 Bureaucratic structures that “isolate individuals and organize work around principles of efficiency, authority, and procedural specificity,” and create competitiveness (Clark and Astuto) are in opposition to a cooperative or community type of work environment, where people can experiment safely; where individual differences are respected; where efforts are shared; and where there is cooperation and support. Clark and Astuto add that organizational structures that support a professional community allow time for access to ideas, dialogue, and internal and external learning. These structures provide for interaction between teachers and students and among students themselves; they also provide for collaborative learning, and use means to improve and enhance communications among students, parents, the community (including businesses), and other child and family support agencies. In the "Reality in the Lab School" chapter of this study, these points are addressed by evaluating the school as a learning organization.

Making the argument for treating teachers as professionals rather than as technicians, Clark and Astuto point out that there is disagreement on whether or not the work of teachers should involve “only the mastery of relatively specific technical skills or the development of a professional repertoire of instruction options” and a deeper and more flexible understanding of teaching, learning, and human development. Educational reforms that focus on this issue include teacher education (both preservice and inservice) and school and classroom practices improvement. Focusing on professionalism includes “norms of collegiality” and “the ethics of professional practice,” both of which affect the sources of control over teaching practices.

In “The Down Side of Restructuring,” Carnoy shows a lack of time as being a problem in site-based management, with teachers and administrators having already full workloads and trying to stay up with the latest research and practices, and time being used to produce a “product” (student achievement) that cannot be well defined by anyone, which is opposite from the world of business. In business, actual products can be defined, priced, and return on investment analyzed. Whereas, in education, “products are fuzzier and prices even more vague.” Carnoy finds that this makes it difficult to put sensible incentive mechanisms in place, especially if teachers and schools have little control over these incentives. Also, "Teachers are independent professionals who—to a large extent— control what goes on in their production workspace and are fairly immune to direct orders from above." He points out that schools share the responsibility for their "products" with the students' parents and community. All of this makes restructuring, motivation, professionalism, and leadership more difficult to assess or direct.

Restructuring is a way to provide broad political appeal: conservatives like it when restructuring reflects entrepreneurship and market demand as control; progressives like restructuring when the labor problem is solved in ways that give greater control of the workplace to workers, and when the workplace becomes less hierarchical and more cooperative. Carnoy sees restructuring as being “highly consistent with American values of decentralization, individual initiative, and individual responsibility” (of members of the school team). Restructuring’s biggest problem is time: reform cannot be properly put in place when teachers do not have the time and energy to devote to the extra workload. Carnoy sees another problem with restructuring being administrators—in particular, principals—who “may resist restructuring to maintain control or avoid taking on more

68 work.” Conway and Calzi, in “The Dark Side of Shared Decision-making,” doom to failure any restructuring that does not focus primarily on enhancements to teaching and learning processes.

The debate continues about whether or not America’s schools are actually failing, and about what causes success or failure. The debate includes arguments about teachers being prepared to teach their subjects, students not being ready to learn, bureaucracies negatively impacting teachers and students, school organization, classroom layout, curriculum design and delivery, and accountability and how to measure it.

In the lab school case study, issues that related to the debates on education surfaced repeatedly, as did those about workplaces in general. An organization is influenced by its environment, and the organization’s structure is believed by many of the organizational theorists in this literature review to be a powerful force affecting the workforce and the organization. The way an organization is structured helps determine decision-making processes, communications, organization of work, and controls within the organization. This organizational structure, in turn, has an effect on what workers perceive, how they perceive it, and how they play out their roles. In this case study, symbolic interactionism influenced the researcher’s view of how workers in the school environment constructed shared meaning, brought their learned behaviors and past experiences to interactions, and how this sharing altered these interactions in return (Turner 1986). The internalized rules, social recipes, and ideas about appropriate conduct that helped workers interact with their socially constructed workplace world became part of the study, as did the interaction between organizational structure, workforce members, and change. Metaphor was the tool for viewing and describing this.

Alfred Schutz's “stock of knowledge” is a person's reality. This stock of knowledge is used to create the person’s sense of reality and allow him or her to frame events in some type of ordered social world. The stock of knowledge is learned through the person’s social and cultural world, is internalized through socialization and reinforcement within contexts, and becomes “reality” for the person, affecting how events are perceived and interpreted: this, in turn, affects how the person acts. When each person interacts with another, shared assumptions are reinforced, or differing assumptions may be negotiated, ignored, or interpreted differently by each of the people in the interaction. Actions in a social environment such as a school are performed as people use shared assumptions and typifications to deal with their shared world.

Marquardt’s (1996) “learning organization” has stock knowledge being constantly challenged and continually growing, versus a mechanical organization where stock knowledge might atrophy in the face of common routines. In looking at the consequences of competing metaphors within the school, an assessment was made of the school as a learning organization as well as other metaphors.

The same dilemmas and challenges that came with changes in the lab school were also faced by schools around the nation: grappling with performance measurement, improving the quality of education, accountability, and workforce demands. Discussions in Congress about converting the system of funding into education block grants for states if

69 performance and quality assurance measures could be put into place make studies of schools that were and are operating under these conditions important and timely. The study of a university lab school, which has always been populated through parent choice, has become a part of the local school district in recent years, and is undergoing dramatic change, may also hold insights into the challenges faced by many public schools, by charter schools, and by those that accept voucher students.

Spillane's publication, Standards Deviation, was not available during the time the research was being conducted on the lab school, but his is one of the most recent and insightful studies of education reform and changes related to standards. Because of the congruence of Spillane's work with this study, elements of his work and findings during an in-depth study of standards-based reform initiatives for mathematics and science in nine diverse school districts in Michigan is included here. Spillane's research explored numerous issues, some of which will now help inform the arguments and findings of Constructing School Organization Through Metaphor: Making Sense of School Reform. The specific issues listed and discussed below are the most germane to the study of the lab school:

• "the school district's capacity for making sense from and about the standards"

• "standards from the perspective of classroom teachers"

• "what teachers in the nine school districts made of standards and their school districts' policies about mathematics and science"

• "how the ideas promoted by standards progressed unevenly between classrooms" (19, 20)

Spillane used a "telephone-game metaphor" to help describe how information can get confused as district policymakers and teachers make sense of national and state standards using a wide variety of sources, including professional associations, workshops and conferences, other teachers, journals, and so forth:

In some respects, it is like a party line with numerous accounts of the reform ideas being relayed at once . . . Conservations overlap and parallel one another. Moreover, in real life the players rarely if ever get to stand back and see how the story evolved in its telling and retelling. Spillane adds that understanding is also influenced by "organizational structure, political circumstances, and the like . . . Teachers' and district policymakers' actions do not take place in a vacuum but in a complex web of organizational structures and traditions. While the knowledge and experience of individuals matter in terms of what sense they make of policy, the organizational circumstances in which they make sense also matter. Moreover, they matter in interactions. . . . The cognitive perspective on implementation . . . merges human agency and social structure. Social organization shapes what people do and is also shaped by peoples' actions. In this way, organizational structure is both the medium of human activity and the outcome of the activity (Giddens, 1979). Organizational structure helps define human activity, providing

70 the rules and resources on which it is based; but structure is also created, reproduced, and potentially transformed by the same activity . . . While organizational structure may not control district policymakers' and teachers' sense-making, it does influence it. (170, 176-77)

External representations that build on and engage locals' prior knowledge are more likely to help locals understand the reform ideas . . . Policymakers might anticipate common misconceptions of core reform ideas and challenge these ideas. In addition, policymakers have to develop external representations that communicate the deeper underlying meaning rather than the surface features of the reform idea . . . district policymakers were likely to implement surface features of policy messages, missing deeper conceptual features. (181)

A strong argument by Spillane demonstrates that "sense-making" around what policies say and how to implement them relies heavily on beliefs already held by individuals:

Sense-making is not a simple decoding process of given stimuli. Psychologists portray it as an active process of interpretation that draws on the sense-maker's experiences, knowledge, beliefs and attitudes . . . Knowledge and experiences are integrated into a web of interdependent relationships—what psychologists refer to as scripts or schemas. We filter new incoming information through these scripts. . . . The sense we make thus depends on the sense we already have; our existing knowledge is a primary resource in the development of new, sometimes better, understandings. Hence, a policy's messages about changing behavior are not inert ideas that reside in the legislation or policy regulations and that are transmitted unaltered into district policymakers' minds. . . . The new is always noticed, framed, and understood in light of what is already known. . . . [I]deas about reforming mathematics and science education that were more familiar to district policymakers got their attention, while the more novel ideas tended to go unnoticed. . . . We are told that old habits die hard. Mental scripts are equally resilient. When faced with new knowledge or experiences, we work to assimilate them into their existing knowledge scripts, or we adjust our scripts to accommodate the new knowledge. . . . Assimilation is a conserving process striving to 'make the unfamiliar familiar, to reduce the new to the old' (Flavell, 1963, p. 50). But the development of new understanding requires that existing scripts be overhauled to accommodate new knowledge. . . . Major restructuring of existing knowledge scripts is difficult, but it does happen. (76, 77, 79, 84)

In those districts where new policies were affective in producing change, leaders were providing educators with the resources necessary to change (97). The resources included social and human capital, because knowledge and experience influence sense-making (95):

". . . 'Social capital inheres in the structure of relations between actors and among actors' [Coleman, 1988, p. 98] . . . Social resources such as network ties, both within and beyond an organization, can facilitate the transfer and development of knowledge. Developing social capital involves changing the way people relate

71 with each other in order to facilitate the attainment of goals that would not be possible without these relations. . . . Those districts that had made the greatest strides in revising their mathematics and science policies in ways that resonated with standards were also ones with a sense of trust among educators within the district. Trust was essential for genuine collaboration among district policymakers, enabling them to work together to develop a shared understanding of the standards. Trust facilitated conversations about instruction and its improvement . . . conversations that provided a venue for local experts to share their understandings. . . . For those district policymakers who developed a deep understanding of the standards, sense-making took considerable time; years rather than months. . . . [Yet,] state "policymakers' fondness for novelty contributed to unsettled state policy environments where change rather than stability was the norm" (22, 98, 101, 104).

Many of the teachers in the study saw the state's mathematics and science standards as an "asset, not an imposition," (43) using them to improve their teaching methods. In a number of instances, the standards got teachers excited, again, about teaching. Standards gave teachers and districts the leverage to move forward with reform. There were times, however, when the state's "quick-fix mandates" were seen as a distraction from more serious and longer-term reform agendas (44). When state policymaking activity increased, district activity increased as well, and spread from the district into the classroom, where it was left to professional educators to work out issues (49). According to a district mathematics coordinator, "We've had in the last five years or so a lot of things happen . . . not all necessarily bad. It's just that there are fifteen things coming at teachers at the same time . . . If you get too many positive things happening to you, you're overwhelmed" (56).

In one instance discussed by Spillane, a district strongly supported state and national standards in mathematics. However, one of the elementary school principals "was not an avid supporter of the district's policies about mathematics education. Instead he saw his role as buffering his teachers from the district's 'math mafia.' Some teachers in this school resisted going to the district-organized staff development session on mathematics" (137).

"Notions of situation or place" are complex, Spillane says (177). "Situation has to do with more than the particular school or school district in which a teacher or local policymaker works. Teachers' and district policymakers' situations in a career or life path are also likely important in understanding their sense-making" (178). In addition, "Emotional associations are part of knowledge structures and affect reasoning about value-laden issues (Ortony, Clore, and Collins, 1988). Moreover, changing existing behavior, the object of policy, affects one's self image. Relations between district policymakers' and teachers' values and emotions and their sense-making are not well understood" (177-79). This finding of Spillane's will be seen as significant to the findings of the lab school.

Boredom with teaching was found to be one of the reasons that teachers transformed or changed their instruction practices (122). In addition, "where teachers were in their careers . . . or their need to revive their interest in teaching" (123) were also influential in how teachers responded to the standards and changes.

72 National and state policymakers are under-resourced to implement and adequately monitor policy, according to Spillane. Instead, they rely on indicators such as test scores, written reports, and reviews of district and school guidelines and policies. Districts and teachers are more often than not left to interpret methods for implementing policies on their own or in conjunction with information from others, including associations, workshops, written publications, academic settings such as universities, purchased or developed teaching materials, and each other. The school district is the most important influence on the implementation of national and state policies, and the "school district remains a central governing entity in American education" (4). Often, there is misunderstanding in local interpretations about what policymakers are asking them to do.

Both human resources and social networks were important to a deeper understanding of the standards and how they were meant to effect changes in math and science. High- support school districts that brought outside resources to the effort as well as internal resources, such as time for dialogue between teachers, were better able to reach an understanding of the standards with a larger number of people. Staffing, time, and materials were important to this effort, and time and staffing shortages could have a negative effect on deeper understandings and on implementation. High-support districts, as opposed to low-support districts, understood that learning and implementing the standards could take years. As one assistant superintendent is quoted as saying, "We are talking in terms of years . . .it takes intensive professional development over a concentrated period of time" (106). According to Spillane,

Policymaking is resource intensive. It takes time, brain work, and political skill, among other things. Sense-making can also consume a great deal of resources . . . restructuring of our existing knowledge scripts, which is necessary for fundamental change in the way we understand, is difficult (93). . . . Expertise enables sense-making, whereas its lack constrains the process . . . social resources are also critical in sense-making. Social networks often serve as sources of information and sometimes work as sounding boards for the sense one makes. (94)

While staffing, time, and materials were seen as very important resources for sense- making about the standards, they did not fully determine the outcomes of the sense- making processes: some small school districts and schools with very few resources were able to find creative ways to help understand and implement the standards. These districts capitalized "on teacher leaders" and utilized "connections with external associations to redress time, staffing, and material shortages. The importance of resources such as time, staffing, and materials depended in important measure on human and social resources" (107). There were also other things that had a strong influence on standards implementation:

State policy was influential in district policymakers' sense-making from and about the standards. State policy instruments contributed to getting school-district policymakers to take seriously the mathematics and science standards . . . state policy, especially state sanctions, motivated district policy-makers to try to figure out what standards meant and to develop local policies to support these

73 understandings. State policy instruments, however, also contributed to district policymakers' developing surface-level understandings of the standards. . . . Government policy, especially school-district policy, was the most important source of instructional guidance for teachers. (108, 114)

Within the context of state standards, Spillane found that "state policymakers sought tremendous changes in existing classroom practices, changes that most teachers were ill- equipped to understand or carry out," and the "new ideas about classroom practice . . . were not well developed" (29). Spillane describes "policymaking on a shoestring budget" and "reliance on local school-district hospitality" (31). For instance, lack of funding for scoring test items that were open-ended or extended-response as often as not led to multiple choice questions and testing that did not fully incorporate the new skills sets required in the policies (33, 34). The reforms were developed in an environment heavy with state politics (37, 38), but light on resources.

Spillane describes how, even with district policies, teachers are rarely provided "scripts or blueprints for their work. Even if they had, there would still be much for teachers to figure out. . . . Developing new understandings of familiar ideas such as problem solving was very difficult because it entailed discrediting and abandoning deeply held scripts for mathematics and developing alternative ones" (156-57). At one point, a teacher described how another teacher had "dragged" others along with her in her sense-making and practice of new standards (159). Part of the process was later described by Spillane when discussing how old classroom practice is replaced, socially and interactively, with new practices:

". . . They [teachers] had replaced the norm of privacy, standard operating procedures in most schools, with a norm of deliberating openly about their practice with fellow teachers who were attempting to implement the standards as well as local and external experts. . . . [an educator in one of the school districts remarked] "It all goes back to the culture . . . As a classroom teacher when my door is closed, I do what I wanna do. And that's the culture we're trying to change. We are a community of learners. . . . [A] school's culture influenced their opportunities for sense-making from and about the standards. . . . Because teachers' sense-making opportunities were also a function of their knowledge and experiences, the school district influenced teachers' sense-making but did not determine its nature or outcome. . . . In analyzing the standards as they seeped into local school districts and classrooms, what mattered most was what district leaders and teachers came to understand about their practice from standards. Putting human sense-making center stage in the implementation process illuminates how district policymakers and teachers construct messages about changing their practice from policies that often misconstrue the intention of policymakers . . . Misunderstandings or partial understandings of ideas are commonplace, and not confined to school districts and schools. They are part and parcel of everyday life. (164-67, 169)

Another teacher said, "As a classroom teacher, when my door is closed, I do what I want to, and that's the culture we're trying to change. No, we teachers and administrators are a

74 community of learners just like your classroom is a community of learners" (60). Dialogue between teachers, observations, coaching, and mentoring was important to those trying to change their teaching practices. "Creating a critical mass of teacher leaders who convinced other teachers that the new ideas about mathematics education were important for students was understood as crucial for instructional change" (61).

State standards "were influential in the district policymaking process. They spurred district policymakers to revise, or develop for the first time, policies that defined and sequenced the mathematics and science topics that students were to learn. Districts gave a lot of attention to state policies" (62), and state sanctions "figured prominently in district policymakers' sense-making" (63). One of the educators noted that "state policy was especially important for those teachers who were slow to change because they hoped that this policy effort too might pass: 'It added pressure . . . I think eventually everybody started to see that the blowing over isn't occurring'" (64). "When district policies are designed to support state and national standards, they enable classroom-level implementation of the standards" (135).

Spillane found that school districts and teachers alike both paid attention to school reform policies and worked very hard to implement them. However, the way that national and state policies were translated into district policies, and the way they were implemented in the classroom varied greatly between districts and teachers. In standards-based reform, it makes a difference at what level of organization the policies are made, and how they are implemented at the school district and classroom levels. However, "teachers attempted in good faith to incorporate the ideas they understood from these policies into their practice, even though some teachers were much more successful at this than others" (139).

Policy had a great impact on the sequencing of materials that were taught. For example, a district policymaker said,

We have to make sure that we've got the right things at the right grades. We've had a situation before where if it was tested in fourth grade in September by the MEAP [Michigan Educational Assessment Program] and we taught it in April in fourth grade, truthfully we didn't worry a whole lot about it . . . The MEAP scores didn't matter so much. Well, you'd better believe that's going to move to third grade now. We can't wait until April of fourth grade if it's tested in September of fourth grade. (66)

Spillane found that schoolteachers were "the vital agents of implementation. Teachers . . . decide ultimately whether and in what ways policy proposals get worked out in classroom practice . . . schoolteachers who, in negotiation with their students, deliver instruction" (114). Complicating research of this nature is the point that "field studies have identified considerable discrepancies between teachers' reports about their practice and the practice observed by researchers in these teachers' classrooms" (132).

75 Lab Schools in the U.S.

Historically, lab schools were places where teachers-in-training could observe, learn, and practice teaching under the close supervision of an experienced teacher, and where experiments and research could be conducted on innovations in education. Researchers evaluating lab schools had been publishing findings that raised questions about the return on investment in lab schools. They pointed out that lab schools were "experimental and ungraded"; "Teachers were encouraged to create their own curricula" but not conform to standards; teachers were to pursue "learning experiences for and with their students"; the schools were to investigate "promising educational ideas"; and teachers held "joint appointments with colleges". Many lab schools were "too small to serve expanding teacher education programs or were no longer performing useful functions and were unwilling to change (Buck and Miller 1991)"; and many had "the tendency . . . to become favored institutions for education of faculty children (Cremin 1988)." Enrollment trends "reinforce the perception that laboratory school students do not represent the norm"; and "Parents of laboratory school students are often at cross-purposes with college goals, wanting traditional academic programs over innovation" (Hausfather).

Hausfather noted that lab schools had "progressed from being innovative leadership sites for experimentation and demonstration to being maligned as irrelevant and unreal (Kochan 1997)" over the past three decades. The number of colleges and universities that found the maintenance of lab schools too costly was growing. Some of the lab schools were able to survive by transforming themselves into other types of schools, including private schools not connected with a college.

There was a dramatic decline in the number of actual lab schools, according to Hausfather. "In the 1950s, laboratory schools found themselves trapped in operational and philosophical dilemmas (Nielsen 1986). Between 1960 and 1980, one half of the nation's laboratory schools either closed or were reduced in scope, falling from 212 in the mid 1960s to less than 100 surviving today (Bonar 1992)." Examples given by Hausfather show that lab schools struggled "to exist through the years, dealing with uncertainties of personnel, funding, and purpose (Buck and Miller 1991)."

Hausfather also noted that articles and reports in the 1980s "revived interest in collaborative efforts between colleges of education and schools." This was embodied in the concept of Public Development Schools (PDSs), which "included the cooperative supervision of prospective teachers, mutual deliberation on student learning, collaborative research on problems in education, and shared teaching in college and schools." Many PDSs developed from the "institutional coalition of teacher education programs and public schools as a focus for professional preparation, research, and improvement of teaching." PDSs began to take over the purposes for which lab schools had been developed. Lab schools had "been on the decline, as public schools became the focus of student teaching and participation (Buck and Miller 1991)." PDSs were seen as more realistically representing the populations in public schools, because they were public schools. As lab schools declined, colleges and universities developed relationships with public schools to create PDSs, and worked with these schools as places for training

76 new teachers. "Many laboratory schools closed as teacher education budgets shrank and public schools gained credence as 'realistic' placements for student teachers," and as "federal funding increased for innovation within public schools" at the same time funding for lab schools was "uncertain."

Schoon sees Professional Development Schools as "field-based experiences" linking "between theory and practices." He notes that Tomorrow's Teachers included the recommendation that PDSs have "student diversity, or commitment to the development of teaching strategies for a broad range of children with different backgrounds, abilities, and learning styles (The Holmes Group, 1986, p. 67)." Schoon discusses the height of lab school popularity in 1964, but notes that "many researchers believed that lab schools did not represent a cross section of American schools and that authentic research should therefore be conducted in 'real' public schools. As a result, lab schools became locations where good teaching, but less research was being done." Schoon points out that lab schools not reflecting the "real world" also gave them the reputation of being "unsuitable for student teaching experiences." Although PDSs might be said to have their grounding in the lab school concept, PDSs are not run by universities.

Lab schools across the nation were in decline: maintaining them was proving too costly for the universities. In addition, lab school student populations were not thought to represent general school populations, which made them almost irrelevant for educational research and teacher training. The number of surviving lab schools in the nation had declined by over half, with many of the surviving schools having to be reinvented and restructured.

77 CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY

A case study of one K - 12 school affiliated with a major state university was chosen as the best way to explore these questions:

• What understandings about the organization and its changes exist? o What organizational metaphors are played out in this school undergoing rapid change? o Are multiple metaphors conflicting or complementary? • What are the consequences of competing metaphors on educators and the organization?

Methodology Literature

Through the research performed for this case study, the researcher intended to contribute to the ways educators and policy-makers think about educational reform. The organizational changes that the school was experiencing were studied within a particular context at a particular point in time. With the thick description and the narratives of the school's educators, some transferability of the insights that were gained might be possible. Exemplars serve as “models for future inquiry” (Lewis).

The case study is an example of interpretive qualitative research. Haigh sees an increased acceptance of qualitative research in education, particularly the use of the case study approach. Case studies “are the preferred research strategy when ‘how,’ ‘what,’ and ‘why’ questions are being asked, when the researcher has little control over the event, or when the research is being carried out in a real life context" (Burns, 1990; Yin, 1988).

One aspect of qualitative research is that the researcher works within a natural setting, which lends itself to better understanding social processes and social meanings constructed by the actors in the settings in which they live their daily lives. Hoepfl labels qualitative research as phenomenological inquiry that uses a naturalistic approach that “seeks to understand phenomena in context-specific settings.” Situations where little is yet known or understood about the phenomenon being studied are best conducted using qualitative research. Qualitative research also helps provide new insights and perspectives on phenomena that are well known (Corbin and Strauss). Holloway, as

78 quoted by Gittins, describes phenomenology as “not a research method but a philosophical approach to the study of phenomena (appearances) and human experience. It is an exploration of the lived experiences of people, and is mainly used in the areas of health, psychology and education." This is naturalistic inquiry, “characterized by the observation and interpretation of social phenomena, or the generation of meaning in human interaction” (Hatch). Creswell notes that the qualitative researcher “builds a complex holistic picture.”

Research on organizations cannot use research methods that “present reductionist pictures of organizations,” because they “fail to inform the change process because they produce necessarily limited and nonholistic views of organizational functioning” (Lincoln 1984). Lincoln sees methods that “create a descriptive science of organizations” being the type that will give a holistic view of the organization. “Naturalistic inquiry focuses upon realities as multiple, divergent social constructions” (Lincoln and Guba 1987).

Healy and Perry discuss Guba and Lincoln’s 1994 synthesis of four scientific research paradigms: positivism, realism, critical theory, and constructivism. Each of these paradigms has three elements: ontology (“the ‘reality’ that researchers investigate”), epistemology (“the relationship between that reality and the researcher”), and methodology (“the technique used by the researcher to investigate that reality”). The paradigms most relevant to qualitative research are critical theory (which emphasizes “social realities incorporating historically situated structures”) and constructivism, which is used in this case study and will be discussed in more detail below (118-120).

Constructivism as defined by Healy and Perry, where truth is “a particular belief system held in a particular context,” is the overarching paradigm for this study. Researchers under a constructivism paradigm inquire about the “ideologies and values that lie behind a finding so that reality actually consists of ‘multiple realities’ that people have in their minds.” Researching this “constructed reality depends on interactions between interviewer and respondent” (120).

The study was conducted using grounded theory, where a subjective relationship between the researcher and respondent is assumed: the researcher “becomes immersed in the research through shared knowledge and social action (Manning 1997)” (Healy and Perry. 123). A literature search conducted prior to beginning the fieldwork consisted of philosophies about organizational theory, mimesis, phenomenology, and applied research methodologies. When the field notes were being coded, it became necessary to return to the literature to gain a better understanding of some of the patterns emerging in the research: the researcher added change theory and paradox to the literature review and coding of the field notes. The grounded theory and inductive logic allowed for an emergent design and iterative process that is necessary in qualitative research. Grounded theory allows for the “development of a theory through inductive approaches. The theory is ‘grounded’ in the data” (Hatch 2003).

Qualitative researchers seek to understand “multiple constructions and interpretations of reality that are in flux and that change over time,” so qualitative researchers must be skilled at, and open to, multiple ways of observation and interpretation (Merriam 2002).

79 O’Keefe quotes Ritchie as saying that qualitative research is defined as “an attempt to present the social world, and perspectives in that world, in terms of the concepts, behaviors, perceptions and accounts of the people who inhabit it.” O’Keefe, reflecting on Eisner, argues that qualitative research “typically employs multiple forms of evidence, and there is no statistical test of significance to determine if results ‘count.’”

Hoepfl uses works by Bogdan and Biklen (1982), Lincoln and Guba (1985), Patton (1990), and Eisner (1991) to create a synthesis of descriptions of qualitative research:

• The natural setting is the source of the data. • The researcher “attempts to observe, describe and interpret settings as they are,” while maintaining “empathic neutrality." • Inductive data analysis is used more predominantly than other forms of reasoning. • The research reports are descriptive. • The researcher interprets the individuals’ understandings and what it means to them. • Attention is paid to the “idiosyncratic as well as the pervasive, seeing the uniqueness of each case.” • The research design is emergent rather than predetermined, and the researcher’s focus is on “this emerging process as well as the outcomes or product of the research."

An additional item is that the researcher is a “human instrument” for both collecting the research and for its interpretation (Hoepfl). Lincoln and Guba (1985) hold the researcher accountable for being “responsive to environmental cues” and able to interact with the situation, having the ability to “collect information at multiple levels simultaneously,” being able “to perceive situations holistically,” being able to “process data as soon as they become available” and to “provide immediate feedback and request verification of data,” and “explore atypical or unexpected responses” (Hoepfl). Winegardner, in “The Case Study Method of Scholarly Research,” notes that the qualitative researcher’s focus is on gaining the emic (insider’s) perspective, while mediating meaning through the researcher’s own, etic (outsider), perceptions. The researcher’s perspective helps make clear the conceptual and theoretical “sense of the phenomenon.” In this case study, the researcher was the tool for observation, data collection, and interpretation of phenomena within the school.

Burns notes the following six reasons for choosing to use a case study method:

• They provide valuable information preliminary to investigations because they provide rich data than can be used to develop themes for the investigation. • Due to the depth of information revealed in the probing, it is possible to make generalizations to a broader population. • It may surface anecdotes that can illustrate broader issues or findings. • It may be used to refute generalizations. • It reveals more of the natural behaviors of those being studied (as opposed to experimental research, where behavior may be manipulations).

80 • It may provide good descriptions of events.

Recent educational literature has addressed the complexity of studying schools or educational systems. In order to properly review how a school is managing change, one must look at organizational dynamics in the way the school is structured; take a researcher's view of the leadership (formal and informal) within in the organization; and determine the formal and informal sources of power and lines of communication. More researchers are also beginning to write about the reality within any given environment being socially constructed by the actors in the setting, and how the actors' stocks of knowledge (existing beliefs and world views) affect how they interpret the information they are receiving, and upon which they, in turn, act. There is also attention being paid to how each person’s thoughts and actions will change the actors in any given system, affecting the reality in which they are operating. Besides the organizational dynamics, individual dynamics must also be studied. This includes the sense of self within the organization—perceptions of professionalism, how role interpretations are played out, and how these interpretations affect the actors’ responses to change. Much of this is addressed in the literature review and "Reality in the Lab School" chapters of this study.

The existing stocks of knowledge must be assessed: the knowledge or worldviews and beliefs that are in place and what activities in the organization may or may not influence them. How educators perceive the world within the school and the external world that affects it must be understood to the degree that is possible. The researcher must look at how these perceptions agree or conflict with each other, how some type of consensus or shared reality is reached, and how these, in turn, affect the response to change. The question should always be asked, "What feeds, challenges, or changes the perceptions that are in place?" The mimetic and phenomenological processes must be part of the study.

Methods in this Case Study

A qualitative research design was followed for studying the school: the school setting provided the direct source of data, and the key research instrument was the researcher. The research is descriptive in nature and data (observations, interviews, study of artifacts in the setting, etc.) were inductively analyzed. This inductive analysis used, in part, organizational metaphors for observing, understanding, and describing some of the phenomena.

A main reason for selecting a K - 12 school affiliated with a major state university (called the "lab" school) for a case study is that such a study allows one to see how the participants view their world. The data collected included observations translated into the researcher's narrative and interviews containing educators' narratives. Data were coded, interpreted, and used to inform the research questions.

The university school was selected for a number of other reasons as well:

81 • The school was undergoing many important changes, and preliminary visits to the school showed it would be a good environment for studying the research questions.

• The school administrators, teachers, workforce members and other stakeholders did not oppose research being done in their school.

• A process was already in place for accessing the school for research purposes, and the timeframe for getting access was not as long as had been experienced with other schools.

• Preliminary meetings with key leaders and with other stakeholders in the school indicated that access would be allowed and timely, and that members of the organization would be cooperative.

• Observations in this school undergoing change might be transferable to other sites, if the data were thick enough. Preliminary visits and an assessment of early interviews indicated that data saturation would probably be possible, and that rich data could be obtained.

The study of the lab school did not focus on one particular grade level, classroom setting, or set of individuals. In all, forty-seven individuals were interviewed. This included the Director, two principals (all there were at the time), a School Resource Officer, a teaching intern, a student engaged in a practicum, and a school council member who was also a volunteer and parent of one of the students. Nine staff people were interviewed. These nine staff worked in the following areas, with some of them performing in more than one function: data and administration, research and data, library, student services, school clinic, guidance office, Dean of Students, general administration, and after school program. Thirty-six teachers were interviewed—ten elementary, eight middle school, and fifteen high school: some of them served students across more than one school level. The subject areas they taught included English, Science, Language Arts, Latin, Hospitality, Child Development/Parenting, Life Management, Computers, Literature, Health, Physical Education, Language Arts, American History, Art, Math, and Music. Please note that if these numbers are totaled, they will equal more than the actual number of forty-seven interviewed once the Director and Board member are added: there are duplicate counts for those who performed multiple functions. Observations were made in all areas of the school in order to get a sense of the school and to observe interactions during the school day. Much of what was observed comes out during the course of this report.

As much as possible, the researcher tried to gain an understanding of how educators across the school made sense of, and organized within, the school. To accomplish this, an interpretive approach was used, which helped reveal the actors' views of reality (Lather; Robottom and Hart) within the selected K - 12 school, and provided some understanding of the actions of the participants (Borg et al.; LeCompte and Goetz). The interpretivist research allowed for observations of the educators' and researcher's social reality construction, and for this to be documented and explored (Haigh). The interpretivist approach also allowed the researcher to observe and gain insights into how messages that

82 reinforced or changed stock of knowledge were sent, received, internalized, and acted upon. Multiple data sources were used, which is typical of this type of study (Haigh).

Research that is participant observation “requires a total involvement in the activities of the research situation.” In this study, the researcher was more of an observer participant, which allowed for “a looser connection by the researcher with the situation” (Haigh).

Based on the research questions to be explored, the type of research methodology that would best allow for researching these questions, and multiple visits to the site to be studied, an interview protocol was developed. Input into this interview protocol (survey) was obtained from some of the researcher's dissertation committee members, from educators in the lab school, and from members of the Human Subjects review committee. The Human Subjects committee, the lab school's director of research, and the Director approved the survey instrument, informed consent form, research methodologies, type of sampling techniques to be used, access to the school for observations, the structured open-ended interviews, and artifact analysis.

Initial key informants were identified for in-depth interviews prior to using "snowballing," convenience, and targeted interview techniques. Initial key informants included the school's Director, selected administrators and teachers, and others. The "snowballing" technique consisted of informants recommending others to be interviewed. In addition, convenience interviews were conducted with people who agreed to be interviewed, but who had not been recommended by others in the snowballing technique: every attempt was made to interview both those who were well networked into the school community and those who operated in a more solitary manner. People who had been teachers for different periods of time and who had been with the school for different periods of time were interviewed, as well as a mix of gender, race, age, ethnicity, and experience. Teaching experience of those interviewed ranged from less than a year to almost four decades. Interviews of the school members were conducted across grade levels in order for the researcher to gain a sense of the lab school as a whole.

Lists of teachers' names at all grade levels that were used for setting up interview appointments indicated that there were sixty-nine teachers on active rosters. However, an evaluation report prepared for a site visit during the time of the study stated the number of teachers was seventy-two; there were three counselors; two librarians (although one position was waiting to be filled during much of the time the study was being conducted); two principals (there were normally three); and one Director, for a total of eighty staff. Since the number of educators employed during a school year may change at different points in time, the published total of eighty staff was used as a reference point for interview saturation. In-depth interviews were conducted with forty-seven adults at the school, covering over 50 % of those who were interview possibilities. Originally, it was anticipated that interviews would last approximately forty-five minutes. Instead, most interviews lasted over an hour, with some going up to two hours. The researcher allowed each interviewee to determine when he or she thought the interview had closure. At all interviews, the data relating to the survey questions was obtained, and additional narrative was captured in field notes. Since the survey was directed, open ended (see survey in Appendices), it allowed those interviewed to contribute additional information

83 and insights about their lives in the school that went beyond the survey questions. Multiple interviews were also conducted at times on the same people for the following reasons: 1) an interview was interrupted for some reason but there was remaining information the interviewee wanted to cover; 2) members of the school saw the researcher on the school grounds and wanted to add information to previous discussions; 3) the researcher needed to do "reality checks" on information; 4) the researcher needed to clarify information from the field notes; and 5) at the request of members of the school who wanted to contribute more. Those who took part in the study seemed interested in watching its progress, and occasionally contacted the researcher via e-mail or telephone when she was not on the school grounds. On numerous occasions, educators followed up to suggest others to be interviewed or to tell the researcher when and where there was information available that might be useful.

Observations and narratives were also obtained at each one of the following meetings: a "parent's" meeting to discuss bylaws and charter information that was attended by the Director and parents, a Developmental Research School meeting, an advisory board meeting, a PTA meeting, a Director's Forum, a general staff meeting, a school level meeting, and a meeting of the administrative council. Additional data were obtained and put into field notes during classroom and school grounds observations; during external evaluations, such as that conducted for a specially funded program (thirty-four educators took part in one of the evaluation site visits); and on field trips (such as when a British artist lectured at a local museum and at the school). The researcher used speedwriting (similar to shorthand), and was able to capture verbatim narratives that related to the research topics. The researcher also made observations in areas surrounding the school that students or educators frequented, such as university buildings, vending machine areas, bookstores, and eating establishments.

The interviews and observations took place both during the school day and after school hours, as necessary to attend meetings and conduct observations and interviews. Observations were made, and interviews conducted, until data saturation was reached. Data saturation was evident when individuals were repeating what had already been said by others, and when no new patterns or themes emerged.

Artifacts that should be of interest to qualitative researchers are defined by Goetz and LeCompte as “things that people make and do." Artifacts such as samples of blank teacher performance appraisals, school surveys, annual reports, classroom handouts, newsletters, brochures, posters and messages on walls, and anything else that was thought to be informative and was public information were collected and analyzed at the school and in the researcher's office. For the most part, these documents were reviewed in order to see if the school processes described in the narratives could be documented through school artifacts. In addition, this material was used for background information in the report, such as describing the school and the legislative and lab school environment in which the school had to operate.

Words typically form the raw data that are analyzed by qualitative researchers. The analysis of the data involves coding (including identification of themes), grounding (by returning repeatedly to the data to deepen or clarify insights or to create additional

84 questions and determine what additional data collection needs to be conducted), data reduction, data management, and writing the research report.

The data-coding process is as follows: first, categories of the data are developed. The researcher labels, sorts, retrieves, and analyzes the data according to the codes. The selected codes can be either descriptive (e.g., space layout or uses) or interpretative (e.g., perceptions of the organization as machine or psychic prison). This can include “types of situations, perspectives or views of the actors, processes, events, strategies, methods observed,” and social relationships. According to Savenye and Robinson, “Goetz and LeCompte describe coding to form a taxonomic analysis and outline; coding schemes are continually added to, collapsed, refined as study progresses.” Codes may also be used to count frequencies (such as frequency of mentions to determine the relative importance of an item to the persons being interviewed). Data management includes physically organizing the data, using tools, such as computers, to organize and manage the data, and displaying the data graphically.

The open coding used for this research was an interpretive process for breaking down data analytically: its purpose was to gain insights into the phenomena reflected in the data. Open coding allowed comparison with other data for similarities and differences. Field notes that included observations, descriptive data, interview data, and artifact analysis were broken down into themes and patterns through the open coding. Data were then grouped and coded in categories or subcategories, depending on the similarities. After the open coding was completed and categories and subcategories developed, selective coding was used to represent the central theme(s) of the study. The subcategories stood in relationship to the core categories as conditions, action/interactional strategies, or consequences (as suggested by Corbin and Strauss).

Besides using a computer, the researcher had to resort to an older technique of sorting codes by printing, cutting apart, and manually sorting the data by topics and themes. This was necessary due to the volume of data. Once the report was assembled through this paper method, a new electronic document was created using Microsoft Word software for cutting and pasting the pieces of electronic text in their proper order.

To protect the identity of the school and its members, a matrix of those interviewed was created; interviewees were given codes in place of their names, which could be cross- referenced to the matrix, and these codes were entered in hidden text in an interim draft. Additionally, genders of the interviewees were randomly switched so that no reader could be certain of the narrator's gender or identity in the narratives, which constituted the data. Also for confidentiality purposes, identities including those of the state, school, individuals or other obvious identifiers were removed from the teachers' narratives and generic words substituted and put in brackets. Clarification words were also inserted in brackets. When the researcher was ready to send a draft out for review, the latest interim draft was saved to a different electronic file, and the hidden text was deleted before distribution.

After all of the data were compiled and synthesized, the report was written in such a way as to reflect the newer thoughts discussed in the literature review about using narrative

85 technique for writing qualitative research. For instance, foreshadowing of information in the "Reality in the Lab School" chapter was used in the literature review to better connect the reader across sections. The "Reality" chapter reflects both the researcher's narrative and narratives of the people interviewed. The researcher's narrative was written in past tense. The interviewees' narratives were left in the active voice—actual words spoken and in present tense—rather than being converted into paraphrasing or highly edited reading text. The active voice of the educators at times reflected stream-of-consciousness dialogue, thought clustering, elisions, verbal shortcuts, and word grabs: all of this is reflected in their narratives.

There are some limitations to this study. Hipps states that Guba and Lincoln’s constructivist paradigm has rejected objectivity, generalizability, validity, and reliability. They have recommended trustworthiness and authenticity for judging the quality of constructivist research studies. The four elements of trustworthiness, according to Guba and Lincoln, are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Authenticity, which focuses on knowing, action, and fairness, do not have any parallels under “conventional research,” but can be seen through stakeholder testimony and in the audit trail of “evidence of fairness and authenticity.” Although information from this study is not generalizable, it will provide insights into the research questions which will be useful to educators as they organize their schools and manage change.

Educators may find the case study of one school useful for the insights it provides and for help in looking at issues in different ways. Some of the information in this study should be transferable under the right conditions to other situations and settings. Transferability of elements of a case study can only be considered if the readers have been provided rich data or thick description sufficient enough to determine if any of the findings can be applied to other settings. Enough detail for the analysis or interpretation to be convincing must also be provided (Seale). It was the researcher's intention to meet the conditions necessary for transferability, and this was one of the reasons for using narrative techniques that allowed for the inclusion of educators' narratives in the "Reality in the Lab School" chapter. For transferability, the assumptions of the researcher must also be known, and the literature review lays the foundation for the assumptions in operation during this study.

86 CHAPTER 3

REALITY IN THE LAB SCHOOL: OBSERVATIONS, NARRATIVES, AND FINDINGS

This chapter contains 1) some background information on the status of lab schools in the state; 2) a description of the school and some of the changes it was undergoing at the time of the study; and 3) narratives that bring to light the metaphors that members of the organization promoted and perceived, and through which they understood their daily lives and experiences. In order to obtain this information, in-depth interviews were conducted on adult members of the school. Observations were made at meetings of faculty, parents, volunteers, and students; at special events; before, during, and after hours on school and surrounding grounds; in the classrooms; and in conjunction with other evaluations or site visits being conducted. Artifacts were gathered and reviewed. These activities were conducted over the period of a year, resulting in a high level of saturation, and thick description. A more detailed description of the methodology can be found in the methodology chapter. Please note that there is no citation for any of the quotes in this chapter, since citations back to documents or people would provide identification of the school or the participants in the study. The ability to track back to source remains coded in the researcher's private, interim, electronic version of this study, as described in the methodology chapter.

Background Information on the State's Lab Schools

The uniqueness of lab schools that aided in accomplishing their goals included the following: small school sizes to provide nurturing and a sense of community; the K-8 or K-12 structures of the schools that allowed for student cohorts and longitudinal studies; student populations that could provide for controlled laboratory settings; shared decision making among administrators, faculty, students, parents, and others in the community; pre-service teacher involvement; and the excitement that comes from practicing and researching new educational programming.

The state in which the lab school was located had a number of Developmental Research Schools, otherwise known as "laboratory" or "lab" schools affiliated with universities in the state's system. At the time that the field data was being collected for Constructing School Organization Through Metaphor: Making Sense of School Reform, the state was

87 also doing a study of the lab schools in an effort to describe the programs at the schools, evaluate them, and make recommendations for their improvement: recommendations pertaining to all of the schools and those specific to individual schools were being developed. Like lab schools across the country, the efficacy of the schools was being questioned by state-level policymakers, including whether or not the lab schools were the only place their goals could be carried out, and whether or not the schools were worth the cost in terms of the taxpayers' return on investment.

The issues and questions that were to be addressed in the state's evaluation and audit included the purpose and function of these schools, how well they were complying with the state's statutory requirements, how well the lab school model was meeting the state legislature's intents, and whether or not the university system should be in the business of operating lab schools. Questions specific to each school included an evaluation of the purpose of each school, the goals and objectives of the school's curriculum and the school's research and development agenda, the characteristics of the student populations, how the school was staffed, whether or not the school had the facilities needed to fulfill its purposes, how the school was supported financially and at what levels, and the governance and administrative structure of the school.

The state-run evaluations started with each school doing a self study according to an outline provided by the state's Board of Regents—this outline reflected the questions referenced above to be asked of the schools. A brief literature search performed by state evaluators prior to the lab schools' evaluation processes found much of the same information already contained in the literature review section of this study: the evaluators' literature review also mentioned that allegiance to the "scientific method" for research, particularly educational research, had vanished or fallen into less use. Thomas Kuhn's work was mentioned in regard to scientific methodology. In the state's lab school evaluation report, there was an observation that more interactive and qualitative research should be considered.

The state's report also cited certain concepts that are essential for lab schools to function effectively: autonomy over the school's program, curriculum, and research—this includes the need for lab schools to be able to change rapidly to research issues and methods as they arise; a need for facilities and resources that exceed those required to operate standard schools; close proximity to the university campus; and a need for controlled clinical experiences. Attempts to transfer these characteristics to public schools were variously called Professional Development Schools (PDS), Partnership Schools, Goodlad Schools, Curriculum Research Centers, and other names. The evaluators included a comment that one or more of the conditions necessary for a good laboratory school had been compromised in the PDS model, mainly due to public policy that restricted public schools' flexibility and were prohibitive to the unique infrastructure needed. Evaluators took issue with some of the literature that suggested Professional Development Schools, if meeting one of the conditions of a lab school, could act in the lab school's place. The main failure of a PDS was seen as its having limited autonomy and control over research agendas and the curricula, thereby limiting the flexibility necessary to conduct timely educational research. In recent years, some lab schools had changed their names to that of PDSs: being designated as a PDS sometimes brought increased funding.

88 The state's lab schools had been recognized by the state's department of education as independent school districts, with the directors of the schools reporting to deans of the universities' colleges of education. These school districts were established by state legislation. By law, the missions of the schools were to conduct research, demonstration, and evaluation regarding management, teaching, and learning. They were to have the goals and standards of the state's blueprint for education, and assure that the lab school students had an appropriate education. Besides foreign languages, the schools were to emphasize science, mathematics, and computer science. Their primary goal was to use the resources of the state universities to research and enhance instruction in specialized subjects and provide for instruction in non-specialized subjects. The needs of the educational community, rather than just the university, were to be addressed.

The state's evaluation reports that, in 1998, the collective bargaining agreement for members eliminated the policy requiring that lab school faculty salaries be linked to those of nearby school districts. A salary schedule was to be developed that would determine new faculty salaries and annual increases for faculty.

Within the report, a 1998-2003 strategic plan for the state's lab schools includes the following goals:

• promote the improvement of early childhood care, education, and school readiness for the state's children;

• promote high academic performance standards—and a reliable and valid means of assessing performance against such standards—for students at all levels;

• forge stronger linkages with the public schools and community colleges to foster school improvement and optimize achievement for all students; and

• strengthen pre-service and in-service education programs to recruit, prepare, support, and retain greater numbers of competent educators.

Each university, the state evaluator's report said, "in collaboration with its educational partners," is also expected to "establish and support education partnerships with school districts and specific schools in its service area and region—particularly critically low performing schools and/or schools in socially and economically disadvantaged and rural areas." Additionally, all the lab schools were expected to ensure that teacher candidates could demonstrate successfully that they had "the ability to teach and assess the content of the state's standards; in-depth content knowledge and content-specific teaching strategies; the ability to use the latest educational technologies to enhance teaching and student learning; the ability to teach students from diverse backgrounds; the knowledge and collaborative skills needed to meet the needs of students with exceptional needs; the ability to incorporate real-world experiences into curriculum and teaching; the skills/competencies identified in the state designated teacher practices; and the opportunity to participate in early, varied, and extended clinical field experiences with diverse student populations, often in the professional development schools."

89 State statutes required school improvement and accountability reports to let the public know how a school was performing in relation to the state goals and other performance indicators. State standards contained student achievement standards for public schools, and identified required student knowledge at different levels. There were state curriculum frameworks acting as resources and guides for local schools—these held broad concepts for curriculum development and instruction of subject areas: local districts were expected to develop curriculum guides for scope, content, and sequence. Statewide assessment instruments in the form of standardized tests that included passing scores were established, and there were a dozen accomplished practices in which teachers were to show evidence of obtaining competencies.

Among the recommendations from an audit conducted years earlier were those related to 1) funding; 2) research planning, development and tracking; 3) having the lab schools' student populations reflect the demographics of those in the public schools, including race, socioeconomic status, academic ability, and gender, or develop a method for recruiting these students; and 4) updates on student information.

Lab schools had to justify their existence, and respond to audits and changes in state laws: they were being bombarded with challenges and changes. In the lab school case study for Constructing School Organization Through Metaphor: Making Sense of School Reform, changes included the effects of the legislation on the lab school's relationship to the university and funding streams, the urgent need for new facilities, block scheduling, a guarantee to have all graduating students both academically and workplace ready, standards affecting curricula, student testing and school grading based on student test performance, performance appraisals for teachers, hiring practices, and changes to the student population—particularly related to diversity of all kinds, including geographic and socio-demographic.

The School

Early in the 1920s, this school became a "demonstration” (sometimes called “lab”) school of a major state university. During the time of this study, it consisted of an elementary, middle, and high school, each with its own principal (except when a person was acting in more than one principal capacity, as happened during the study). Classrooms for these three school levels were located in separate buildings close to each other and connected by walkways. Administrative, library, and media functions typically took place in buildings separate from the classrooms, but were also connected by walkways. The library appeared to be a well-equipped, well-planned space, although one interviewee reported that "a lot of teachers do not use the library because they have to plan ahead and use it. Sometimes they do not plan the day. It's used much more for elementary; high school kids use the university libraries because they can check out things there, and our library doesn't have some of the things in our collection that the high school students need. We got the building, but not enough books and resources." The library building was "fairly new," and a long-term teacher felt it was much better than the school had prior to the new one being built.

90 The school had a lunchroom, auditorium, athletic fields that it shared with the University, busses and storage, equipment areas, parking areas, student and adult bathrooms, an art room, gym, technology areas (including hardware and the computer lab), teachers' classrooms and offices, administrators' and support staff work areas, the school clinic, and student services. In many of these areas, aging and sometimes disrepair of facilities or equipment was evident.

The school occupied the buildings and grounds on the university campus from the 1950s until the early 2000s. It originated as a place where education and related technologies and approaches could be implemented and studied for improving K-12 education. The school’s missions included teaching, research, and service; it was also a site for postsecondary learning and service. One of the long-term teachers at the school said that, "When you first get here, research comes first for the school, but a teacher wants students in the class doing what they know needs to be done: the students must take part in the research—they adjust enough to do this—we are so flexible. . . . Research does not take that much time out of the schedule.”

Students at the school were "computer selected," reportedly from lists of children whose parents had applied to enroll them in the school. The student population was supposed to represent the same demographics as the state as a whole in ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and academic abilities. There were 550 students in kindergarten through seventh grade, and 571 in the eighth through twelfth grades, of which 102 were seniors. Elementary school included kindergarten through fifth grade; middle school was sixth through eighth grade; and high school was ninth through twelfth grade.

A school report showed that the faculty consisted of seventy-two teachers, three counselors, two librarians, two principals, and a director. Three of the teachers had doctorate degrees, three had specialist degrees in education, thirty-eight had master's degrees, and the remaining eight had bachelor's degrees. The educational level of the remaining teachers was not detailed.

The school had an after-school program; counseling services; food services; gym programs; Title I (formerly Chapter I); Exceptional Student Education (ESE); a Dropout Prevention program; health screening programs; a school clinic; and athletics programs, including girls' and boys' basketball and soccer, baseball, softball, and football. Most of the athletic programs had Varsity, Junior Varsity, and Middle groups. School support groups included Academic Boosters, Parent-Teacher Association (PTA), Athletic Boosters, Music Boosters, a Student Government Association (SGA), a school advisory council and a school advisory board that provided "'general oversight and guidance for the school."

The elementary school program taught through a "whole language and phonemic awareness approach with an emphasis on minds-on/hands-on science, problem-solving mathematics, cooperative learning, social science concepts, and the use of award-winning literature in the classroom." An integrated curriculum was used for "creating an environment for learning, and meeting the needs of individuals." There were also special classes in music, art, physical education, and Spanish.

91 In the middle school, students received instruction in "language arts, social studies, science, mathematics, and a variety of exploratory classes" that were designed for specific grade levels. Exploratory classes included "physical education, music, art, keyboarding, home economics, health, Latin and Spanish." Eighth graders were allowed to take a foreign language for high school credit in place of an exploratory class.

The high school experience was designed for each student by using the course catalog and Pupil Progression Plan. Students were required to be academically ready for college and certified in an industry-recognized program. This is described in more detail in the discussion of the guarantee. A report of the school from the year before the study showed that 93.2% of the students graduated within four years of entering the ninth grade, compared to the state's 60.2%. Students were eligible to receive a standard diploma, special diploma, certificate of completion, or state diploma (called GED). All graduates of the lab school the year before received a standard diploma.

The school year ran from early August until the last of May, with a summer school in June and July. Parents could come to the school at any time and ask to meet with administrators, teachers, or others under the school’s open-door policy. “Outsiders” also often dropped in on classrooms for research and observation purposes. All visitors were required to check in at the front office.

Communications internal to the school and with parents and others in the community took place in a number of ways. The technology and computer students and instructors ran the intranet and maintained the Internet presence. E-mail was actively used by most teachers and administrators, while equipment and connection problems that limited its use were reported by a few of those interviewed. The school's Web site was used to post materials developed by teachers and students, to showcase innovative ideas, and to exchange information. The school had reciprocal agreements for corporate service exchanges as well as paying customers for its computer technology. Qualified students were able to work on projects, sometimes for pay.

As part of its communications and quality improvement processes, as well as to satisfy state and other reporting requirements, the school had documents giving performance reports of the school and surveys conducted for the school. Data was produced from financial and student systems and school leaders were awaiting a report that was soon to be released regarding the state's lab schools and improvement measures.

The school was a Millennium school, which emphasized school to work. It was reported that becoming a Millennium school was the major impetus for creating a “guarantee program,” where all graduating students would be college-ready and would have an industry-recognized certification in some field of work.

By being a member of a geographic consortium of schools, the lab school was able to leverage or increase its purchasing power for goods and services. The consortium also allowed greater access to, and use of, different technologies.

92 Students came from six contiguous geographic areas, and the student population was supposed to reflect the same demographics as the entire state. Parents paid activity fees, but not tuition. Parents were responsible for their children's transportation to and from the school, although the school owned and maintained buses that were used to transport people to special events, such as sporting events and field trips.

Within the school, faculty and many administrators had functions that they were required to perform in addition to teaching. Small supplements to salaries were typically paid for the additional duties. Most of the faculty were expected to teach, contribute to research efforts, and perform administrative or extracurricular activity functions—these were said by many of those interviewed to be "just part of the job." For instance, one of the principals also oversaw exceptional student education, the media area, food services, and facilities. A teacher oversaw field events, athletic services, and the buses. Some of the extracurricular activities run by school members included sports, cheerleading, school yearbook, band, language clubs, honor societies, and others.

An extended care program for elementary school children was open until 6:00 p.m. This extended care program was funded through fees. The school was open year round, and some staff members were always there because, one interviewee said, “We are [also] a State agency."

Governance at the school was multitiered. The school’s own School Board helped make key business decisions for the school, and there was a school advisory committee involved in establishing the budget and providing input in other areas. Recommendations were developed and some operational decisions were made at staff meetings, parent/teacher organization meetings, and other special committee meetings (such as parent committees for band, athletics, and certain academic areas). However, many of those who worked at the school felt the Director held all of the actual decision-making power.

Visitors to the school could see backpacks and lunchboxes piled outside elementary classroom doors; children and adults coming, going, sitting, talking, and leaning against surfaces; notices about conduct, policies, and events on bulletin boards and taped to windows and doors; banners and signs for student body events and club events; a whimsical garden in the green space between two of the school wings; picnic tables and chairs scattered around the grounds. A governing association bulletin board had posted scholarship information, military recruitment posters, college recruitment meeting times and places, summer program notices for various college campuses, and upcoming events, including open houses, performances, and other school activities. Newspaper articles were also posted, such as news about sports wins. During some special events, one could see children and teachers in costumes, or performances being given in public areas. There were DARE and MADD stickers on some doors. A Black History Month bulletin board had information about events. Signs informing visitors they must report to the front office to sign in and posters and pictures that were encouraging socially responsible behaviors and some reflecting the ironies of life were in common areas, classrooms, administrators' and teachers' offices. Class projects, such as art and building models, were displayed in classrooms, the library, common areas, and in administrative offices. In a fenced flower

93 garden, students sat at tables and chairs, reading together. Passing under the garden arch, one could spot handmade, pine cone bird feeders; raised planting beds; and an adult leading a line of children under a bower and down a path, holding hands with one of them.

Examples of special events included major art works being created and installed by students and teachers, and a European artist showing slides of her works and describing plans for works in America. This was a prelude to art students and teachers creating, together, art of this type and putting it on display in a very public, downtown area. There appeared to be continuous interaction between the teachers and students of all grade levels, administrators, parents, volunteers, researchers and observers, and university students.

Teachers, administrators, and staff were observed coming early to school, and on many occasions, they were still there at 5:30 or 6:00 in the evening. Some also attended night events, such as committee or parent meetings.

Many of those interviewed had been students at the school themselves when they were younger; had children who were students (present or past) at the school; or had relatives or spouses who had attended the school. Some families had a history of two or three generations in the school. At a parents' meeting, one parent described how her husband, children, and grandchildren attended the school, and that when the husband had been there, the school was in another building on campus. A previous student, who was the parent of a child attending the school, commented on the decline in facilities and equipment since he had attended.

Changes Impacting the School and Metaphors

At the time of the study, the lab school was undergoing changes that had far-reaching consequences. These included a relatively new director; the school becoming a public school, which also meant new standards, testing, and performance measures mandated by the Legislature; the building of a new facility and a move; a change in relationship with the university, which also affected hiring practices and the status of educators as it related to the university; changes in student and teacher populations; and a new program called the guarantee, which caused a major shift in requirements for graduating students. As will be seen in the following sections of this study, workplace and workforce issues that affected the general population also affected educators.

Throughout the school’s history, change was a constant part of school life. Changes that were most often brought up by those interviewed dealt with new directors (although one in the distant past had lasted 20 years); “the Legislature” and their “micro-management” (including student testing, school grading, and “school improvement” methods); the demographics of the school; and university/school hiring practices. The potential loss of the school and the need to have a new facility were not often raised as issues by the educators themselves, but opinions were shared whenever the researcher asked about it.

94 Most of the educators at the lab school felt there had been too much change in too little time. "When [the Director] came in," a teacher said, "he did everything so fast, and just blew us away and the career stuff was in every newspaper and gave [the Director] a lot of credit for putting himself on the line: we need to try new things, but this is just too much, too fast." Another teacher felt change was too fast for the "biology" of the teachers to adapt. In talking about a thematic integration program that will be described later, a teacher said, "This may be one problem with the integration program, because there is not time for maturation before implementation is important—biology outstripped by technology.”

There appeared to be two distinct ways in which educators in the school thought about how change was affecting them. One way was to focus internally: “Teachers come and go through their cycles of withdrawing, embracing change,” a teacher said. “I cope with change by knowing my goals in life and what is important to me—faith, family. I embrace people here who are of like mind and have commonalities and team with them and this helps me through. We have some real driven people here, but I ask them to help me keep my balance. This did not come easy, but I learned it through another seasoned person and through her trial and tribulations of life: she will not let the driven-ness of the university reign her life.” Another educator asked, “How do you cope with all the things impinging on you on a daily basis?” This teacher had thought about switching from the academic area in which she was trained, and in which teachers were in short supply, to an area that was less difficult to teach and “is more straightforward.”

A second way of viewing change—with more of an organizational focus—was reflected through the words of another teacher: "Whenever you get a new guy at the [state's education department], they revamp the whole thing. If you get a new superintendent, principal, director. . . you get a whole lot of changes. The teachers face many bosses, but most of them went into teaching because they thoroughly enjoyed it."

Everyone interviewed had opinions about changes in the school and were willing to share their reactions to the changes. “We have a lot of resistance to imposed change,” a teacher said. “We are the whiniest and gripe about it and say we are not going to do it, because we are all ‘the best’ and we don’t need any help. [However,] changes in technology are pursued by individuals, shared with others, and sometimes others will then pick it up and start to do it. When we were told we had to use Microsoft Word, everyone decided to continue to use Word Perfect, but two years later they are all on Word. People are competent, sure of themselves, and resist imposed change, [but] if they see something new they like and think it will help their kids, they will jump all over it."

Other educators also reported a resistance to change, such as when a previous director "implemented some changes that appeared to take a lot of people by surprise and was a challenge. Many people had gotten used to doing things a certain way for many years and when [this previous director] came in, there was resistance toward the changes, including establishing a school-wide curriculum. There was no previous school-wide curriculum, maybe because this was a lab school where people experiment: [this director] wanted K- 12 curricula and a greater sense of where we are going over time. Six to eight years ago, this was not considered a public school until legislation passed and this may be why there

95 was no curriculum." He added that another teacher had told him that the previous director had "started aligning things according to these standards, and there was some resistance.”

The level of “resistance” to change varied, with the strongest reportedly emerging under a previous director, when grievances and lawsuits were filed and the director was replaced in a short period of time. However, there were also a number of educators in agreement with a teacher who said, “The changes have come most rapidly in the last few years," under the current director. As the study progressed, it did not appear that competing dynamics within the school could be simply explained as resistance to change. The school and its stakeholders were much more complex than that.

Whether or not an educator was thinking personally or organizationally about how change affected him or her, the reaction to change typically resulted in either cooperative responses or opposition responses. Cooperation usually was the response to changes that were self-directed by the educators—changes over which they felt they had control, such as using a new textbook or teaching technique. Under these circumstances, the educators usually embraced change. For instance, a teacher said she "cannot just lecture and tell kids to do homework: this is boring and you have to do things more interesting." This sentiment had been reflected by other teachers as well. The teacher went on to say she was "always changing to keep [the teacher] and the students engaged. I changed textbooks last year." The teacher did feel, however, that the instruction provided to students is better after a year of having taught from a given book. "Having to adapt to new situations" was seen as positive by the teacher, an effect that was also mirrored by another when he said he “gets bored very easily, and this is one reason I make room for change and do all these special things. I lose interest when things get static and there is no longer change.” Another teacher said that “I used to think this school was unique because senior faculty were active participants, but now many of them are retiring, and younger faculty have not, yet, found their place: this is a school in transition. We used to have so many research projects and changes in the way to do things: it keeps people fresh and from being pigeonholed, unlike some schools. Some people may prefer to be pigeonholed. Trying something new will help prevent burn-out because you get bored. Too much routine is deadly, especially if you are not successful, or no one cares; don’t like kids, subject matter any more. Some people at this school might prefer a little more boredom and routine, rather than changing everything every year.” It became apparent through interviews and observations that changes that evoked cooperation responses helped create metaphors like “learning organization.” The existence of the metaphor and accompanying expectations in turn helped motivate educators to participate in "learning organization" types of actives.

The change-induced reactions of the educators either shaped the metaphors found in the school, or were a result of the existence of conditions described by the metaphors, as will be further discussed in this study. Metaphors of the organization mainly became evident through the behaviors that were a response to change, which was supported by the literature review indicating that it is during times of change that metaphors are most evident.

96 Opposition came with changes that were perceived by educators to be “imposed”— external to themselves, and over which they had no control. This opposition could lead to a fight-flight response, such as grievances and lawsuits or teachers leaving, and give life to an organizational metaphor such as “dictatorship.” The fight-flight response in its original form referred to a physiological reaction to danger or stress that readied an animal to either fight or flee: a modern interpretation simply means to "fight" in whatever manner seems appropriate to the situation, or to leave or "flee" it.

Most changes that incurred an opposition response were described in such ways as to show imposition of power. Opposition was heightened significantly when an educator believed that imposed change was not in the best interest of the students, as will be elucidated in this chapter. At times, change had other effects on the school as well, as demonstrated with this narrative:

"New workloads, such as [comes with] school grading, and more demand on teachers when they completely change things around here. There is more pressure on the teachers and morale comes down; support staff are the beating post or sounding boards."

One long-term educator described how the school "had to answer to many governing figures: [we've] gone from teacher-centered education back in the 1960s to developmental research school in the 70s: all the programs we have been involved in were sprung on us [the teachers]. When we entered the British school program in the early 80s, it was announced in a faculty meeting. This program is now gone, but we retain aspects of things we thought were good." This educator went on to say that faculty "do not let go of things because they are bad, but because people in authority come along and decide something else."

Two teachers were heard discussing the rapid pace of change in the school. One said “new learning requirements and maintaining your knowledge are both challenges. I taught eleven different preps, and most came from” this school, and “changing preps or books makes a teacher feel they do not teach as well. . . . You have educators who say you do need a textbook and parents who demand them. Using different textbooks creates a challenge for teachers and students alike. This is harder with a different mix of kids. I’ve stopped doing lesson plans because I don’t know if I’ll use it again and it will not work for different schedule blocks. When you get the juggling act going, you forget where you put things, where you were in your lesson plan, and all that. This had brought me down, because I’m doing things less effectively. My brain is so scattered I can’t refocus to do things at night.” The other teacher responded, “I don’t know how to do all this—answer e-mails, view Web sites and pass on good information to other teachers. Most teachers work another job during the summer, and do not have time to regroup. One of my friends [in another school] got two weeks of paid teacher planning. [Our school] has an advantage of giving teachers access to the school 24 hours a day; although working long hours and weekends is not what I want to do, now.”

The educators who were experiencing cooperation responses were acting in ways that were typically associated with a learning organization. They appeared to communicate

97 readily and openly; were excited about teaching and learning; and were heavily invested in teaching other adults as well as students. Those who were experiencing opposition responses tended to think of the organization in terms of a bureaucracy or dictatorship, with accompanying behaviors and actions that tended toward “fight-flight” or withdrawal.

The continuous changes that came with being an educator also had an effect on the educator outside of the school environment, and vice-versa. It appeared that the “whole life” of the educator had an impact on the person’s ability to handle workload and related changes. It also affected the educator's perceptions about the profession and the school:

"When little things started taking me away from the classroom," a teacher said, "I started to burn out: right now, I’m just winging it.” Another teacher, upon hearing this, said, “Having a [spouse] and family help add to the burnout. You are torn between guilt of your career and family and it should not be that way. I used to be critical of what other teachers were doing, but now am more understanding of how they are trying to balance things out—why they’re not volunteering. Some people here do many things and some do nothing and in a small school you cannot balance that.”

During a different interview, another teacher said that he must “choose between my child and the job because I do a lot of this [work] at home and my [spouse] said I keep choosing my job and I’m trying to do less of this. My parents would watch [my child] on weekends while I graded papers and my [spouse] told me to stop being ‘Teacher of the Year and trying to be perfect.’ Now, I’m backing off and spending more time with [my child] and reading and am much happier. I’ll be going for board certification some time.” The teacher reported that “other teachers are also dealing with career and kids’ needs: teaching is like your turn in the Peace Corps . . . last year, when working on the national boards, it took time from the family. Being a parent gives you more credibility in the kids’ eyes and makes you a better teacher. But, being a parent and needing that time also makes more stress and takes from how quickly I get things back to kids. I don’t work on other things during class—I interact with the kids.”

A number of teachers reported that spouses and other family members complained of the long hours they worked at the school, at after-school events and meetings, and at home. One family came to an agreement that the teacher would not work after 9:00 p.m. at home. Another couple, both of whom worked in the school, had declared their home a school discussion-free zone because they disagreed strongly on how best to deal with certain management practices in the school. One of them, in fact, reported that the other was trying to gain favor with the administration, and it was “very angering.” At a later interview, the person reported that, although the spouse was currying favor, the spouse was trying to do what could be done to talk to the Director in order to “help things move in different directions, put out fires, that kind of thing. . . . We keep our school lives separate."

The danger of burn-out was reported by educators throughout the school. Much of the pending burn-out had to do with changes that had been mandated by national and state

98 requirements, others by changes within the school. Those who talked about burn-out were likely to be engaged in fight-flight or avoidance activities. An educator said, “The organization is from grant to grant and once the grant is over, they [the school] abandon it and it is on to the next grant: actual materials are dragged behind, but processes switch gears and go on to the next grant and this has tired out the staff immensely; they are just tired. They [teachers] hesitate to jump into the water, now, and rightly so, because the mat is pulled out from under them so often and money may be put elsewhere: everyone is politicking to get their money.” A number of educators reported that teacher turnover rates were higher than ever before, but a person who kept school records said they were not. An actual statistical report was requested by the researcher, but it was not provided.

A few teachers talked about how important their mentors had been to them, mentors who trained them to cope with the pressures of teaching and building a life. Other teachers reported the opposite: "There are a lot of hours and stress the first few years; [teachers] have to do portfolios for certificates, sometimes have to coach. Even for those schools that assign a mentor, the mentors are too [unavailable]: this school does not give people mentors.”

In at least four instances, people referred to one "bright," popular teacher who had left to work at another local high school. It was reported that the teacher had departed because "history fair and football got dumped on him at the last minute," and that the teacher had “had enough.”

There seemed to be multiple types of responses to change besides those already discussed. These included embracing, adapting, acquiescing, or avoiding the change circumstances. Discussions of standards provided the easiest examples of these behaviors: some teachers embraced them, thinking they were good for the teaching profession; some adapted, using the standards as outcome goals for innovative approaches to teaching (such as combining an experiential art project with high-level math skills); some acquiesced, particularly in those subjects that had "always had the burden of test scores, such as English and Math"; and some avoided, such as a teacher who did not address standards in her teaching practices because she thought good teaching would "automatically cover" whatever the standards wanted, anyway. Responses will be described as the study unfolds, and will be coupled with the metaphors apparent in this school.

"Education systems don’t change fast," a teacher said, "and there may be a reason—the process of dealing with people and acclimate them to new cultures and ideas takes time. Wait to see what happens; avoid education fads.” Some of the metaphors existed in this school, in part, because of the pace of change, how decisions were made, and the way change was implemented. The changes that are described below were selected because they were repeatedly brought up and discussed by those who were interviewed.

Legislation

During one of the interviews, it was reported that "the school struggled for an identity until the legislature put language in law for developmental research schools and funds

99 went straight to the schools instead of through the university: this improved things, we got money that used to be taken by the university overhead—indirect. The university administration did not like this change because there was a loss of income for them and there was no longer control over loss of money and control that came with administering the money. The school had more control over what they were doing and became eligible for funding that other [public] schools were getting."

This change in state law allowed for lab schools to be independent school districts, eligible for public education dollars, incentives, and other benefits of a public school. It was believed by some educators that having a funding stream outside of the university's budget let the school "gain stability in their existence instead of having the clout of closure over our heads because we were a cost to the university. One year we were closing, received termination papers, then were reinstated the same day because [powers higher than the university] overrode the university's decision. Specific language in the legislation gave us a mission, avenues, accountability, and direct funding has given us stability: it became clear who we were working for and what we were having to do." The educator summarized by saying it was a "remarkable feat on the part of faculty to be able to make adjustments, sometimes in a matter of hours. Instead of shrinking away from it, teachers applied themselves to meet and do new ways, work new ways within existing physical structures, with the same kids and teachers under a new mission. We do teacher training and research." Another teacher’s comments were in agreement: “The critical turning point" was when the school became a public school and went under the state department of education, which was responsible for K-12 public education, instead of under the state board of regents, which controlled the universities.

In the past, many faculty members had joint appointments with the school and the university. When the relationship with the university was changed by the legislature, allowing the school to become its own school district, the system of appointments and promotions changed, as did the requirements. “When I got this job,” a teacher said, “I was told you do not have to worry about certification, but the Legislature passed a law saying all lab school teachers had to be certified. From 1989 to 1990, there was a huge gulf between what the board of regents and the [state department of education] wanted,” and it was difficult knowing “how to please two masters." There were “waivers we could have gotten under the new rules, but they were never applied for.”

Another teacher said, “The school is definitely untapped" as a resource "and the state does not utilize their system enough and making us become a public school system is settling for mediocrity. Where else can you test 210 days? I was ready with lesson plans, and then the state pulled it."

A larger battle being waged to save lab schools across the country seemed to be in the mind of at least one educator: “A better explanation from [the Director] about why he thinks the way he thinks would be helpful . . . a lot of the things we are going through is an attempt to justify the lab school. This school has accomplished a lot more compared to other lab schools . . . I want the guarantee to succeed and am willing to try it. The lab school has been asked to be everything to anybody, without the resources to do it. We’re supposed to be asking the Legislature for money to do the research component of the lab

100 schools. Teachers were teaching full schedules and there was no money for the research. Long-term teachers are retiring and getting paid for their leave and a quarter for sick leave: this took the money that could have been used for raises.”

In trying to influence political decisions affecting education, teaching, funding, and the school, a number of teachers, as well as the Director, had become active in trying to educate politicians. There were presentations to the Legislature; art and other educational demonstrations taking place in the Capitol and downtown areas; and the Director spent a significant percentage of his time working on funding and location for a new school. Parents, too, had been politically active in the past: “There used to be huge parent involvement, even to lobbying the legislature.”

This teacher’s words summed up what a number of them had said: the “legislative micro- management is about to kill me.” Additionally, “The Legislature is not allowing people to do their jobs and develop in their jobs and stay at it." This particular teacher reported training many interns and having “turned out some really good teachers who are already out of the profession.” Most of the changes that had been “imposed” on the school and its educators reportedly tied back to legislation, and to the belief that “politicians play out their personal issues on the schools.”

The Building

At the time of the study, the school's Director was lining up the resources to build a new school that was off the university’s property. The university would use the school’s existing location for new, much sought-after programs. Local newspapers had been full of stories about the impending changes at the university, and it had been on televised news throughout the year, with the main focus being on the new, prestigious college that would be added to the university. Administrators feared that the Director had gotten “the politics lined up to build a new school,” but that the budget item in the state's budget was "facing a veto of the school” from the state's chancellor via the governor. It was said that the chancellor "does not like lab schools."

Acceptance or understanding of the school’s building dilemma was inconsistent across stakeholders. For instance, at one of the director's forums, a parent leaned over to another and said, "I don't believe that [the university] wants the land, or that the school's at risk." Teachers had their own views of the situation, as demonstrated in these two teachers' comments:

Being so overloaded keeps teachers from worrying about the new school, although there is some fear with the design of it: teachers gave their input and concerns, and some ideas were taken and some pushed aside. Teachers have a sense of this being beyond their control: we have to have the new school to survive as [the school] . . . Teachers will be quiet to help the school survive, even though we may not agree with decisions.

I don’t worry about what will happen with the school until the time comes. I have a job to do, I pray about it, put it in the Lord’s hands and He will take care of it: I

101 will not worry about it. There is nothing I can do, except my job, and I have no control over it [the building].

One way to “save the school” was to become a charter school, and there was fear tied to the success or failure of that:

There is a lot of insecurity about the future of the school: when people do not feel safe, they do not take risks and everyone is standing in line to get into the life boat. If we don't become a charter school, I think the [state university oversight board], which is not in love with lab schools, may want to keep this lab school long enough to bleed students and teachers away so it ends with a whimper and not a bang and they can close it and no one will notice. We must become a charter school this year or students and teachers will bail.

On occasion, teachers described how they got respite from their worries. “It is important to divorce other things from your teaching and don't think about all the other things: when I close this [classroom] door, the students are my only focus." This teacher said that "administrative things are not allowed to impinge on my teaching. I just take one day at a time; compartmentalize my life . . . thinking of one thing at a time is a coping skill." A different teacher said he liked the private offices that some faculty members had: "having a space away from the students to keep up with things and not always being in the middle of the classroom: you feel you are special and this is not real common. [The school] does not have teachers' lounges like some schools, only a little room in the front office with a coffee pot and sofa."

The sentiment of closing the door and being in your own space applied to both the classroom and the private or shared offices that many of the upper level teachers had adjoining their classrooms. In the elementary school, some (but not all) of the classrooms also made it easy for teachers to focus within the four walls of the classroom: there were children's personal boxes; a water fountain; cupboards for storage; computers; a small half-bath with a sink and toilet; a small refrigerator, microwave, and toaster.

The teachers' lounge had been “taken away” to be used for more teaching space. There was some speculation as to whether or not the space had been "conveniently" removed by the Director as a congregation point for teachers in order to limit teachers' ability to meet and undermine the Director. Teachers reported that the only congregation point that remained was at the coffee pot area in the front office. The researcher noted that much of the information exchange that would have taken place in a teachers' lounge was taking place in the hallways or each others' classrooms.

The design for the new school had open spaces, almost no privacy, and would be used to create a major change in the way students, teachers, and administrators interacted. The Director used architectural drawings, "story boards," and sample boards with wood, fabrics, and other decorative items and furniture drawings to describe to parents, educators, policy-makers, and visitors how the new building would look. The new school would be an open construct, with shared spaces within the school and spaces to share with the community as well. The school would have "store front" spaces in which

102 students could train and work and where the community could participate, such as a health clinic or art space. By being at least visually open through glass walls, the internal spaces would allow teachers to be able to view students at work: those students who were self-directed would work on their own or in groups under the watchful eyes of teachers, while these same teachers focused on a smaller number of students who were having difficulties. The Director saw this use of space and resources as innovative and efficient. However, some teachers had a different perspective:

“In the new building," a teacher said, "we will not have individual classrooms— there’ll be integrated teaching. . . . And, plans for the new building do not give teachers their own space.” Another teacher who was listening to the discussion added, “We will all have to have one personality. Right now, every teacher has their own office and in the new building there is a rectangular room for teachers— four or five—to plan and meet in their integrated learning and there is no ‘this is my space.’ Office space to regroup and prep is important to teachers. This will be a tremendous change for [us] because we will have to get rid of 95% of the stuff we’ve collected. I will not fight the battle of trying to keep up with it in a new school. If the computer is going to run everything [things like science labs] will be done as simulations on the computer.”

The loss of private spaces troubled many teachers, and the layout of the new school was a concern:

"Classrooms will be huge pods" in the new building "which went out a long time ago. Student services in the new building is a mess. I had hoped the administration would be close to student services in the new school. The reception/waiting room for the hospital [described as a public health clinic by the Director] to serve the public is bigger than the clinic: the storefronts are all for show because [the Director] does not know how much work there is to do with the children. I would be teaching upstairs. Exam and reception areas are for real clinical people to come in and use our facility and do career programs."

A teacher speculated that "when the school is no longer at [the university], it may change parents wanting their kids here." This teacher did not think that the "new school” would “work out,” but that a family’s tradition with the school, “like having parents or siblings who went here," might “also cause them to stay.”

Block Scheduling

The use of block scheduling for certain grades or subjects had a large impact on the school. Increasing to a 210-day school year was also under discussion, and causing anxiety for some of those interviewed. However, at a meeting, the Director determined that 210 was too much burden to add at that point in time, particularly with modified block scheduling and other "things" that were being "put in place."

One parent of a graduated student who worked at the school said, "We thought long and hard about block system around 1994-95, and went to a full block system and really

103 screwed things up because students could not get classes they needed to graduate and had to go to summer school or adult ed: plus, it did away with band, chorus and extracurricular activities." This educator reported that the school was on a "modified block system for two classes." It was also noted that block scheduling “works if the teachers leave plans for the substitutes."

"Block classes are wonderful for upper level kids," a long-term teacher said, "particularly for reading literature, getting into discussions; younger kids need shorter periods of time every single day." This teacher had suggested the "modified block" for the school. "There are some pluses to an all-year block: it is good for preparing for competitions and other things that take more time." Another teacher said, "The block schedule that was in place when I got here has been modified into a mixed block schedule to help provide for all of the design and needs of faculty and students here, and this is hard to do because you cannot generate enough sections to do what you need to do. We have made most people happy. For instance, foreign language is not in a block so students do not miss out on things on which they will be tested."

Block scheduling decisions had the input and participation of educators in the school. When full block did not work, they modified it into a partial block schedule. However, continuing the process to put it into broader use was stopped by the Director, at least temporarily.

The Guarantee

The graduate "guarantee" was the implementation of two promises the school made to students: all graduating students would be college-ready, or the school would pay for remediation at the local community college within one year after the student graduated from the school, and every graduating student would have an industry-recognized certification in some field of work. The guarantee was one of the most unpopular decisions attributed to the Director. At the time of the study, the choices of certification were very limited.

It was reported at a school advisory meeting that "statewide, sixty to sixty-one percent of the kids who go directly from high school to community college have to be remediated in at least one of the three core areas." One of the principals commented that "three years ago we stopped letting kids march in graduation when they promised to come back and finish up, because they never come back. Now we don't let them graduate or go to the next grade level until they have met the requirements for that grade level." The Director said he wanted to test tenth graders and "get an early reading on the number who will need remediation" if they go to the community college.

At another meeting, a principal expressed the concern that "the Legislature's intent is to eliminate anything—such as art—that does not have to do with math, reading, and writing." This reflected the concern of many educators regarding the guarantee’s competition for time and resources against art and “humanity” studies. A student representative at this meeting said, "I've heard rumors that art and music classes will be cut." The Director responded, "We've added more of these teachers" to the school's staff.

104 It was pointed out that "freshmen have one opportunity for an elective and one for their career area, but these opportunities [for electives] go up each year, so there can be more electives by the senior year."

In the year under study, the guarantee was reported by many educators to be the cause of "constraints in funding [which] will cut into electives and fine arts: there was a forty percent drop in music in High School this year." The music department could not justify positions while other teachers were adding additional classes to their heavy workloads.

A teacher reported that one of the principals did "not agree with the guarantee," and that another principal "did not feel it concerned her: neither will say anything. [The Director] should have learned about how we operate before he came in and changed everything. If the guarantee said 'either/or'--academic or vocational--there would be a lot more support of it. We have a lot of students who just want to think about college, not a career, and only four choices [of career certifications] is not enough. Kids have to select something and spend three years in it and kids change their minds: some of my better students learn this is not what they want to do, but have to keep doing it for three years—these kids will leave the school.” The teacher said that the Director's child who attend the school had told the Director, "'More kids are leaving because of the career programs and [the Director] needs to listen."

The Director “sees tech prep as more important than the arts because you cannot get a job in the arts," said one educator. In addition, "the school tends to focus on communication needs for business, rather than higher-level literature. You need a science of humanness—humanities—not workplace robots." The teacher's greatest fear for this school and for other school districts was "the negative influence of the tech prep movement – forgetting the whole person."

Most of those interviewed had "grave concerns" about the guarantee, expressing the opinion that it would reduce the time and focus spent on academics, thereby negatively affecting the students' education and college readiness. The limitation on certification choices was problematic, since it was said to force students into fields of endeavor for which they had no interest. Certification requirements were feared to have a dramatic impact on electives, even to the elimination of some due to lack of time to participate; it was rumored in many places that older students would leave the school, rather than have their focus switched from academics to vocational. A number of those interviewed reported that the decision to become a Millennium school and implement the guarantee program was a decision made by the Director, without sufficient input or attention to feedback from faculty, parents, and students who felt it took away student and parent choice. They also felt the program was industry-driven, and not in the best interests of all of the children. A teacher said, "Being in a tech track, the universities do not count-in the tech classes and efforts spent on these may reduce the math GPAs, which are what is counted in the GPA—college prep classes only."

At a School Board meeting, the fear was expressed that the school would have trouble "keeping people in the high school." The Director said this was due to competition from a new high school in a wealthy part of town. One of the participants responded, "Some

105 students drop out because they want something new, a different environment." A principal suggested that there was also "a lot of concern about the move and the new school. Those desperate to get in here are those second semester people who got into trouble in other places, but these are not kids I want to get flooded with in the second semester." A comment was made that there would be three honors classes next year in one topic area alone, and that some juniors and seniors "take college courses and this should be an incentive to stay." Someone else said, "Kids complain" that the courses here are behind that in other schools; a principal responded "this is old information because now we have a written curriculum." An administrator wanted to "study the leavings"; another principal suggested exit interviews on students and teachers who leave; the administrator responded that "this was done years ago." It was unclear at the end of the meeting whether or not exit interviews or the study would be conducted. Other educators, outside of the meeting, attributed student drop-out to teachers and parents who were unhappy with changes at the school.

At a school advisory council meeting, a minority student expressed the opinion that the school was "tracked," that all students were not treated equally. A school staff person said, "I don't know if the guarantee affects students, but the teachers do not like it. We used to have OJT [on-the-job-training] and DCT [Diversified Career Technology] and the supervisors would let the school know how well they were performing. Now, students do not have jobs or classes because they are used up. There are school periods in which there is nothing available that they have not already taken."

During an interview, a teacher said, "Every child should not be forced into the guarantee program: advanced students who want to do other things will not have the time if they have required career courses. [However,] I support it to the kids. The options should be there, but not a requirement because it really cuts into upper level classes." In supporting the guarantee to the students, the teacher said he told students that they would "probably have to work part of their way through college, so work skills are important." In tune with other teachers who had expressed the same concern, this teacher said the "guarantee may keep kids from doing language, art, music . . . they should have the option of just doing college prep." When faculty brought this idea up with the Director, "it was shot down. Every kid having to take chemistry and physics will cause the classes to be watered down and applied physics is not the same as theoretical: some things kids don't need and some things they need more of." The teacher "hated losing the [old] vocational programs: the people with skills we will need, such as plumbers, will rule the world." Another teacher said, “With the guarantee, we are saying that all students will take chemistry and physics and no school in the world requires this—unless it is a small private school with elite students."

The school had a "very weak middle and high school program, and everyone thinks that. Throw in college-ready and career certified guarantee, and we are in trouble because it will not happen," a teacher said. "Some teachers say it is OK because the guarantee is only for 'those who graduate,' and, if you do not graduate them, it is not a problem."

"The guarantee is not a matter to me because if you pass my class, you pass and are ready for the next grade," a teacher commented. "Kids who cannot read and write in my class

106 should go into 'applied communications,' where they can get functional literacy. The [state test] will separate out people who need help but we will not be able to help them because we do not have money. We no longer track kids but blend them together. Not all kids are intended to graduate from high school and we are now trying to push them along and force them into college where they will not succeed, and this will affect their self esteem. We are not tracking kids down one track when maybe vocational would have been better for them: we're talking out of both sides of our mouths."

It was interesting that one of the teachers who thought the guarantee was a problem said, "Some kids do not come to school to learn: they think someone will pay for them and take care of them and have no conscious idea they will have to be responsible for themselves. This attitude is a real problem teaching today, and if I was teaching English, I would burn out because they do not think school is their job."

The fear that the guarantee would cause teachers and students to leave was addressed by a staff person, who said, "Teachers don't jump ship more than any other school, but there are more rumors of it this year. There is more than usual the number of students in high school withdrawing this year: elementary and middle school are pretty much the same. High school students are frustrated because they could not get the classes they want and some—a few—got in trouble with the law and had no choice; some think they are older than they are and go to adult ed."

Those supporting the guarantee appeared to be outnumbered by those who felt it was a mistake to make it a requirement of all students. However, the support that was expressed in interviews was strong. Support for the guarantee mainly had basis in the belief that almost all of the students would have to work to help support their college endeavors; the guarantee made students, particularly those not college-bound, career ready; and it gave all students "real life" experience and helped them "build critical thinking, doing, and performance skills."

One of the most experienced, visible, and highly awarded teachers was working on developing an additional professional certification program for the school, one in the field of arts. He had decided to adapt the guarantee to his students’ needs for more career choices. The researcher overheard him encouraging another teacher to do likewise.

Few of the educators seemed to disagree with having both academic and vocational options available to students. The disagreement was in forcing all children into both.

Standards

The state standards "articulate challenging content" that students within the state are expected to know. They "measure performance on selected benchmarks in reading and mathematics as defined by state standards." The state’s testing was based on the standards, and testing was connected to school grading and incentives. The standards had strong supporters and detractors.

The state standards were "imposed by the state in the mid 1990s,” according to one of the teachers, but "seeing them before this" implementation was helpful. The standards were

107 "a tremendous relief after the developmental phase, because I knew what I was supposed to be teaching, but they do not come with curriculum and activities and teachers had to develop this." The number of standards and amount of information that needs to be taught "make it a tremendous challenge." The teacher was "still acquiring materials and creating lesson plans and activities and buying resources and I have as good a handle on it as anybody. It's still great to have the standards, and I've put a big investment in teaching them, so I would not want them to go away."

“Benchmarks affect me,” another teacher said. “When I first came here, they were embarking on a program patterned after British infant schools—a developmental program based on a whole language concept, but it was very unlike the British concept with no curriculum; teachers told what they wanted based on themselves, which were a vehicle for children to learn. Teachers were excited about this phase and thought it would take humdrum and monotony out of the classroom. Not being school-based or curriculum- based made it difficult to teach, and test scores were low." The teacher said that the state "standards are sound: they are like an ideal." This teacher also spent much time teaching subject area information and creating tests that would act as pretests to the state tests.

"The state and federal imposed performance measures are limiting teachers' ability to do their jobs," a teacher said, "because you are forgetting the whole child, such as social skills, manners, and [when you] test for numbers, you lose time for the affective domain because you have to have the objectives done for the testing, rather than life skills, including changing a tire, which we used to teach but are not in the [state standards]. The state decided standards would happen, then the teachers wrote them and authority weeded some of them out. Teachers cannot identify life skill needs a kid has and teach it when they are spending all their time trying to get students to meet state standards."

According to one source, teachers were not as involved in writing standards as they were in writing the accompanying certification exams. "The committee writing the [education standards] would not pay teachers’ subs, so teachers could not do it. They got supervisors who do not know teaching to write the standards. When the teacher certification exams were written, they paid teachers to do this. Have teachers do it, and pay teachers to do it.”

An educator who had been at the school a very long time had this understanding of the genesis of the standards:

I've seen much change and many administrators. My general routine does not really change. I have a curriculum and standards to teach to, no matter what. When testing is required, you keep moving toward the main objective, no matter what. You decide on an overlaying curriculum—the [state] standards that really came from teachers—that you move toward: a group of educators putting together the standards—they really are things that should be covered—so basically, you are meeting the standards if you have been teaching a full curriculum to your students.

A teacher talked about helping the state's department of education develop curriculum tools that could be used to make lesson plans based on the state standards. This was

108 expected to be particularly helpful to new teachers. There was no pay for this work, "and no feedback after I did six of them. The [state education department] was picking teachers’ brains and making them work on this for free." One of the instructors at the school "did all thirty-nine" lesson plans for his area, "and someone critiqued them and said they were no good and he was devastated, particularly since he is an outstanding teacher. The person critiquing it did not know anything" about teaching that subject. "You will burn people out." The teacher had a similar experience regarding the lesson plans he had developed when they "went to someone for review," and he was told, "You don’t understand" the state standards.

Student Testing and School Grading

“The state wants objective test scores on student progress,” a teacher said, “but English and Math have always had this burden of test scores. And, English and Math remain the most critical skills.” He was glad to have the state tests, because "when a parent came in and asked how the child was doing, teachers had no scores or data, because we were not monitoring in a way to share with parents. Now, we have the [state test]. A test is not to track them [students] and catch them on what they did not learn, but what they are responsible for and to do well on the test." This teacher also said that two other teachers "both use the state standards in the same way and [one of them] likes being able to use the benchmarks, test scores, and activities to show the parent why a student made the grade he or she did . . . what gets tested gets taught . . . The state standards are very complete. . . . ”

The school's response to how well children achieved their benchmarks concerned a number of teachers, such as one who said, “You must retain children who have not passed the benchmarks, but the administration does not support retention: problems compound by the time a child gets to fifth grade if there are too many grades to make up. We do not really do anything about the children who are not achieving success, despite the rhetoric and pretense of Title I and interventions."

Some teachers addressed how the school could get a good grade as a school: the students must perform well on the state tests. "I teach the regular curriculum up through Christmas," a teacher said, "then prepare for the [state tests] by making sure my students are at least exposed to all of the topics, like some that usually come at the end of the course—I introduce it to them before the test. After exposing them for four weeks to prepare them for topics, I return to teach them the topics in more depth: middle and bright students will get it, and others will come back to it." This teacher was "well pleased" that the middle school had gotten a school grade of "A": "Going into it, I did not feel confident at all, because I knew who my bottom kids were. I knew about how many would pass and what their scores would be, and these percentages turned out to be true."

An experienced teacher who had not been with the school very long said the test "is there" and a teacher could work it into what was being taught, anyway, and knowing what the students were being tested for was important. The state reading test “seems to be more geared toward middle school learning, so you must work in the word cues that the test uses” and terminologies used on the test. Another teacher's students' were taught “so

109 they can test well.” The teacher thought the test helped because it was “always there” and the teacher has “to keep teaching writing.” The state testing was not viewed as intrusive in this teacher's classroom. Another teacher did not find testing “a problem, but I’m glad when it is over, so we can get back to normal.”

Even those teachers who supported testing said the process fell short of giving them the tool they needed to better educate children. "It takes months to get things graded" from the state tests, "and the tests are used for placement, remediation, and other things, so tests must be given in the middle of the school year to get them back. These tests are a useful tool for placement," but results were needed more quickly.

Other teachers disagreed with the idea that the tests were good to have. The state’s testing, based on the state’s education standards, “is bad stuff," one teacher commented. This teacher said that everything students were tested on was covered in the classroom, but that there was “no teaching to the test." This was not the approach used by some of his colleagues.

"If the parents and families were doing their jobs, we would not have to socialize them [students] and the Legislator who wants to count nothing but test scores is wrong,” a teacher said, "because teachers have to teach much more than academics, and take on responsibilities that don't belong to the school.”

Even for a teacher who said, "I like assessment and evaluation,” how test results were being used was a problem: the teacher “never thought it should be the end. They are playing it as if it was the end. You cannot live on what you make on a test. The politicians know it is not the end, but they treat you that way." The hope of this teacher was that the system would get changed over time. "People arrive at conclusions and understandings at the same time and there will be a rising movement to change it. The school grading is a system that rewards the advantaged and penalizes the disadvantaged."

In relating how she worked within the testing environment while remaining true to herself as an educator, one teacher said, “They want a broad curriculum with opportunities for people to be exposed to areas they can love and years later they may want to come back to it. In my teaching, whatever modes of getting a good test score or improving reading and writing, the core of it is enthusiasm for the subject, and teachers sharing what they love about the subject and kids loving it. At some point, everything fades, new test scores and methods come, but the joy of reading can stay.”

Performance Appraisals

“Performance-based evaluations have only been applied this year," a teacher said. "I was part of the committee . . . that worked for a few years to give input on the process to make it as fair and unique to [our school] as possible. But there will always be a lot of anxiety related to evaluation.”

Teacher appraisals were mentioned during a number of interviews. “Teachers used to have appraisals and get salaries based on the appraisal. The new appraisal is a new format, but almost like the old state Master Teacher program and money with it, and it’s

110 very similar to the old way.” She said appraisals were “not fearsome to me.” Before, the “appraisal was just in your school body, but now the state grades the school so teachers’ money is based on both individual and the school grade. This could pit teachers against each other: team work is damaged when you have to compete—if I wanted a commission, I’d be in sales. Now, we’re told to take care of our classes’ test scores, rather than teaming." After expressing her concerns, the teacher flipped her perspective: "All [the governor] wants is for education to improve. We do a lot of testing and teaching to the test: it is bittersweet and is new for [our school]. It will all pan out in five years." The teacher then added another flip in perspectives: "The advantage of being a seasoned teacher is making sense of it and new [teachers] will drown. Even new teachers have the innate ability to think quickly on their feet, diffuse, bring out your best.”

There were additional changes to the performance appraisal system besides the test grade influences. "Starting this year, the [outside] appraisals will be part of the [performance] appraisals: questions about the teachers are going to the parents, rather than the students." There was some discussion about having the same kind of surveys that were done by the students in college classes, but “the law now requires parent surveys and is used as part of the teacher appraisal this year." One of the teachers said that "most parents will come in and talk to us if the kid is complaining."

“From a union standpoint," a teacher said, "the performance appraisals have created more people leaving because teachers are used to across-the-board increases in salary and in the future it will be based on performance. How can you compare PE teachers with [teachers of academics]? To say your income will be based on arbitrary results is a problem. I lost $3,000 because I had one too many students transferring out of the school, and it decreased my achievement score: they would not refactor it with the new number of kids.” Another teacher said, “We are pushing all teachers because a few are not doing their jobs: why don't we tell them to get out? Our salary is based on tests and how well a student does. Most teachers will do this, but they constantly get punished, having to do paperwork to justify their existence."

Another teacher said, “I used to put up with things because of job fear and wanting tenure, but now I don’t worry about this: I’m tired of being scared of this—like when I was in other schools—they did not do many observations of teachers, but the few observations were very weighted; now, I don’t worry because there are a lot of teaching jobs out there.”

An educator said that teachers "can set their goals and learning experiences they need" to help meet professional and performance goals. One principal told the teachers not to set a goal so high that they could not meet it, because performance pay was based on reaching the goals; at the same time, he told them to "stretch” themselves. Grading of schools became part of the teachers' goals "in a round about way": the teachers were said to be learning not to lower their expectations for the "lower twenty-five percent" of the students.

The Director wanted a learning organization, an administrator told the researcher, one that could create problem-solving teams that regrouped continuously around new projects

111 and ideas and could remove barriers to communication as they occurred. But, teachers thought the standards, testing, school grading, and appraisals made innovation difficult.

Hiring Practices

Hiring practices at the school were reported to have changed dramatically over time, particularly when it became a public school with its own school district. At the time of the study, there were three levels of teachers: Other Personal Services (OPS), which were nonfaculty and had no benefits under the rules of the affiliated university; visiting appointment (usually for one to three years); and salaried faculty (who had benefits) with yearly contract renewal under certain guidelines. Long-term faculty, who were originally university employees with "tenure," were now "continuing contract" within the university system. No longer were teachers only hired as associate and full professors of the university. Many of the new teachers reportedly did not meet the same professional training and experience as those who were hired in earlier years. One of the faculty, who had been at the school for decades, reported that almost all faculty hired around the time she was hired had advanced degrees and at least five years of experience.

New hiring practices meant that positions were being advertised, with interviews being conducted in various ways, including one-on-one and by committee. Filling of vacancies was perceived by some educators to be slower than in previous years for a variety of reasons: lack of budget; changing needs of the school (particularly in administrative types of duties and implementing special education); higher turnover (reportedly due to loss of some experienced teachers who were dissatisfied with the changes in the school); use of temporary positions; and rollover of OPS and contract employees. Many of the teachers felt that administrative workloads had driven up their hours, decreased their ability to "refresh" or "recover" from the stresses of teaching, had a negative impact on the quality of their work, and infringed on time with their students.

An administrator reported, "Over the past five or six years—even before I came here—an approach was started to look at having varied employment here: full-line, full-time employees; visiting (three year contract) employees; OPS; and emergency one-year hires. Teachers who have been here a long time may not like the variability. The district salary alignment means we do not have enough money to have all full-line teachers and need some OPS. There have been mixed feelings about this: it was a financial decision as much as anything else. Variability puts the school at risk of [not] being able to retain some of the good, new, OPS people: OPS are probably looking for benefits and security in other jobs.” One seasoned teacher said school standards had been lowered by “bringing in OPS and lower quality teachers; bringing in kids—such as migrant children from [the next county]--is because they are worth money."

A different memory of hiring practices was held by another faculty member: "There was a time in the past when people were only hired for three years and expected to move on. There is no institutional memory and teachers should be encouraged to stay with the school and buy in and be powerful and affecting the way the school is." It seemed odd to the researcher that this long-term teacher was overlooking the very large number of educators who had been with the school for decades, particularly since this teacher was

112 one of them. Clarification pinpointed the fact that the conditions he described did exist, but not in isolation from other practices.

The use of resources and changes in hiring practices were a source of concern for other educators as well: "I'm not sure how much money the Director gets and how he spends it and what is happening to all the money [the Director] saves when he loses an experienced teacher and hires OPS with no benefits: there is a mistrust of his intentions because we cannot see that it is benefiting students. [The Director] is proud that there are a lot of grants and [we] are hiring people to administrate grants when money is needed because classes are so large." Another teacher "worries about the school because I think the school is in need of people who have bought into it, as in any institution."

In the past, many faculty members had joint appointments with the school and the university. When the relationship with the university was changed by the legislature, allowing the school to become its own school district, the system of appointments and promotions changed. Typically, existing requirements for salaried faculty included a Master's degree with three years of experience. However, some of the positions, such as school nurse, were an exception. "It is hard to find any teachers at all,” a faculty member said, “and we're hiring teachers with no or very little experience. Right now, we have two who have quit mid-semester, two of the better teachers have taken assignments in [the county], and interns have been hired to help finish the year. Both who left were award- winning teachers." A system of "assistanceships" had been put in place to "entice graduate students in the university" to teach in the school. These assistanceships had allowed the school to grow certain music programs.

Funding for the school included state dollars, federal dollars, student activity fees, grants, foundation money, and trust fund. School members used volunteers whenever they could, and the school had a part-time, OPS, volunteer coordinator. The school reportedly had "a lot of different core groups" of volunteers who "follow their kids up the grades and new parents form as the other ones move up."

An educator described a "hierarchy" within the school: "people [teachers] who have just come in [to the school]; people who have been here a long time [and] are alpha teachers who have established themselves and are still finding different ways of teaching—the good ones are—so they will not get bored; twenty-year people who have been here; twenty-year people who have taught elsewhere and are still getting their bearings [in this school]; ten-year people here are almost on the same level of twenty-year people; and people who have been here five years and carry a little weight with them." Some of the OPS, contract, newer teachers, and even some of the long-term faculty and staff reported that the teachers hired under the old system, those who had been there the longest, held more power than other faculty.

“There are two paths for new teachers," one of the newer teachers said, "first, those who are here for the long haul, versus the second, who are here a short time. Being OPS and short time affected me last year, and I worried about whether or not they would keep me . . . I stayed more quiet, but I’m more vocal this year and this year I was a final nominee for Teacher of the Year, and this gave me more confidence. People here see OPS as

113 transient, so you must make use of yourself and I think they would keep me if I wanted to stay. I think they think my input is worthwhile. . . . I know that people now recognize I’ve done the best I can, and the impossible is not expected, only your best.”

The school was piloting the new performance appraisal system described earlier. This was one way that teachers saw accountability and management oversight being implemented. Some were comfortable with this and some were concerned, particularly since a number of teachers were "full professors" with the university and "some teachers are going for national board certification," and that should "be accountability enough." A teacher said, in relation to getting additional certifications, "What I am doing now is for others and not for myself. But, at this stage in my life, I do not need points and there is no discretionary money for incentive plans and, anyway, it would be insufficient in my case."

It was reported on numerous occasions that the teachers' pay at the school was "behind the county's." A few long-term instructors at the school reported that they could not afford to go elsewhere because they would lose salary if they switched to county jobs— they had been with the school and in teaching too long to compete with newer teachers' salaries.

Besides the changes purportedly causing teachers to leave, other perceived reasons for teachers leaving included “only OPS jobs . . . a good teacher will not stay if they do not have any benefits”; teachers who “get tired of it”; teachers “not being invited back”; “The most turnover is for better paying jobs with benefits”; and, “We lost some non-OPS people recently and I don't know why they left, but in some cases got other good opportunities, in some cases they were not sure if the school would move, close, or stay here." Many of those interviewed felt that the new hiring practices had led to a degradation of the quality of education in the school.

Student Population

Some of the political issues that appeared to be affecting the lab school included the state's demand that they answer these questions: "What were the lab schools intended to do? Is there proof that they have accomplished that?" Special reports were being written about the state's lab schools at the same time the research study was being conducted.

A long-term teacher said that the school had been an "elite school." But now, “visiting professors cannot bring their kids here because we are now a public school—there was more of a sense of living in the community [previously].” A number of the long-term teachers reported dissatisfaction with the changing demographics of the student population. It was felt that a lack of commitment to education and to the school was apparent in the lack of surveys and requests for information from parents that were returned; lack of participation in assemblies, volunteer work, special events, and meetings to determine school direction and policy; and general lack of communication and involvement with the school. Contrary to this concern about lack of commitment, a school member reported that some active parents did "not want other parents involved." The school's change from serving students and families of higher incomes ("the elite," as

114 a few teachers referred to them)--who were committed to learning and participation--to serving lower income children who had "different behaviors," challenges, and came to school not ready to learn and needing "remediation" and to be "socialized," and whose learning goals were not as high as those of higher income families was often mentioned during interviews:

"Teachers are used to upper SES [social economic status] students, and now have to teach middle [income] and lower [income] students, and there is a cultural clash between teachers and students. This is playing out: there is a 'U' curve in most classes now. The average child is now unique and there are not as many 'Cs'—teachers and students operate best if they are somewhat from the neighborhood,” not like the adjacent county’s kids. "Elite teachers and elite students—teachers are now teaching people from [a poor, rural county] and teachers, parents and students are aware of superior-inferior differences. We have a larger and poorer population and lower achieving white population and much lower wealthy white population—professors' kids—and this used to be a main population, although it was always a random choice, it is no longer led by the elite or those wanting to be elite. There is no longer a sense of community here: every kid here is an outsider and [has] no shared sense that this is an excellent school geared toward excellence. The whole idea of mixing people is wrong: it is more important in a school to have a community or family—we will get through this together—rather than hanging separately as we are now doing. The career thing: no student, teacher, or parent wants this and it could be lowering the curve. We will have to fail more children or our salaries will suffer because if a child graduates and does not pass tests, the school will have to pay for remediation and a way to do this is to just not graduate kids. There will be a bigger pull to insure these kids flunk rather than give them the basics. It is easier to flunk—give an 'F'—rather than to remediate. [The Director] did not see this coming. People always take the easiest road."

"The student population has changed because we are having a harder time getting kids in and teachers think the ability of the kids is going down,” another teacher said. “The [ethnic] make-up is changing and the kind of kids you are getting makes a difference in them being college ready and career certified. We had FTE counts in February. Why would you continue to take kids after this count, particularly those needing special services who overload the classrooms and bring in no more FTEs? If there are special reasons, such as political, teachers would understand if they know the reasons. Admissions procedures used to be sacred and exactly by the book. I'm not sure it is this way any more: fall is a much better place to bring in kids. Kids who want to come in March or April from another school means there is a problem. This is very hard in the face of the guarantee." Yet another teacher reported that "juniors and seniors are coming in because they want to get on the baseball team."

Classes for special needs students were fairly recent, as was the "gifted" program. The school had implemented a ninth grade APE (Advanced Placement Exam) and a dropout prevention program. The special education program was new, and was "brought in with

115 great reservations on many people's part." This comment was made by a teacher who also said, "Teachers with some special ed background make better teachers."

A number of those interviewed felt the school did not have good ways of meeting the needs of "special needs" students: “What is happening with my special needs son has really brought me down,” a parent said.

Teachers had a variety of ways for interpreting, responding to, and coping with the changes in student population. The following narratives, some of which are almost stream-of-consciousness, reflect concerns around changing student demographics:

"You do not meet all of the demands: you pick ones that are important to you. I would run a preliminary test to see what the kids were weak in and have them practice after school. It had no bearing on their learning, unlike the [state test]— more grounded in reality and what kids need to learn. I think standardized testing is important before you give a diploma. I have kids who cannot read or write and I'll flunk them. Literacy and cultural competency skills are critical. [Minority] kids do not have Western cultural background because they do not get it at home. I believe in the Bell Curve. It's scary because we have forgotten about the children who can do, given the opportunity, and have forgotten about American citizens who obey the law every day: it is not the rights of the ones who are doing wrong, but the ones who are doing right. Teachers have to take children in public education no matter how dysfunctional they are and put them in the classroom with ones who know how to behave and then focus on these few [dysfunctional] children. If we don't take a child, they sue us—what about the other twenty-two children who have a right to learn? Disruptive children I must put in the classroom are not fair to teachers and others. When you break the law, you lose your rights, and this should be true of the classroom: there is no support system for the teachers or backing—they are seen as the enemy because we have children raising children. Teach, mother, teach values, but do not cross the parent."

Older students entering the school were thought to be a particular problem. "We bring them in high school, and they bring their baggage—guns, knives—but the school has not taught them how to be a member of their adopted school family, and how to fit in: this is not done as a school system. They come to school with their baggage. Since [the early 1990s], it has deteriorated: we are a roaring train and everyone is just hanging on and does not know where we are going. You categorize it as change and make a commitment to be open to it, and see if you fit.”

"I do all the [state department of education’s] paperwork: it is not humanly possible to do it all, so the ones who love teaching and cannot do it say, 'I can't do all that, I am just going to close my classroom door and teach,' but most cannot say this and when [the state department of education] says we must mainstream all children, even handicapped who need tracheotomy suction, a bath every 10 minutes: when you can no longer do it all, you change professions."

116 A parent who worked at the school talked about how the school was receiving a lot of students from a nearby county: "It is bringing the school down: these kids are usually behind—but not all of them. They fight, curse, weapons are being brought in with these kids: bringing more [of them] in, you see more of these behaviors. Kids need to behave if they come here.” A different teacher said, “Reading is tied to intelligence and socio-economic level.”

"The student population is changing: the school used to be academically elite and this seemed to change in the last four or five years because of trying to make the lab school relative to the state: anybody can teach a smart kid, but they started to bring in low income and difficult children and this became a mission to show the school could work with [these] children. Nobody stood up in a pep rally way to say 'let's go do this,' and the population began to change without any statement of new focus, commitment, and it became a drift rather than a commitment toward something. I think teachers now understand, but they were never rallied to the fight or the cause. Now, with the IB [International Baccalaureate] program and [the new] high school, parents are less likely to drive their children here, although parents still see this school as safer for their children."

A teacher told the researcher that quite a number of teachers agreed with one very outspoken one, who felt discipline was seriously lacking and seriously needed. However, some other teachers did not agree with this. “When one teacher is more strict than another, you battle with the kids, who say the [other teacher] does not do this.” Another teacher said, “We have let this clique of kids from other schools coming here for the athletics come in and be influential and disruptive. The nerdy students do not like to be in class with disruptive kids.” This teacher described the entire student body in years past as being "almost nerdy”: nerdy appeared to be a metaphor for serious student.

The previous comments were made by different educators. However, the following comments were made by one educator, but articulated some of the points made by others:

"There is no accountability left, including when teenagers break the law. Why are children who stand on the desk, sass back to teachers, and tell the teacher to go to hell, why is a child [like this] in my classroom? The problem is no consequences and we are paying the ultimate, which is chaos. I have aging parents who paid Social Security for years, and are getting a pittance. The way young people behave, and parents laughing at this, is not OK: someone must step in and tell students to leave; we must do this in society, too, [tell them] 'you have lost your privilege to be here.'"

"The government cannot support America and teachers cannot raise America. There are children in my classroom for whom I'm the only stable thing they see daily in their lives: at least half are this way, not just one or two. I have to teach these children to love and care about themselves and feel some self-worth: is this my job? Is this what I was hired to do? But, where is it going to come from if I

117 don't do it? It is very exasperating, even though you really want to do it all because you care."

"Teachers like me go for survival space right here – when you see that little one where you knew you made a difference, and it makes you willing to take more punishments. Teenagers come back and say, 'I really would not have made it if you had not taught me to love myself.' It takes just a little bit to make it so worthwhile: a kid reading, saying a neat thing. This is why you do it day after day. Every year I think I cannot do this any more, but God says he needs me and my spirit responds. It is only going to be done people-to-people: the only way to evoke change and this is the place to do it."

Caring for students, their learning—being teachers—came out in many ways. Most of the educators who were interviewed had embraced some form of change and were implementing innovations to better meet the needs of their students. Many of the teachers both talked about and were observed putting in extra hours to help students. A teacher reported that the school had hosted many programs and events to get students “to reading level,” such as summer workshops, in-school reading events, hiring credentialed teachers, and through other means. Another educator reported that "over the past few years we set up an extended day." Students who were getting failing grades were reported to "now be making A's and B's, with a few C's." These early-morning, before-school-started sessions were a "class for math where students were struggling and need extra time. Teachers and students are willing to come in earlier. We are losing money—FTEs—because we don't get extra money for this and it eats up the cost: the goal was to help the students out and have one and a half hour math instruction. The students decide if they want to be in such a class and some attend regular classes, but if you go to an extended class, all people in the class must participate. Just adding extra time is not enough, you have to implement new tools—not just drill and practice: more one-on-one contact time with the teachers." The extended sessions lasted an hour and a half instead of the usual fifty minutes.

An educator described a grant funded project, where one of the school's math teachers worked with the community college with "more difficult math students." The teacher doing the remediation "can observe what is actually being done to teach and can offer other ideas and approaches to teachers and work with students one-on-one. When you raise standards, you must raise the quality, [the state's tests and writing exams] created new standards, along with grading schools. Tests, discipline, are some of what goes into grading a school. A lab school is more willing to take risks on coming up with strategies to meet needs of students."

Strong advocacy for all students existed side-by-side with the concerns. A teacher said that "you must stay focused on the child and let a lot of other things go; and forgive yourself if you do not get to them. This is hard, because most teachers want to do it all and do it well. Teachers must weigh what comes down the pipe with what you know is best, and sometimes this is very difficult." Another said, "The 'top 20s' is wrong in the [state's equality] plan, because we are supposed to educate all: it is public education; we get lost in the top line, and lose sight of the lower ones. As an organization, we must be about improving the bottom: the top take care of themselves. The majority of people live

118 close to their means and we must protect them from the top [tier of people]. It is biblical: the higher you go up, the more humble you have to be." [Emphasis was the speaker's].

"I always want people to do what they're supposed to do, when they're supposed to do it, like graduate with their class," a teacher said. "One of the biggest things in schools is discipline, which is truly gone: how can we do anything with our children when we send them home or kick them out? They are kids, and we need to demand that they have to do, and this is lost. Not a lot of parents have good parenting skills—a kid can go home and tell a parent anything and the parent will believe them and not support the teacher: the kid’s place is as a kid and they should behave toward adults certain ways. Anyone can call in and tell the schools what to do and it did not used to be this way." Numerous teachers expressed concern about lack of discipline, lack of accountability, and lack of action on the school’s part when students misbehaved. One teacher had a unique thought about this: “Younger teachers think discipline here is a problem, but older teachers have gotten passive and it is not a problem to them. Younger teachers set a higher standard, do not give passes all the time; younger teachers today have higher standards, tend to be gifted or honor students themselves, and are expecting their AP class again and it is not what they are getting—they get into teaching because they enjoyed being students."

Other educators did not agree that the school ignores problems. "I will not put up with discipline problems and will deal with them immediately and treat kids equally, so do not undermine the system. The system is important, but over the last four years, the system has had to change because a number of students and staff have increased, and in this new time and era, particularly with becoming a public school and not just a lab school, it has presented growing pains. My main focus is trying to support students." Middle and high school students' problems went through the school dean’s office, because she "has to make tough decisions, such as expelling students." She said she would “deal with parents myself” and is "willing to stand up for decisions being made."

Many of the teachers talked about the need to be able to teach a concept in a variety of ways, since all children do not learn the same way. One teacher described observing teachers who "tend to teach things one way and X number of kids don't get it: we go back and present it the same way, and they still don't get it." This teacher then said, "When a teacher assumes a child has only one way of learning, they lose children: you must put things in multiple ways."

At a school advisory committee meeting, the Director commented that the school's teacher performance appraisal system had been requested by schools in other districts. This comment transitioned into comments on teaching: other districts "have systems in place to make sure children do not slip between the cracks. That's how some of these rural school districts have raised scores" on state tests. One low-income, rural county near the school "has one of the highest reading levels in the state because they identified their problems and put a system in place to change them. The teachers in these schools can tell you in concrete steps what they are doing to address problems and under achieving students. You need a system for moving along average and below average students" [emphasis was the speaker's].

119 Teachers' perspectives on changes in the school were readily apparent during the course of the study. The Director's perspectives, however, were not as readily apparent because his main discussions centered around the plans for the new school and the challenges of funding and building facilities. However, a review of the status of lab schools in the State and a State evaluation of the lab school that was the subject of this study (released after the data had been collected) revealed certain State missions for lab schools. These missions included instruction of school children; development and research related to curriculum materials and best practices, and researching phenomena related to children's learning; pilot programs to test innovations in education; assessment and evaluation of programs; dissemination of research findings and best practices; and clinical experiences for training new teachers.

The State's strategic plan for lab schools included using a means of assessing performance of students against standards, forging linkages with public schools and community colleges, strengthening teacher preparation programs, and having universities establish and support education partnerships with school districts. Universities, according to the evaluation report, were directed to graduate teacher candidates with the help of the lab schools who could teach according to state standards, who had deep content knowledge and teaching strategies, who could teach children from diverse backgrounds, who had the knowledge and skills to meet the needs of exceptional and other students, who could incorporate "real-world experiences into curriculum and teaching," who had the competencies identified in the educators' best practices manual, and who had field experiences with "diverse student populations, often in professional development schools."

Goals in the State's overall school improvement plan addressed a number of educational and workplace issues that were common in both the State and the U.S. The plan called for all schools to have students who were ready to enter the workforce and postsecondary education; students who could compete nationally and internationally in decision- making; all adults in the State to be literate, able to compete in the global economy, and be responsible citizens; and other goals. The State's school accountability report included the State standards, use of curriculum frameworks, use of statewide assessment instruments, and use of identified accomplished practices for educators.

The evaluation reports and State plans and goals were apparently being addressed by the changes that had been implemented in the lab school (including the guarantee for workplace readiness). Although the changes in the school were not explained as being related to these State directives by the Director or any of the educators who were interviewed, few of the State directives could have been met without the changes being implemented.

120 Metaphors in this School

The following organizational metaphors emerged from the narratives of the educators in the school. If a metaphor was mentioned or described on a number of occasions by those who were interviewed, it was included below.

Political Metaphors

Political metaphors center on power: who holds it, how it is used, and what form it takes. Power is "the ability to impose one's will on others, even if those others resist in some way. The imposition need not involve coercion[;] . . . in some ways [it] more closely resembles . . . 'influence'. . . . More generally, one can define 'power' as the real or perceived ability or potential to bring about significant change, usually in people's lives, through the actions of others" .

The ideal of politics is described by Morgan (1998):

In its original meaning the idea of politics stems from the view that, where interests are divergent, society should provide a means of allowing individuals to reconcile their differences through consultation and negotiation. . . . Politics . . . provided a means of creating order out of diversity while avoiding forms of totalitarian rule. (149)

All public institutions, including the lab school, can be studied under a political construct. Power resides at many levels, is shifting, and there is usually a higher authority or influences that put pressures on decision-making processes. In any politicized organization there will be levels and points of conflict, cooperation, competing interests, and demonstrations of power and influence in use. In studying an organization within the political metaphor, Morgan argues that it is important to observe how competing interests are negotiated and how divergent interests become politicized: "It is rare to find organizations that use just one kind of rule" (151). Morgan also discusses the negotiations that take place in our daily lives between the tasks to be done, our careers, and personal needs and interests (153). Being able to control or influence decision-making processes is at the center of politics in an organization. Metaphors can be readily used to help determine how members of an organization are experiencing it politically.

The use of rhetoric to create or influence metaphors within the organization is especially important when viewing the organization politically. Morgan (1998) identifies "wheeling and dealing" as attempts to "advance specific interests" (149). When educators tried to influence the design of the building to keep it from being a "pod," when they spoke against the "dictator's" (Director's) decisions, they demonstrated rhetoric and metaphor being used to influence events. Decision-making processes affected the school at all levels and were political in nature. The political metaphors that emerged during the course of the study are described and demonstrated below.

121 "Democracy"

In a democracy, the people rule, usually by casting individual votes. It is "government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives." The "common people" are "considered as the primary source of political power." The majority rules and they exercise "principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community" (dictionary.com). "How shall we do it?" is the key question asked when an organization or individual is acting democratically (Morgan, 1998, 152).

Power of rule rests with the "populace" in democracies. The power is "exercised through representative forms of management, where different stakeholders are formally represented in decision-making processes, as in systems of 'codetermination' or coalition government and in forms of worker or shareholder control . . . power may also be exercised directly through participatory forms of rule where everyone shares in the management process" (Morgan, 1998, 151). Decision-making processes in the lab school were directed by a School Board that made key business decisions for the school. The school had a school advisory committee that helped establish the budget and provided input into other areas of school operations, and there were committees for special interests that could make decisions about what they were going to do. Some committees had control over their financial and other resources. It was under the "democracy" metaphor that site-based management was most apparent.

The school had some hierarchical structure: the director answered to the university and the School Board, but also had to perform on behalf of the legislature, the Governor, the state's department of education, and the state's board of regents that had university system oversight. Two (usually three) principals answered to the director; these principals oversaw different departments within the school and teachers within certain grade levels. Depending on the school level (elementary, middle, or high school) or the subject area being taught, teachers might have had team leaders. Almost all teachers were cross- teaming in some manner. Even with this tiered authority, the major perception within the school was that the director had final word in decisions that were made, and that he chose for teachers to have autonomy in their classrooms and with their learning and teaching experiences, with the main exceptions being his imposition of the guarantee, and mandates that were imposed from external decision-makers on the school.

Evidence of an attempt at democratic decision-making was found in the various types of meetings that were held to involve people in making key decisions, such as the Charter school, the construction of the school, school bylaws, school policies, and others. An educator reported that "we have a scheduling committee, curriculum committee, and are always having committees, including a family committee."

Besides the boards already mentioned, stakeholder input was solicited at director's forums, staff meetings, and parent meetings. The execution of participatory events was perceived by many of the school's educators and stakeholders to be flawed. Notification of meetings was missing, overdue, or untimely; e-mail systems did not work well; documents constructed or modified after meetings met claims by some participants that modifications did not reflect the consensus from the meeting. Added to these challenges

122 was the refusal of some educators (many of whom were long-term and "influential" in the school) to take part in meetings because they were already overwhelmed with workload, or had "given up" trying to influence decisions. Resources necessary for a democracy, which included involvement of all concerned, were in short supply—both from educators and from parents. Even with the "shortfalls," however, at least some educators and parents did stay involved, as demonstrated by the people who "always" attended board meetings, and by the example of the teacher whose spouse resented the time spent in trying to talk with, and influence, the Director.

At an early evening meeting, the Director handed out lists of parents and grandparents who were on school committees. He said, "People whose names were supposed to be added to the committees did not get put on them because of an oversight." There was an announcement that drafts of committee work would go to the student advisory council, faculty, and the School Board for review.

During a school advisory committee meeting, a teacher was questioned about new workbooks that had been ordered. The teacher responded that the workbooks would not be used "before others get them next year, because I don't want to have to handle kids at different levels in the workbook." A student representative at the meeting who wanted the books used immediately replied, "The kids who would be doing academic improvement could use the second revue." The Director then said, "We may have to start thinking about more individualized instruction, rather than group instruction." At this same meeting, the committee approved expenditures for the state standardized tests, "contingent on teachers wanting to use the materials." This contingency was recommended by the Director.

In talking about decision-making processes in the school, one of the administrators felt that "site-based management may cause some confusion." The administrator believed in "input," but "thinks sometimes you just need to make a decision, even if you lose some people along the way: move people to wherever they need to go."

For a position filled shortly before this study was conducted, the applicant was interviewed by the team teaching that subject area, by the principal, and by a group of teachers: the actual hiring was up to the principal. A number of teachers talked about the support they got for hiring the teacher.

Decisions about money were not always centrally controlled. "When the school got some money," a teacher said, the Director “told them [teachers] to spend the money however they saw fit, and the middle school team got together and made recommendations to faculty: professional development; money to work over the summer to develop curriculum units; conference traveling; bonuses from the middle school committee recommendations.”

It was discussed during one of the School Board meetings that money raised through school fundraisers and activities had no accountability measures in place. "In all the years of the school, there have been no policies and internal accounts for tracking or managing the money." The school had been exempted from program cost accounting related to this

123 money. The Director said that the school would adopt certain written policies and procedures as an interim measure until they could make some of an instruction manual's changes, such as changing the words in the manual to "School Board" from "District." The final version would be brought to the next Board meeting. These would be the new policies for handling internal accounts, and the school would have to check to make sure that the interim and final policies did not conflict with any university regulations or requirements. The Director said expenditure codes might be in conflict with the university's: policies and procedures needed to be adopted by the school because "we keep getting audited" against ones that had been written. It was also clarified that the school did not previously have a budget, but was now putting a budget in place for school money raised, but only for internal funds. This way, expenditures could be tracked and preapprovals for expenditures made. Expenditure request lists would be prioritized. One of the principals suggested teaching people how to do this, but the Director said the policies would be "given to people before summer and make the principals responsible for following it. There will be an amendment process." The Director expressed the wish to have "access to the internal funds money given to people who want it."

There were a number of teachers interviewed who did not take part in self-governance activities. As one educator said, "We have a lot of great teachers here, but they have had a lot brought on them in the past four or five years, and we are pushing for a board certification – master teacher: tapes, tests, videos, parents' conferences, portfolio—and this takes away from their teaching. Some have dropped out [of the certification process], some thrive on it, and some are able to do it all."

Freedom of choice was clear in this teacher's narrative, including the freedom not to participate:

Common courtesy and manners in the classroom are needed and I insist on it and my classroom is more structured. . . . This is a good place to teach because everyone gets to do what they want and picks what they choose to teach and their issues. I have almost total autonomy and do not create problems or ask for anything. I don't think the school has ever been autocratic. I have to follow guidelines, but how I use them and interpret them is left up to me. I never go to faculty lounge and skip faculty meetings because I just want to teach.

This teacher talked about his history and preferences (teaching versus administration, coaching, etc.); who got teacher of the year; and work habits of teachers he admired. He said that he was helping students "learn life metaphors," but did not elaborate on what these were. "Some teachers get a lot of calls from parents, but I get none: teachers' reality may in part be the parents and students who are at them all the time."

Contradictory information in the same narration was not unusual. For instance, a teacher who was “totally against” the 210-day school year said, “No parents were at the director’s meeting when this was discussed because of the mailing problem, and then it was said that it was voted on and approved. . . . [T]eachers struggle to get through the year now, with 180; if they cannot teach kids what they need to know in 180, how can they get 210 to cover? Parents who vote on elementary 210 want free child care; middle

124 and high school do not agree with the 210: the few parents who were here voted to have the 210.”

Although it was in evidence, participatory democracy and self-governance were lacking in some ways and for a number of reasons, including the fact that time and energy needed for participation competed with teaching. For instance, a teacher who was "not sure of 210 days" felt that "everything" was already given to the students by the teacher ten months of the year, including weekend work and travel. "I get involved [with my students] emotionally, and kids talk to me as a surrogate parent and this takes a lot out of you. When June comes I never teach summer school." This teacher also worked with the students before and after school, but typically avoided any school meetings that were not mandatory. Another teacher explained a personal lack of involvement in this way: "I don't want to come over to do committee work because I need to renew myself; back off and think about what worked [in the classroom] and did not and what I want to change. It is very important for teachers to have extended down time, like the ten weeks in the summer, to renew ourselves: otherwise, I'm just dead." Since becoming a public school while maintaining its relationship with the university, school staff reported that they had double the reporting and paperwork that they used to have. The school was required to keep up with and follow the policies and procedures of the university and the state's department of education; follow all state and federal laws; and follow the policies and procedures of the statewide board that governed the university. Additionally, the reporting needs of the six counties served and district school boards had to be met.

Participatory democracy and self-governance participation were also lacking at the parents' end. “In elementary you have more parent involvement,” an educator said, “less in middle school and almost none in high school. Teachers think 'if the parents aren't involved, why should I put everything into it, particularly if parents will not show up for meetings or conferences?' Students will run for office and do not want to take the responsibility of doing their job and the teacher sponsor picks up this workload and gets burned out. This year has really been frustrating for everyone, because of all the uncertainty of what will happen to us: the board of regents, faculty and staff and parents all have to vote whether or not we will become a charter school. Students want to graduate at the school they started in and some do not think they are getting the classes they want, only the ones they need: there's no money to bring in teachers for new classes. Many students are on externship—leave class to help the School Resource Officer, coaches, and go to jobs." Agreement with these comments was demonstrated when, at a school advisory committee meeting, an attendee almost identically commented that "PTA meetings are well attended by parents of elementary students, less for middle school and very low for high school." An educator reported that “sometimes parents who are involved do not reach out or like other parents’ involvement.” Yet another said, "There is very little support from faculty and staff for [the PTA]. In the past, you used to have a master's and five years experience outside of the school and the older teachers feel burnt out on extracurricular activities. But old teachers may be telling new teachers they should not volunteer because it will take up all their time. Old teachers . . . do not attend faculty meetings, except elementary; middle school is better than high school and high school is the pits."

125 Parents were divided into teams to work on a school charter and bylaws. The need for more parents to participate, get involved and volunteer was expressed by a parent who served as chair of one of the councils. They needed "more people willing to serve on the board, and we had days when we could not get a quorum." Another parent said, "It is sad what you have to go through to get your child into the school, but then they [parents] don't care and will not get involved." At this particular council meeting, a big issue seemed to be getting teachers off of the board: teachers had said they wanted equal numbers to the parents on the board. However, interviews in the school showed mixed feelings about whether or not teachers adequately participated in nonteaching activities. Not counting the researcher, there were eleven people at one of the bylaws and charter meetings, including the Director.

The school advisory council was suggested as a way to involve parents in decisions such as the beginning of school date. There was concern that, if parents were not involved on the front end, families could find themselves burdened if the lab school started before other schools, and brothers and sisters in other schools were on different schedules.

At a School Board meeting, a person who was not a teacher or school administrator said, "If the teachers don't like the document this committee did, forget it. What we say is basically the School Board, and the faculty cannot nix it." The Board "looks out for the overall direction of the school." It supported the 210-day school year, and a Board member said, "If people don't want to work under a 210 calendar, they can go someplace else and work 180." Another Board member said that "substantive issues that negatively impact children's learning or the school is the only thing that should be considered" by the Board. It was recommended that the school "phase into 210," starting with the elementary school. The Director told the Board that they did not have time to "flesh out all the issues on the 210," leaving the impression that his opinion would be the one used in that decision.

In talking about the students who left the school to attend adult education, a teacher said it seemed "to be the kids who don't necessarily fit in, except one genius who was bored. They are not dumb kids or unmotivated, they just don't have a school life here and are not involved in things: we've always had kids who just don't get engaged. In general, elementary parents feel they are getting heard. When [the school] sends things out for meetings by bulk mail, [the university] does not mail them on time so they do not get the parents there: I think this was remedied last week. In general, parents are not there to be heard, are unengaged in a lot of ways." The teacher said staff in the school felt that teachers at the school whose children attended "just send their kids, but do not get really involved."

"The organization in general are very go-getters: sometimes you will have someone pulling someone along with them to spur them on," a young teacher said about teachers' freedom to be innovative. "The old timers have more or less slowed down, but newer teachers realize if they can get grants or projects they can do what they want."

It was said that "in forums, you see a lot of the same faces," but the school gets "a lot of calls from parents who have never been to the meetings, complaining about things, but it

126 is based on misinformation: creating realities based on nonreality." The administrative staff person making this statement said no one knew how to fix this or minimize this general nonparticipation. There was some speculation that, being a research school, they "have new things all the time and sometimes piggyback [the activities], and things get confused and get intertwined in people's minds, such as 210 and charter school." This dilemma was described as being "the nature of the job."

Personnel appraisal surveys on administrators, teachers, and staff the year previous to the study were sent home for every child. The responses were to come back to the Director's assistant, who would monitor the response rate for the number of surveys returned, and by what grade levels. The response rates were then reported at School Board meetings and the Board discussed ways to improve communication with parents. Some of those interviewed felt that "sending information home with middle or high school students does not work." The school mails "just about everything, and have gotten better, but still have low response rates from parents."

Discussion took place at a school advisory committee meeting about a survey that had been sent to a random sample of parents, and about student and faculty surveys that were also going to be sent out. One committee member said, "When the second round of surveys is sent out, the telecommunicator should follow up and say 'if you received one of these surveys please make certain you've responded.'" One of the principals commented that she conducted a survey just for seniors every year: results of the surveys were one of the reasons she and other school leaders had created a school leadership council. It was also reported by another principal at this same meeting that the school "encourages" their teachers to get feedback through surveys. When involving parents in communication and feedback, the response rate for getting things back from parents was reportedly 18 %. The Director's assistant counted the numbers of people responding to whatever was sent out from that office. This included information for various forums.

At an evening parents' meeting, a parent told the researcher that it's hard to "get other parents to turn out for car washes, sports – nothing works to get them out, not phone trees, notices, or anything." For phone trees, the school had a parents’ network where each parent had five others they were responsible for calling to “get the word out.” A teacher commented that "students also have other things when they enter high school. Scholarships and college financial packages ask for work experience and earnings and to contribute toward their educations." During an interview with a school staff member, it was commented that the academic and athletic booster groups were "almost defunct— they're now split up by sports because there was too much fighting over money and who helped who."

Communication is critical to self-governance and democracy. Communication kept being raised as one of the biggest issues in the school, particularly between "management" and the Director as senders of information and teachers and parents as recipients. Conversely, there were many times when teachers or parents said they sent information to "management," and it was ignored. A closer look by the researcher revealed that there were many process problems with communications:

127 • E-mails would get sent the day of a meeting or after a meeting, reportedly due to a lack of understanding of how to send them.

• Mailings were a problem, particularly "allowing enough time when mailing homes to get things there. Going through the [university] post office is not a good thing. Date-sensitive things [now] usually get taken to the post office and mailed first class."

• Parents were notified of the Director's Forums via the school newsletter, letters and post cards were sent to the homes, information was posted on signs where children were dropped off and picked up from school. Even with these efforts, less than sixty parents showed up at an important forum: some parents complained that they did not know about the meeting.

• Communications with parents were reported by many in the school to be the most frustrating aspect of communications. One administrative person asked, "How do we get parents to pay attention or notice information?"

• At the time of the study, the school was trying to determine whether or not to become a charter school. Some feared that the needed 51% faculty and parent vote of approval would be a problem, when they did not know "how to get these votes back [returned]."

At a school advisory committee meeting, an attendee complained that he had not been attending meetings because he had "not been getting notifications. Communications glitches occur over and over and over here." A comment was made that "there is a parent committee working on this," and the man who made the complaint said he didn't know who they were. Another attendee said, "the school newsletter reaches parents after the events have occurred: the school communications committee is working on ways to correct this." A participant commented that the Director “sends out cards about meetings, and the last one they mailed out the cards three or four days after the meeting. How will you involve the parents if they do not know about it? Give parents at least a week’s notice of meetings. This happens all the time.”

One of the principals, throughout a School Board meeting, kept pressing for "good, consistent, communication." As one interviewee said, "Most of it goes back to communication: there is a strong lack of it here."

At a parents' meeting one evening, a parent commented to the researcher, "Some teachers do not have the latest software and cannot read parents' e-mails" when they are sent to them. He said someone at the school told him this when he asked why teachers were not responding. Another problem was that "NT is sending e-mail to UNIX. This creates gibberish at the UNIX end, because NT is written for a Windows system." When the meeting started, there was some discussion of the lack of time between the notice and the meeting. School staff responsible for the notices said notification had gotten "queued up" in an old e-mail client program, but now Outlook was being used and this problem should be solved. At two previous afternoon meetings some months earlier, the staff person said

128 that the notices did not go out because "send" had to be done in two separate places, and doing the second send was forgotten.

Communication among members within the school was reported to take place person-to- person; through written materials in their mailboxes; via the intranet and Internet; announcements; telephone discussions; and in meetings. One of the educators talked about her preferences in communication, with the top ones being “face-to-face, and listening to project coordinators talk.” Being on committees was seen by this educator as a good way to stay informed, and feel she was “involved in what is going on.” Some problems with involvement included night meetings, not giving enough notice ahead of time, and changing meeting times at short notice.

“Most successful projects have had good student and faculty involvement,” a teacher said, and she would like to see more: “Student involvement has a powerful impact on the students and I want them involved in the early stages and discussing the students’ point of view and ramifications to avoid mistakes on how they will perceive something or whether or not they will want to be involved." The students were more visible in committee meetings last year, and this teacher thought the school had to keep “replacing the students and put efforts and encouragement to get involved.”

Evidence of democratic processes existed side-by-side with other confounding barriers as well. Educators' lack of time and energy to invest in self-governance were cited during a number of interviews and observations. This lack of time was due to the demands being put on teachers because of all of the mandates; the typical heavy workload that came with being a teacher, such as grading papers, coming in early and/or staying late; competition for educators' time in their private lives; and stresses created through all of their life demands. Parents also faced resource and energy issues, and neither teachers nor parents were volunteering their time in amounts that had been anticipated.

Viewing the school as a democracy or partial democracy did not obscure the fact that the democracy had a powerful leader. Even as teachers were practicing their own version of block scheduling and were discussing the 210 hour school year, the Director was setting the pace, as seen when he told the Board that teachers were too overloaded to deal with 210 at that time.

"Bureaucracy"

"We're supposed to do it this way" is the mantra of a bureaucracy (Morgan, 1998, 152). To be a bureaucracy, an organization must have rule that is "associated with the use of written word and is exercised by bureaucrats . . . making and administering the rules that guide organization activity. Power and accountability . . . are intimately connected with one's knowledge and use of the rules and the related lawlike form of administration" (Morgan, 1998, 151). At the time of the study, the school was trying to put rules in place: some were being piloted. There was an existing student conduct manual, but no evidence of rules for adults in the lab school. Internal governance rules for the school were under development, although the school was required to follow the regulations of its various legislative and funding bodies. The school could not be considered a bureaucracy at the

129 time of the study, but its administrative workload consisted in large part of reporting to bureaucracies.

"Autocracy" and "Dictatorship"

Autocracy is "Government by a single person having unlimited power[,] . . . independent or self-derived power; absolute or controlling authority; supremacy[,] . . . supreme, uncontrolled, unlimited authority, or right of governing in a single person" "We'll do it this way" is the key message when an organization or individual is acting autocratically (Morgan, 1998, 152).

An autocracy is characterized by Morgan (1998) as being under the "rule of 'one' individual or small group . . . characterized by absolute and often dictatorial power" (151). By using Morgan's definition of autocracy, this political metaphor will be included with dictatorship in this subsection of the study. A dictator has "absolute or despotic control or power . . . [and is] not restricted by constitution of laws or opposition" .

A review of narratives from the school show that perceptions of autocracy or dictatorship in the school tended to point to the Director. The word "dictator" was used on numerous occasions when describing how decisions within the school were made, as demonstrated in earlier narratives. A teacher said that the current "administrative technique is a barrier because it is much more micro-managed, which does not allow each teacher's talent to be more fully utilized. . . . Many veterans here remember when you had freedom, rather than being led in certain directions."

A director of approximately five years ago, a teacher said, "had a caring, loving feeling going. We would like to get back the old feeling of what an incredible place this was for both the kids and the teachers." An educator reported that "parent involvement has dropped down over time and I think it is because other directors and administrators helped everyone with ownership in what was going on, had a vested interest, felt involved and as part of the solution. There used to be huge parent involvement, even to lobbying the legislature, but this does not exist any more: no faculty or parent governance now, and only the Director makes decisions and he says it is his way or the highway. The end of the school is in sight if this does not get turned around; everything is so dictatorial. The Director thinks he is doing what is best for the school, but faculty are leaving and parents are taking children out: it used to be the school where parents and teachers would give their eye teeth to be involved here." The decision to implement the guarantee program was seen as the biggest indicator that the Director was a dictator. He did this "without sufficient input or attention to feedback." An educator described how a teacher "spends hours with [the Director], trying to guide and direct him, but [the Director] always goes back to the way things should be."

"Decisions are made by shooting from the pants," a teacher said, "and how are we going to implement things if it changes at the last minute?" This feeling was also reflected in the words of another teacher: “I would never have come to [this school] if I had known it would be like this. Decisions are made based on no consensus, and recommendations are

130 not accepted: the guarantee had no consensus. And, you never know what will happen in two years. There are some things you should not do if you cannot do it in an organized manner: you will lose respect from your students if you do not do it right." An educator who had taken on extra duties for lectures in other teachers' classrooms and additional administrative functions, reported that the Director, "is too cheap to hire someone who knows what they are doing: parents are very unhappy because I'm now out of [my area of training and teaching]," and the Director has "put an unqualified person" over "my old area."

When talking about becoming a Charter school, building a new school, and the lab school relationship with the university, a teacher said, “I like [the Director], but he has some interesting notions of how these things will be accomplished, particularly with lower pay and fewer benefits than [the local county] district staff. Teaching in [the county school system] would be easier and benefits better. One of our teachers who left said ‘a projected half' of the staff will be leaving."

The Director "is very slick and volatile if pushed," a teacher said. "I filed a grievance on him last year and do not talk to him and asked him to put everything in writing, which he does not do. We are getting along OK, now, because we do not talk." The Director "has a reputation for being a liar and lies so often, he may not be aware of it: he is caught in it all the time."

At two separate meetings, there were complaints that the versions of documents passed out at the meeting were different from those sent out via e-mail. In a number of interviews, educators and parents expressed the view that wording on documents that was agreed upon at meetings inexplicably got changed between versions, and that it was the Director's doing. The Director's view of the situation was that people did not consistently attend meetings, and they would keep old versions, miss one or more meetings, and think there had been no input on the changes or that he arbitrarily made the changes.

In making some observations about the interaction of teachers and administrators, a teacher said, “I’ve learned to speak my mind. There is a breakdown between administrators and teachers, where the administrators are very closed-minded and this hurts morale. The administrators not listening seriously to a teacher voicing opinions can lead to teachers not supporting administrator’s goals and creating underlying holes, affects teacher’s willingness of what needs to be done. Sometimes, no matter what teachers say, [the Director] will have his way. The bottom line decision is with the Director. Depending on how well the principals get along with each other depends on how well the personalities mesh and this can cause problems between the Director and principals, which creates problems for teachers. Principals are caught in the middle between the Director and teachers.”

Educators had different viewpoints about their freedom and the school:

Administrators buckle because it is politically correct: in the past I have had two problems, and the Administration backed me. Kids I flunked are still happy to see me and understand they failed.

131 The freedom to do things is so intoxicating and one reason we have kept teachers from more lucrative or stable environments. It is empowering. Faculty felt more in control under previous administrations (who were not less autocratic): senior faculty felt more able to speak out and that they were represented by senior faculty; now, the faculty is at a loss to see that their input is being listened to and getting a formalized reaction: they do not have control over what is happening, but have freedom on what is happening in the class.

All there is autonomy in the classroom and no one asks what they did with it.

The people who work here have always worked hard. Teachers support each other because we are all we have, and no one else will take care of us.

There were enough people who thought school-wide decision making was dictatorial or autocratic to make it a major metaphor in this organization.

"Oligarchy"

During a discussion with a university professor who did not work at the lab school, the professor said he was under the impression that the school was an "oligarchy," run by a group of long-term educators within the school. This, in combination with a few mentions of the power of the "older" teachers, caused the researcher to evaluate the applicability of this metaphor in the course of the study.

An oligarchy is "government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families" . "When a small group of individuals wields a large portion of power and dictates the lives of the majority, it is called an 'oligarchy'" .

When the "hierarchy" of the school was described by a teacher, she referred to those "who have been here a long time" as "alpha" teachers (one meaning for "alpha" is "chief"). Some of the OPS, contract, newer teachers, and even some of the long-term faculty and staff reported that the teachers hired under the old system, those who had been there the longest, held more power than other faculty. Teachers expressed the belief that a group of teachers had been able to get a previous director removed.

Regardless of these examples of possible power in the hands of the long-term teachers (the "professors"), the decision-making processes in the school were such that there did not appear to be a distinct ruling group in the school. Teachers who were not part of the long-term group of teachers were also being encouraged to think of innovative and creative practices, and to find grant money to help support this. Many administrative decisions were made through group participation.

"Learning Organization"

Most of the points made in this subsection about what constitutes a learning organization are from Marquardt's Building the Learning Organization (1996). Comparing the lab school's metaphors and practices against Marquardt's ideal learning organization helps

132 determine if this school was the learning organization that the Director wanted. Marquardt's elements of a learning organization are underlined. At the end of this list and observations that allow a comparison of the school's practices to a learning organization, the researcher will summarize whether or not the learning organization metaphor could apply to the lab school.

A learning organization is in the business of teaching and learning. The school met this condition as a lab school, as a public school, and through its practices (to be discussed further). Educators and students alike were taught in a continuous learning process, and faculty and students learned from each other. Having little time and resources for research limited some of the school's learning and teaching potential. There was also the fact that some of the changes that required continuous learning were not always of the educator's choice.

There is a commitment to lifelong, continuous learning and learning to learn in a learning organization. Time is built in for planning, application, and reflection. Conditions in the lab school included some of the items listed for a learning organization, and almost all teachers were involved in them in some manner. However, there appeared to be little time built in for planning, application, and reflection, particularly in subjects that were tested on state exams. One of the lab school educators had compared her lack of planning time to that of a friend in another school, and found the lab school's was insufficient. Workload issues also interfered with these types of activities. The spaces (private offices and teachers' lounge) which may have been conducive to reflection had been eliminated, or would be missing from the new school.

Benefits of being a professor in the lab school included the ability to continue getting graduate degrees, certifications, and special considerations on tuition and graduation requirements. For instance, one teacher was able to get his residency requirements for his Ph.D. reduced by half, since he taught in the lab school. There were many other indications of a commitment to lifelong, continuous learning, but also problems:

I read a lot, and keeping up with the trends helps me organize and manage change: I also try to go to workshops, in services [trainings], and this helps me know what to do. I read things on how to teach different things and professional books and materials, but do not read for pleasure too much. I like new and different things, although you need some repetition.

People’s own personalities and professionalism is what affects their embracing new ideas and technologies. Going to conferences and learning new things is an expectation here. Some teachers say, ‘why bother if I am not getting paid for it?’ In the past, teachers were more heavily involved in giving presentations across the state, but fewer now, because of increased emphasis on student performance and teachers being graded on this and cannot afford to be giving presentations.

Numerous teachers reported learning from their students, who also learned from them. As one teacher said, “The kids contribute to my learning, especially about software and the Internet. The kids know more than what we know and we can learn so much from them,

133 but teachers are afraid to learn from the kids." This remark came from a teacher who “wants to know what I do not know, but many teachers are not like this. There is no way you can be expert any more and this is the mentality of our generation that you went to college and became the expert." Someone had given this teacher advice in the past: “Never expect that someone knows what they are doing. I never know what I’m doing, and this leaves me open to change and new ideas." The teacher described himself as embracing “things right away”—he critiques it for awhile, then he looks for “something better so I can do a better job of it. I watch things, because this is the way I think." This educator was not the only one who was both teaching and learning from students: this was brought up in numerous interviews.

There were also some barriers to learning. A teacher reported that she “has not dealt with” computer technology, particularly since there was a mix of Macintosh and PCs in the classroom. The teacher did "not know how to do this, although I’ve received two half- day trainings.” Half of her computers "do not work, are not hooked up to the printer, cannot get into the Web, and no one will fix them.” The teacher did not “have time to play with it and learn it.” The teacher relied mainly on handouts, videos, overheads, and reportedly “learns more about technology from students, rather than other teachers."

Learning opportunities are generated as part of day-to-day activities in a learning organization. These types of activities and opportunities were observed in school-wide activities, interactions among teachers, with administrators, and with students. There were also computer assisted learning labs in the school, including test preparation and distance learning courses; computers in the classrooms were used for educational research on topics that varied from foreign languages to math and art. However, technology and its use in teaching also had detractors. One teacher who kept being mentioned by other teachers as one to respect, devoted to the job, and hard-working had this to say about computers:

The technology and getting decent software . . . has been good. I never let the computer be in control of me, and if students cannot do what I want them to, to hell with it. Kids have less problems with the computer programs doing things differently because it does not recognize more than one right answer, particularly in certain subjects, like those involving interpretation, writing, or translation. The computers cannot do what the teacher can do in a hurry. It seems easier and quicker for the teacher to read over certain student works.

A teacher said that the Internet “triggered me to ask, 'what is a better way to teach?’ I used to give out knowledge, but I now think I’m teaching how to know yourself, become a better person, access information and process it and develop new ideas from it.” He said he kept asking himself, “'What is a teacher? Knowledge?' The Internet is having the biggest change on teaching because knowledge is so accessible, cheap, and better than I can put up there: accessible information.”

"There is a lot of teacher-to-teacher learning going on," an educator reported. "There are teams within the elementary [school]: K through first; second through third; fourth through fifth. Middle school team—sixth, seventh, and eighth, and then a joint meeting.

134 High school is subject area team meetings: with the [integrated art program] grant there was some cross-over between subject areas. [Integrated art] is an approach that regards art as a way of thinking and knowing, essential to the learning of every child." This program did not just focus on making art, but on "integrating content and theory" from analyzing works of art, understanding it as part of a culture, exploring its nature and its value, and "developing skills to express ideas and images."

Two teachers in totally separate disciplines had found that comparison outcome results of their research projects could not be cleanly or accurately measured over a multiyear study because other teachers observed what was being done with new methods, then consciously and unconsciously incorporated changes into their own teaching practices based on what they had seen and liked. This modified their teaching practices and eliminated the possibility of comparisons being done over time. "If other people think there is some good in it, I will give it a try before I make up my mind," a teacher said.

Learning best practices from others, including attendance at workshops and conferences is important in a learning organization. This type of learning was supported at the lab school, including overseas travel and participation of students in events and travel, such as when teaching was done at a theme park: "This is the third or fourth year the sixth grade team has gone to [a major, well-known animal theme park] for in-service," a teacher said. "They take the whole class, and have figured a way to get math, science, social studies, and English wrapped up in the [theme park activities]." A teacher spent time describing learning trips she had been on (including to Europe), conferences and other training she had attended, all funded at least in part by the school. Over the years, different faculty members had arranged educational trips to other countries. These trips were sometimes for faculty learning purposes, and sometimes focused on students' learning. Teachers were also encouraged to do public speaking and make presentations.

Responsibility for learning is shared by all in a learning organization. As a lab school, there was an expectation of innovation. Although teachers found it hard to do innovation and research when having to "teach to test" and with their heavy workloads, most were engaged in shared learning activities.

Advanced learning coaches within a learning organization act as sounding boards for new ideas, strategies and support networks; they help link to other learning opportunities and support learning efforts. This type of activity was being partially institutionalized through the integration approach (“integration with groups of students and teaching them a thematic unit throughout high school”). Team teaching was used in different sectors of the school. One principal and a number of teachers appeared to be extremely good at this, and other teachers sought them out. Special programs, such as art-based education that crossed disciplines, were in place; there was coaching and reports of mentoring, and collaborations across teachers: educators sharing and planning new ideas, activities, and approaches were observed each time the researcher was on the campus.

“Being here, I’ve never received any reprimands for trying anything that will help a student test better" a newer teacher said. "It’s an open, supportive environment for teachers to do what they think best in the classroom. When I came here, I was in contact

135 with all other first year teachers: I was told to have them [the students] ready for [the state’s writing test] and to use two certain textbooks, and otherwise I could add what I wanted to the curriculum and teach what I wanted. Friends in other schools had very repressive experiences—oppressive mentoring teachers.” The teacher described the middle school as being "a model” last year. Teachers on many occasions talked about the good mentoring they had received at the school and in their teaching careers.

Eliminating barriers to communication is an important aspect of a learning organization. The lab school provided communication opportunities through meetings and forums, but there was small attendance; notices were not timely; participation was not consistent; agreements and documents were rumored to be inexplicably changed between meetings; people talked about being too busy to participate; and some thought that the Director would do whatever he wanted, anyway. In addition, e-mails did not work in all classes, and mixed and nonworking technologies were reported as being problematic.

During an interview, a teacher described “faculty cliques: they separate into groups at school meetings and other times. Not by grade level, cliques, but are the ones who always seem to be doing the bellyaching and causing the problems: always against things. Cliques of like-minded people. Coming in as a new teacher, it would be hard with these cliques. It was hard for [the highly respected teacher who left].” Cliques could be a major communication barrier.

Competitiveness in a learning organization is minimized, and members use systems thinking. "I never felt alienated here," a teacher said. "People here are always willing to help . . . everyone cares about each other, there is nothing they won’t do for you. Everyone gets along alright, and I don’t feel competition, only sharing. When someone tries something and it works well, someone will see it and try it and use it.” Although this teacher did not experience competitiveness, systems thinking in the lab school was not apparent in certain instances. Few people were in agreement with the changes the school was making. An exception to this was the limited involvement in helping to plan the charter school. The school had changed its population to represent a more typical classroom; it was becoming a public school and meeting the requirements for certification, testing, and school grading; school leaders were working on obtaining new facilities, and the school was changing from being classroom-centered to school-wide and shared learning centered. Although the majority of the teachers interviewed objected at some level to the changes, these changes and others were expected to eventually allow the lab school to survive when schools of its type were closing around the country. There was evidence of systems thinking, however, in many educators' approaches to education and teaching.

Autonomy and trust are required of a learning organization, yet there is a high degree of interdependence. For the most part, teachers and administrators in the lab school trusted each other to do what was best in the classroom, even though standards, testing, school grading, and performance appraisals were being used to evaluate performance. In most of the grade levels and subject areas, teachers worked in a collaborative, interdependent manner. Of the forty-seven interviews conducted, there were only two high school classes

136 that appeared to be completely self-contained, without teaming with other teachers or community networks to complete the students' learning experiences.

Almost all of the school members participated to some degree during the year in learning events. Teachers had been give the prerogative of setting their "goals and learning experiences they need" in order to meet their professional and performance goals. A long-term teacher said, "We have a lot of license here to do what we want to do. I've had nine Directors, and none of them have gotten in the way." This particular teacher had developed models that were used nationally for teaching a particular discipline.

The commitment and responsiveness of a learning organization to change and chaos was important in this school, particularly since legislation and policies being enacted left them no choice. Some teachers were concerned that the change was moving in the direction of producing "robots" for "corporate America."

Many of the times that change was discussed it was viewed as stressful, but there were also educators who saw change as a challenge that helped them stay interested in and enjoy their jobs. One of the longest-term faculty members said, "One of the ways you stay fresh when you have been teaching [for decades] is not to do the same thing." Some of the teaching and technology innovations in the school had become statewide or national models, and were emulated by others in the school and elsewhere. There were also opposite reactions. An educator described individuals' approaches to change in two ways: 1) "the ones who do bare minimum are state workers, career service," and 2) "employees that care about their jobs, ones who bust their butts and get recognition, but not monetary."

Linking organizational learning to individual learning in an explicit way is a function the learning organization. Within the lab school, student and school performance mandates made this extra difficult for some teachers, as was true when decisions were imposed. Some mandates compelled individuals to participate and learn. For instance, teachers kept some of the "British method" when this mandate went away. At the time of the study, most teachers were involved in some form of special project that accomplished linked learning.

Producing and learning intertwine when a learning organization builds learning into all operations and activities. In the lab school, teams were developing innovations; sharing them; discussing what worked and what didn't.

Within a learning organization, there is team thinking, team work, and shared visions. This was in evidence on and off at faculty meetings, in activities taking place in classrooms, in conversations overheard, and in participation in specially funded programs. In addition, it was evident when lesson plans were developed around standards, with the intention of sharing them with other teachers. New methods and tools were developed and used, such as in music, art, math, and computer assisted learning, and in the performance appraisal process. Many of these were also being shared with other professionals and schools. In humanities, language arts, biology, math, middle and

137 elementary schools, teachers were teaming to build learning experiences and projects for students.

An educator described teaming in this way:

When they first organized the middle school years ago, the teachers visited other middle schools in the state, read materials, tried to put the middle school together as a model middle school, which is teams and interdisciplinary teaching. [Some of the grades] still have teachers who were originally involved: newer [middle school] teachers have the team concept and interdisciplinary teaching imposed on them and this can be difficult if there is no veteran teacher who can show newcomers how to do this. Teaming experienced teachers with new teachers— who feel overwhelmed—is important and last year we laid aside an interdisciplinary thing between math and science until the two new teachers had gotten up and rolling. We have many parent conferences with at least half of them and some do repeats. When we interview new teachers, they are usually not well versed in a team situation. We also do team time—critical thinking—at each grade level for advisement, team building, career development, and this is an important part of the program; new teachers may see this as a wasted part of the day until they understand it in terms of the goals from someone who has been here who knows the advantages. The [most recent] new teachers got into teaming fairly quickly, and I know what other teachers are teaching, and what they are doing, and this helps the teachers totally work with the student, and teachers see these advantages quickly. New teachers need to teach a year getting to know their own materials before feeling comfortable with the others' materials.

The “structure of the middle school last year is what I think I can take to other schools: heterogeneous groupings, teams, common discipline plan, interpersonal activities with interdisciplinary units with students in home room,” said a teacher who was at the school on a contract. The reason she used the previous year as a model was because, “This year there is a seventh grade pre-algebra class that is very harmful and is seen as the dumb team: have heterogeneous groups where students can learn from each other.”

Giving people authority to act when they must and backing that person up is a critical element in the flattened hierarchy of a learning organization. At the lab school, teachers apparently had little authority to act on disciplinary issues, with student retention, or in their interactions with parents: teachers reported little backing from those in authority. However, almost all of the teachers talked about a high level of autonomy and support in teaching students, for trying new things, and for their own learning.

A learning organization consists of knowledge experts of equal rank in the flattened hierarchy. In this case, the school had an organizational hierarchy, yet all of the "managers" appeared to be open to, and solicited input from, others. There were also reported informal hierarchies based on length of time with the school and experience, and teachers were not perceived as having equal rank. For the most part, managers appeared to be willing to reach consensus when a decision was open to this, as most were. Reports about the Director's management style indicated some decisions could not be negotiated.

138 Organization learning takes place by building on past knowledge and experience and shared insights. This may have been one of the biggest complaints about the organization that teachers had: directors made changes without fully considering the teachers' input, and they did not have enough classroom experience of their own. At the lab school, which was undergoing constant change, there was a belief among the majority of those interviewed that decisions for large-scale organizational changes were almost always made without the involvement of those with past knowledge and experience in the school. Forums were established to get participation and shared insights, but these forums were not well attended, and follow-through that reflected the input was lacking, according to some of the stakeholders.

Regardless of the feelings about the directors and their decision-making styles, building on past knowledge, experience and shared insights was taking place. A way to "stay fresh," a teacher said, is to “put together two teachers, seasoned and new, who have personalities that will match: the older gains from the freshness and excitement of the newer and the seasoned teaches the newer how to get on their feet faster."

Members of a learning organization have open dialogue where they listen and share, while suspending one's own views. The dialogue at the school was mostly open, with some exceptions, such as when teachers supporting the guarantee spoke mainly to each other or the researcher, but not at meetings, and when there was silence on the part of teachers who were not feeling empowered to speak out. Cliques of "like minded" people, who appeared to reinforce the positions they had already taken, were occasionally reported.

Soliciting problem-solving ideas and unsolicited ideas; listening to ideas different from their own; responding to 100 % of the suggestions in a timely way; putting power for decision-making with the person who knows the most about the task—all of these are characteristics of leaders in a learning organization. At the lab school, ideas were solicited by the Director, principals, administrators, teachers, staff, and from students and parents. Although different ideas were usually shared for higher level decisions, actually listening to them was said to be a problem with the Director, the university, and the legislature if the ideas were different from what was being proposed by those in authority. For the most part, there was a perception that almost none of the suggestions were responded to in a timely way. A partial exception to this was if it involved a teacher's personal or professional needs or a student or parent: responses appeared to be more supportive and quicker in these instances. "Lower level" decisions concerning what was done at the classroom, elementary, middle, and high school levels and between teachers and principals appeared to meet this characteristic of a learning organization.

Learning from mistakes by forgiving them, finding out what went wrong and why, and preventing future ones are important practices within a learning organization. Forgiveness for mistakes at the lab was apparent, as was determining what went wrong and why: taking action to prevent recurring problems needed improvement, particularly in communication areas. Whenever there was a visible mistake, such as people not being notified of upcoming meetings; documents not going out in a timely way; e-mails that did not get out; technologies such as computers, networks, or e-mails that were not working

139 properly, there appeared to be no repercussions. People who may have been responsible for making mistakes in the same way repeatedly continued to be given the responsibility for these activities. The researcher did not hear of any corrective actions that might have been done, and those in authority typically accepted whatever explanation was given, even when the same mistakes kept happening, with the same people, and for the same reasons.

There is no respect for divisional barriers, or rigid boundaries within a learning organization. A learning organization maximizes the flow of information and experiences. There was an organizational structure in place within the lab school, but information appeared to flow readily across and between all levels of the organization.

It appeared that there was a lot of interaction among the elementary teachers and their principal. The researcher observed teachers meeting while students were at lunch, on the playground, and at events to create innovative ways of teaching; to determine what would be taught; and to discuss their own professional growth and development, including information about how the teacher certifications were going.

Boundaries were permeable in the lab school, as was demonstrated with the implementation of an arts-based education program discussed below, and the integrated, thematic approach to teaching. A teacher said, "The most important thing you can do in school is read. . . . I'm totally behind the idea that all the sections are connected and [teachers] need to be knowledgeable about science and other subjects and other teachers need to know how I teach my class."

The school retained fewer of the characteristics of a learning organization whenever the focus became too narrow, as was reported in regard to the technical ("tech ed") focus on learning, and when certification requirements had a negative impact on electives.

There is an emphasis on action learning in a learning organization, or learning from experience in the work environment for employees at all levels, including executives. At the lab school, there was action learning across all levels in certain activities, such as the planner; retreats were held; travel; arts-based education; integrated learning; use of the Internet for global searches; and importing people (such as a British artist and people from the community) for lectures. Demonstrations that teachers, students and administrators held for each other and people outside the school also used action learning. Hands-on classroom activities were developed by teams, critiqued and modified.

The school was in the final years of funding for an integrated art program. Faculty who embraced the program reported very good results in math improvement, retention of information, and critical thinking skills.

A large number of teachers were involved to some degree in the integrated art program and thought it was directed by a very talented individual. One supporter of the program said that "if you are going to do the same things the same ways, you are going to get the same results": the program provided innovative teaching and learning approaches to all subject areas. The same teacher said that her participation in the program "has been a real

140 learning" for her, and that "integrating [learning] through the arts is really a wonderful way to go."

At times, teachers did not engage in learning experiences, despite these being made readily available. A teacher explained her lack of engagement in this way: "I see things that need to be done, but I cannot do it alone. There is a lot of anticipation of where people and the school will be in a year."

One of the school's teacher training days was spent learning to manage time effectively and to use a particular planner. This planner was mentioned by a number of teachers, and at a school advisory committee meeting a large amount of time was spent discussing planner issues. The Director reported that there was also "a lot of discussion of this at the teachers' meeting." It was proposed that students in certain grade levels be given planners and taught how to use them. The planner would include the student handbook and would be used as part of the school program. School advisory committee members (except for the student representative who already had a planner and did not want another) felt students needed to be taught to organize. The student said that she and others who were already organized would "have to carry the school and their personal planners" by coaching others. The Director responded that he would like the student to look at the school planner and tell him what changes would help meet the needs of students. The student leadership group would be meeting the following day, and would look at samples of the planners.

On a few occasions, educators mentioned participating in a "ropes course" used to build team work and trust. Team work took place at some level in all observed areas of the school, including administrative tasks.

Learning organizations must develop centers of excellence and demonstration projects that promote learning, and test ideas, policies, procedures, products and services. Job rotation and sabbaticals were often used to facilitate learning. The lab school had a program for this in place: sabbaticals; rotations to other schools; and shared learning experiences.

Although research was reported to have suffered due to lack of resources, there were still many innovative projects being conducted, demonstrated, shared, and in which teaming was evident. Demonstration projects included an integrated art program, certain music programs, and innovative practices in technology training and performance. Additionally, observations in one teacher's classroom showed that he was using more technology in progressive ways than had been observed in other schools. He had developed a unique technology approach that a company had adopted and was marketing. This teacher described how important it was to continue to look for new innovations in teaching. Another teacher was working with the community college as a means of math related technology transfer back and forth. All educators were encouraged to pursue grants in their areas of interest.

141 An organizational financial and human resource commitment to staff training and development is a learning organization's practice. This was much in evidence during the course of the study, as described above and in previous sections.

However, there were divergent opinions. The lack of teacher training in a well-known model community's school was criticized by a teacher, who then turned the criticism on the lab school and its commitment to training. The model community "took every idea of progressive education and tried to implement it all at once without training the teachers: it was setting up the teachers for failure. The [lab] school is going the same way" as the model community, "not teaching teachers and investing—the Director is a great guy with great voice, but he doesn’t know how to get there." This teacher thought that the new school “will be like pods or open schools. The teachers put up walls—there was no training.” He “finds it appalling in education that there is no training.” In his old profession, he would have had training on new equipment, “but teachers do not get the training to improve themselves[;] . . . the child is worth more than equipment. We throw first year teachers in the water to swim and hand them a cinder block and tell them to keep swimming: we should teach them new ways of swimming. The administrator has been told this, but there is no funding for training.” Another teacher said, “New teachers may get some of the worst classes, burdened with extra-curricular stuff—it is becoming a real sink or swim situation for them: one said, ‘just as they are ready to swim real well, we hand them a big rock,’ although some seem to flourish and accept a lot of assignments; with others their class work or home life may suffer because they are too strung out and leave after a few years.”

While there were criticisms about training and mentoring, particularly for new teachers, everyone interviewed said they had access to, and support for, training and learning experiences.

A learning organization aligns organization-wide learning with personal success, and rewards learning by promoting learners and learning teams. This was done when teachers went outside the lab school's arena, and worked at a regional, state, or national level. Rewards came in the form of outside accolades (including "teacher of the year"; nationally recognized innovator in arts-based education; access to speaker's forums and as speakers). It was not easy to tell if promotions were tied to this; bonuses used to be school-wide and standard; they would now be performance-based on standards outside the control of the school as well as school-based measures. Organization-wide learning was evident during school lunches, assemblies, on the school grounds, and cross-school activities could be seen almost daily.

Staffing and personnel policies that reward learning should be part of a learning organization's administrative practices. At the lab school, personnel policies were not apparent. Rewards for learning seemed to be self-generated or generated from educators' peers, with some recognition from outside boards, associations, and funding organizations. Educators said they were well supported in their learning efforts, both organizationally and financially, and there was a requirement in the new performance appraisal system for them to plan their learning goals.

142 Performance appraisals were seen by some educators to be a barrier to teaming and risk- taking, and especially as discouraging innovation which might not focus on testing or the subjects that were tested. A teacher was concerned about school grading pitting "teachers against each other—team work is damaged when you have to compete" for incentives.

Encouraging advancement and promotion is a practice within a learning organization. This was in a stage of transition at the lab school during the study, due to changes in hiring practices and the status of the teachers with the university. The case could be made that the lab school was going through the reverse of this.

Facilitating self-directed work teams and seeking out motivated people for the teams is an active practice within a learning organization. Some of the educators in the lab school self-selected when they went after grants for special programs: they then selected teaming partners, such as when a teacher who was trying to get another guarantee certification program in place teamed with people in the school and in the community. Through teaming, use of committees, boards, and other means, ideas were discussed, decisions were made, leaders were picked, and teams were formed. A few examples of this were in the school's block scheduling, the inclusive arts program, and the middle school's team teaching.

Rewarding teams for their organizational contribution is an ongoing practice in a learning organization. At the lab school, there was recognition at meetings and some accolades at assemblies. However, on a formal basis, this was mainly done through organizations external to the school, including outside evaluators for grant-funded programs, and at educational forums. This activity may have been too scarce at the school—a teacher said a local religious organization was one of the few to recognize educators' contributions.

Giving teams the tools they need is a critical requirement of leaders in a learning organization. At the lab school, some of this was done effectively, such as when a teacher used her grant to get part-time teachers to help her cover her workload and when administrators supported learning opportunities for teachers and students; schools and classes were given budgets, and they could prioritize their needs and make purchases; teachers were encouraged to engage in learning opportunities, and these were supported by the school. However, necessary tools such as workable and reliable access to computers, functioning e-mail, and Internet access were problematic.

One of the teachers expressed a deep frustration with the technology department, feeling that, as a teacher, his needs were not being met, and "no" was the answer given by the head of technology to many of his "simple" or "easy" requests. The teacher had plans to put up a personal Web site that would better meet the teacher's and his students' needs. Another educator used a derogatory expletive to refer to the head of the technology department, adding that a student had been trained to be this department head's "surrogate" [expletive] and act on the technology teacher's behalf when the teacher was not available.

A third teacher talked about how the head of the technology department ran the school’s network, and “puts things up on the Web and himself wants to do it and is pretty

143 powerful. The power that comes with the computer technology people is very interesting: [they say] ‘I am in charge and in control of this.’” This was seen by the teachers as arrogance. The concern that teachers had no control over technology, intranet, Web postings, etc., was brought up in numerous interviews: "The computer people take ownership of it too quickly and are not well liked—they’re computer Nazis; this happens in all schools. This is frustrating because there is no technology plan, it is not collaboration, there is just one person dictating. I had to get the technology in my class on my own, out of my budget, because the relationship [with the computer teacher] is not good.” The teacher went on to say that she “could not use the technology” she "has every day because the set-up is not good. [The computer teacher] doesn't want the students on the computer because they may download something from the Internet and crash it. The kids can use the computers, but I have to put some stuff on for the kids because the kids are not allowed to download it.” Some of the working tools that teachers needed were out of their reach.

The creation of physical environments and space for learning that encourages interaction without being disruptive facilitates an organization's learning. Educators in the lab school found opportunities for this because most of what they needed was close by, including the university. The classrooms were spaces "owned" by the teachers, but in most of them there was a lot of movement in and out. The new school's layout was thought by the Director to provide maximum opportunity for teachers and students to learn quickly from each other, whereas teachers believed the new structure would be the old "pod" system— noisy, with no space for reflection and regrouping, and it would be disruptive.

There is intimacy and integration between customers, managers, competitors, and the community in a learning organization. Intimacy and integration existed in the lab school between administrative staff, teachers, principals, parents, and the students. The community contributed to the school's experiences as school members interacted with museums, downtown authorities, the university staff and setting, and other organizations external to the school. The school was part of a purchasing and technology cooperative for its area of the state, and had joined the Millennium school program.

A teacher described how “this school has been very good for me professionally, because they promote you going out and presenting your ideas to the state and national, and growing professionally is one of the advantages here that public—district—schools do not have. Most successful projects have had good student and faculty involvement,” and she would like to see more.

As a learning organization, certain things that had not changed over time were advantages of having a K-12 school: older children helped the younger ones; teachers mentored, taught, and learned from each other; for teachers of high school students, a renewal of energy came from taking time out to interact with the elementary students. There were many educational projects and events taking place over the year of the study, including an assembly in the gymnasium where art created through the use of math was assembled for viewing; and a reading event where older students dressed up in costume and went into the elementary classrooms to perform readings during Read Across America, a National Education Association event.

144 "Culture"

Interpretations of what was real in the school were played out through the culture of the school. These interpretations then, in turn, affected the culture. Morgan (1986) argues that, when we view organizations as cultures, "We see them as minisocieties with their own distinctive values, rituals, ideologies, and beliefs. . . . [W]hat unfolds in any organization is a reflection of what is in people's minds. . . . [W]hile some corporate cultures may be uniform and strong, others are often fragmented by the presence of subcultures. . . . [O]rganization rests in the shared meanings that allow people to behave in organized ways. . . . [O]rganizational change is cultural change" (111). "Culture cannot be imposed on a social setting[,] . . . it develops during the course of social interaction" (130). Through the school's culture, all metaphors in a school are acted out, are lived.

Different metaphors were acted out within the culture of the lab school in many ways, such as through "faculty cliques" that were made up of teachers who were unhappy with decisions at the school, and were "always against things." Conversely, there were teachers who promoted innovations, were inclusive and encouraged participation. Others kept to themselves, focused within the four walls of the classroom.

Certain members of the school thought about the school having a culture. One newer teacher said he was still learning the culture of the school. Another educator said that organizations don't change fast, and the culture takes time to change. Yet another educator thought that the Director knowing education, but not the culture of the school, was "a big barrier."

A staff person said, "Teachers and staff who have nothing to do with day-to-day operations with the students tend to think alike because staff are here for the kids, although some teachers would say we are here for the teachers. There is a definite break between [the Director's] position and the principals and the principals and the staff. The teachers and principals think more alike than the Director, mainly communication: the grapevine says [the Director] does not want to be in day-to-day operation of the school— he is big picture, except when committees do something he does not like he will change it and throw it back at them and tell them it was their decisions and this is where a lot of animosity comes from."

The focus on students and their learning was a unifying value held by the adults in the school. "My top priority is engaging the kids in learning," a teacher said. "Teachers wish to be heard when they think the kids are at stake." The teacher went on to say that "children can get inadvertently hurt educationally on an individual basis, but this should not be on a systems basis, such as can happen when the school requires all kids to take chemistry, physics and a technology track." The teacher felt that she and others were empowered to "do anything in the classroom," but could "not affect the policy of what kids have to take." Another teacher had said that "the administration is very supportive and teachers have more autonomy to do what they think is best."

145 Many of the teachers interviewed expressed concern when decisions were made "that were not good for the students." All of the teachers were unified in their focus on the students, but not in their sense of what was in the students' best interests.

According to a teacher who had taught for almost two decades, but was fairly new to the school, "There used to be a faculty council that was set up in the school and was democratic. But now, they [teachers] give input, but [the Director] can supersede it and give an edict and the old teachers are very distraught about this: they were able to have an academic school focus and now [the Director] wants tech prep—there is a lot of money in this. I wish there would be a consideration that truly advanced placement kids would not have to do the technology stream—the top 5% [of students] in ability and are very bright and academically talented."

One administrator reported himself as being "trained in . . . things that administrators need to know, but my real focus is on what students need and want." He talked about "going to classrooms every day and talking to students." To bring a feeling of inclusion to the students, the administrator created a leadership team representing students across groups, including students who were "not part of other groups—to get them to see that they have something to offer, even if they have not been voted into anything. Columbine raised the awareness of being sure everyone is included. Depending on the people in charge of a school, things can go in any direction, but many administrators do not give attention to things that are critical. Making sure all kids feel part of a whole is not a priority with most other schools. My being so often in the classroom helps the quality of education go up and I get to know students and support students: schools are designed for students, not just for adequate employment for the adult population." This administrator wanted "unmotivated children to be challenged and motivated by the teachers, this is why you have specially trained teachers—like you go to a doctor when you are sick. Teachers are trained professionals. To get teachers to embrace ideas, you must do what you think are important to do, like starting the leadership group to show all kids are important: you must lead by example. Four years ago, the school created a club specifically for bringing up grades and to recognize kids who bring their grades up, but these may not be the 'A' students: even improving one grade if you get 'C’s' in others is important. Getting recognized for improvement serves as a motivation. [The club] grew from ten kids to thirty, to forty, and is still going up. You have to implement those things you think are connected with your philosophy to show people you can change behavior." The administrator attributed these ideas, in large part, to his religious beliefs. He also said he "will not raise my voice to children, but will whistle at a child and the kids know what that means."

Each educator had different needs in terms of his or her own learning experiences. They were different in how they taught; in their need to be involved in decision-making; where they were in life with parenting, retirement, and other life cycles. No single metaphor could apply to all of their perceptions about the school. The learning organization metaphor, however, had a strong place: this metaphor could have been describing a school functioning at its best in a chaotic, changing environment.

146 The following metaphors emerged during a number of interviews, but are not found in the literature review as organizational metaphors. These metaphors are related to a person's perspectives on life, nurturing, and teaching. The lack of connection with person-centered metaphors in the organizational literature may point to a gap in that literature.

"The Game"

The “game” metaphor took on a number of forms. One form was organizational, as described by a teacher who saw teaching as a stepping stone to another profession:

Realities here are very different. The Legislature’s reality is out of touch; giving a grade to a school is very political and it is about playing the game. I’ve learned to work the system and play the game—which is whatever the established authorities view as right and wrong and is reality—they determine what you have to do to play right, and if you expose it, you are against them and if you play the game you are right. . . . When there is change, you pick up on the rules and play the game and benefit and go on. I don’t think a lot of people pick up on this and think their reality is real—they are very ego-centric and do not understand that multiple realities exist and vary from person to person. People are not interested in experiencing a realm outside their own: society would flow a lot smoother if people understood others have different realities and are correct in their own reality. Many different viewpoints can be equally valid or correct.

The “game” metaphor was also student-centered at times:

I make a difference by being in place when the pupil needs me; the school- organization objective is to educate the students where they can be productive and take care of themselves and their families. The classroom structure is not the real ball game—the subclass, the real ball game is the driving force of emotional, spiritual being of the pupil and why [my] being here and being about to recognize these things in students. My commitment is to building hope and keeping it alive. Testing kids and grading schools can be hope killers and keep people down. When a kid walks through the door and the kid is told, ‘you have to get ready for [the state test],’ it will cause the stuff before that point to be lost.

An educator who was also a coach kept referring to student behaviors and learning in terms of a football game: "blocking" the bad influences in life, "tackling" challenges, reaching the "goal" of becoming the person the student wanted to be.

"Families"

During the tenure of a previous director, "families" had been introduced as a way to conduct business and build relationships in the school and community. In its original form, this metaphor was meant to apply to the lab school at all levels—student, classroom, and school-wide, and it went further to include students' families and the community. The term, "families," was not defined during any of the interviews. Instead, educators talked more about its implementation and how they felt about its loss.

147 A teacher said that "family meetings are [still] on the calendar, but there's not as much emphasis on that, now. The whole idea was to focus on family, school, community, partnerships. You had your family, your school family, your faculty family, and your community family. Family was really heavy duty [in the early 1990s]. With families, you split up where you had more interest: for the most part, it was individual choice—if you did not sign up, they put you in a family, but you could change. Student family had a 'sports model': as long as they were academically and behaviorally OK and in a sport, they would be models and mentors for the younger kids and spent time as a sport buddy—they were mentoring the kids that were getting lost. For the most part, this worked really good, but this died off about the time the grant money for the [family program] ran out and the steam went out—we got a new director in and the principalship did, too; the teachers were feeling overwhelmed and there was a steam roller effect."

A number of teachers who were interviewed expressed regret that families were no longer the model for the school; yet others said it had never really taken hold as a model for some of the schools—that elementary seemed to “embrace it the best." When discussing the current teaming arrangements among teachers in the schools, a teacher remarked that "nothing really took families’ place."

The family metaphor had deep roots, was the essence of the school as it used to be. The school had become a tradition in some families, was part of their shared, lived experience, and was built into their expectations. A number of past students who were now parents talked about how important the experience at the lab school had been to them, and how they wanted it to be that way for their children. Parents worked at the school where their children attended; generations of family members had attended, or relatives had attended or were attending the school. The Director's own child was a student at the school. In addition, educators, students, and parents valued the school as being a place where children could "grow up," be known by teachers across grade levels, and interact with siblings, parents, previous teachers, and long-term friends.

Additionally, some educators saw themselves in a parenting role: "I make a difference by being in place when the pupil needs me," a teacher said, "the school-organization objective is to educate the students where they can be productive and take care of themselves and their families." In a parenting role, some educators saw themselves as providing the necessary guidance that was lacking in the child's actual home. Most of the teachers, in one way or another, expressed this nurturing, guiding, and parenting of children as part of the core of who they were. And, as members of the school family, students were expected to act in certain ways.

Having the ability to help children grow over time was highly valued, as one teacher said, "All schools should be K-12 and of a smaller size: we had consistency in the past and it was so much easier. We knew our kids and it was very difficult for them to get lost. It is not for every kid—some need a bigger place to be. . . . [W]e have known [these children] the full time [they have been in the school]: staff feel they have birthed and raised them. This since is eroded because there are parents who are not happy and who do not get the feeling people are looking out after their kids and caring."

148 Additional benefits of the K-12 school reported by educators were that staff in the school got to know children and families over time, and could better track progress, problems, and success in learning and behaviors. Those educators having a longer history with the school talked about the importance of "familiar faces." Knowing each other was seen as comforting and "more secure than in other schools." Staff talked about the benefits of siblings being "together" during the school day, of parents being in the same place as their children, and of long-term relationships being built.

It could also be said that the classroom acted as the teacher's day-time home: it was a place for all of the "stuff I've collected"; for exercising autonomy; for closing the door and being with the children; and for getting refreshed and regrouping. The classroom to some was a place where the demands of change could be kept in abeyance, at least for a period of time. The teachers' private offices left the researcher with the impression of a special room in a house, a "space away from the students" (children), a place where "you feel you are special." A teacher said, "We would like to get back the old feeling of what an incredible place this was for both the kids and the teachers: we worked hard, but never felt we were going to work."

The "Farm"

The concepts of “planting,” “growing,” and “nurturing” came from a number of educators. These were apparent in a mixed metaphor description from this teacher:

Working with children is like planting things and preparing the soil, giving water and sunshine. The school organization should be 'farmers,' with the pupils as seed: my eye is always on what makes that grow. Kids [can also be seen as] crude oil and you can manufacture many things from it: the hardest part for me is when we lose a kid because of society[;] . . . I'm still learning the school's culture. This school has the greatest chance to be a model school for this community, but it is a very delicate situation in trying to get the right farmers and establish the right policies of what we are about, what are our objectives, and how will we get there and [by] what means and necessity. I think that kids getting a good education is essential, and I'm not sure how you can guarantee both that and the work certification: the intent is good, but may not be realistic. Do we have the right fuel power in our teachers and curriculum? We have to have the soil and right mixture of elements.”

Another teacher described nurturing the students as the “law of the farm: people who were not farmers expected a harvest right away—you have to plant it, nurture it, let it grow. Life does not give you a product right now—we are organic and you must let it grow." The farm metaphor was applicable to the student, to the ways a teacher related to a student, and to the organization as a whole.

The “Professional”

“People are looking to leave," a teacher said, "because they are no longer treated as professionals, are commanded what to do: being treated professionally was worth less

149 money. OPS having no benefits has an effect on morale." The layers of mandates that seemed to be narrowing an educator's ability to teach in the manner that best seemed to fit a particular group of children was said to be one of the key problems related to burn- out. It also had a dramatic effect on job satisfaction, and perhaps performance: "I love teaching and the kids, but hate the other stuff and I just don't do it." This teacher said, "I will do a half-assed job if the administrators make me." The context of this was that the teacher could do a better job if left to teaching. When teachers said that the legislative "micro-management" in the form of standards, tests, school grading, and other regulations was not allowing them "to do their jobs," they were generally referring to professional autonomy—to self-monitor, to best determine what the job of teaching was, and how it was best performed.

There was a loss of control over a wide array of factors affecting a teacher's ability to make choices. The metaphor of "professional" was affected, and this applied at all levels: how the students were taught and what they were taught; what teachers must do within the classroom; and school-wide, particularly relating to accountability targets and measures, and to how decisions were made in the school.

Changes that affected teachers in their professional occupations, as discussed in the Changes section, were numerous. Most of the changes were beyond teachers' control, were mandated by national or state governments, or were part of the national and state debate about lab schools. The changes included teacher certifications, standards, student testing tied to school grading, performance appraisals, changes in student demographics, and a change in teachers' roles with the university.

Debates around what kinds of education and experience made a person qualified to be performing a particular job included the amount of classroom teaching experience (such as the Director having little or none) and a teacher's standing and longevity with the school (such as being OPS or on time-limited contract). Previous hiring practices being compared to new ones fed the debate.

"Teachers go to school more than any other profession—including keeping up certifications," a teacher remarked. Another said, "What makes teaching so unique is the individual teacher: we sort and mort according to who we are, where your class and children are, where your goals are set, and where you want them to go. But, a lot is dictated by tests, even our pay is based on tests: we are moving toward a number generation rather than human. It does not take into account the individual growth of the child over a period of time." This commentary about professionalism of teachers being undermined was followed by the teacher saying she was "frightened about where public education is. Corporations will soon be funding education and taking it over." Many teachers reported being the children of teachers, as well as wanting to teach because they had great learning experiences in the hands of good teachers: this did not interplay well with the changes that appeared to be undercutting teachers' being able to determine how best to teach.

"Our salaries have gone down: we are below [the county's] level, but there is an increased workload," a teacher reported. "What keeps people here is that this was the most

150 wonderful place to work on earth, [we] are treated extremely professional and opinions and input trusted and never had to sign in and out like in some schools—we would be owed overtime if they did this. We felt much more like a professional and only used to hire faculty with Master's degree and five years experience because teachers were to teach and be involved in research."

"More people are leaving," a teacher said, "due to the new performance appraisal system and teachers no longer getting across-the-board increases." Concerns about the performance appraisal system centered on the fact that teachers had already proven themselves accountable as professionals in other objective ways. Teachers had, and others were obtaining, national board certification; many had been part of the state's previous Master Teacher program; some were professors under the university; others had developed programs, teaching methods, and materials that had been adopted by other schools or made available nationally.

As professionals, teachers took their jobs very seriously, and their dedication sometimes backfired. Long hours were required of teachers dedicated to doing the job well or even adequately. A newer teacher talked about the long hours she had put in during her first year: “The writing and the grading take so much time[;] . . . after years of experience you will be able to grade them faster. Telling kids verbally, rather than in writing, helps with the time.” The teacher said the long, intense hours, “made me sick and sent me to the hospital and now I’ll only work two extra hours a night and in the afternoons. I’ve set limits on how long I’ll work, and this took me a year to learn and it helps. Last year, I had no life but my teaching job. It takes a full year to learn to set boundaries.” Another teacher had commented on how work-related stress had taken a serious toll on the current Director's health. There were many instances showing educators were willing to put in extra time to accomplish their teaching goals.

The freedom of choice that used to exist at the school was highly valued by some, and not so valued by others. This mainly had to do with mixed opinions about behaving as a professional:

The year before I came [to this school], the issue was school wide curriculum and teachers being professional. Teachers were having trouble being here on time, not leaving the school, dressing appropriately: they wanted teachers to help prepare young children to be adults and setting the right examples.

Another teacher felt that the school should “ask teachers to follow dress codes, school behavior requirements; they are not always enforced. Have someone hall monitor and make the kids stick with it. Kids are not consistently enforced. Some of the teachers do not follow dress and other standards—only certain teachers dress inappropriately." Yet another said, "Teachers do not set a good example: how can you sell your kids [on certain standards] if you cannot control the faculty?”

An educator expressed the opinion that “it does not seem like the teaching standards are up to par and not getting any better.” She also missed the old “family atmosphere . . . a small school should be tighter now. We need to bring up academic standards and offer

151 more honors and other classes at the high school. I think the guarantee is great, but bringing up teaching standards is more important and the school will be paying a lot of money to bring kids up to standards. This money should be spent on the school—I don’t see anything being done to bring teachers up to speed, even though [the university] offers classes free to any teacher.”

Opinions about professional behavior were not all critical. A teacher said that there was a "greater trust of the teachers here" when compared to schools in the public system, "a sense you are here to do a job and you are doing it." The teacher reported "getting support" and that "the school is not so big and bureaucratic." The county schools were described as having political and interpersonal "games and upper management, and it is harder to figure out how to get things: brand new teachers have a problem in the county [schools]."

"Flexibility has required new dimensions here," a teacher said. "A lot more is required here than teaching in a county school system." But, she said, "Teaching is boring and this keeps me working." Shortly after saying this, she added, "I stay in teaching because I love it. I just can't be anywhere else. I was a born teacher, my parents were teachers. . . . Teachers are so overwhelmed they can hardly get through the day. But, I'm fortunate, have a doctorate; everything is old hat, and I can adjust to whatever comes. . . . I do not think that new teachers can do this for long. Telling teachers to do more with less is a problem, but no other industry requires this."

In discussing with educators why they became teachers, a universal answer was their commitment to students. The educators’ comments about commitment typically revolved around themselves in their personal and professional roles. The classroom was at the center of discussions regarding level of autonomy—autonomy described as being supported by the administration, yet compromised by the guarantee, standards, and testing. When educators talked about the school as an organization, the metaphors that emerged from their descriptions most often and contradictorily across narrators were “learning organization” and “dictatorship.” This apparent contradiction will be explained in the next few pages.

Teachers had strong opinions about their profession: "The state is plowing forward with taking people off military duty to become teachers. There is a teacher shortage, but I think some of the state's efforts are misguided, because you are not a teacher because you had some job: teachers are like a pearl, it is hard to find good ones and not just anyone can be a good teacher." The teacher said, "There are special qualities for who makes good teachers." Another teacher believed that those who "have more time in grade do not necessarily mean they are better teachers than those with less experience: it depends what you do with it."

"Craftsmen" Versus “Assembly Line”

A subtopic of the "professional" metaphor emerged in teachers' discussions of being "craftsmen" or "artists" versus "assembly line" workers. In this teacher's narrative, multiple metaphors bridged back and forth between the person (vegetable grower;

152 gourmet chef) and the organization (craftsmen; factory; top down; organization chart; micro-managed; culture):

In the beginning, being teachers here were craftsmen, had their own space and freedom and were like a medieval guild: the first administrator just let us go; the second administrator tried to nourish the craftsmanship. The next administrator was used to a factory—top down system and this is where the change started. The current director came from state government, and is also an organization chart person; the biggest change has come from the fact that at one time, if we could see something, we could do it and now it leads to frustration rather than accomplishment. The current administrative technique is a barrier because it is much more micro-managed, which does not allow each teacher's talent to be more fully utilized. The Director may know education, but not the culture of the school and this is a very big barrier: you need to know how to grow vegetables here, not just what to do with them, like a gourmet chef. Many veterans here remember when you had freedom, rather than being led in certain directions. Educators care about education; teachers care about a child—you can see these differences at the [state department of education] versus schools and teachers.

These statements reflected a recurrent phenomenon: the metaphors about the school, educators’ roles, and the classrooms used by the narrators hinged upon what part of their school lives the educators were discussing. Although some statements were paradoxical, with opposite metaphors existing side-by-side, most individuals had reconciled the coexistence of competing metaphors because they applied to different levels of the organization—personally/professionally, in the classroom, and organization-wide.

In the example below, loss of empowerment was seen in much the same way as loss of empowerment experienced by assembly line workers in early manufacturing:

Modern management today is allowing groups to go out and the President does not micro manage and the school has gone from modern management structure to the industrial. Most teachers see teaching as an art and they are frustrated when they have to work on an assembly line. The whole world has moved away from assembly lines: schools are the last factories in America—we are processing students quickly; identifying the failures and failing them; doing things as quickly and cheaply, and in large numbers. I did a study of the most important functions of a high school. High school is an adolescent development center, but it is only graded on one function—mastery of core curriculum, which we test for. But, less than 46% of parents and teachers identified this as the key function of high school: they chose health and welfare of the child, affective and psychological care. We still do not know what we want a high school to do. Politicians and educators many times see teachers as necessary evils, wanting to skip over the teacher and get to the kid, but the teacher and child together is education. Administrators and educators do not understand that teachers like kids and [teachers] are viewed as the problem rather than the problem solver and [politicians] are building boxes around teachers rather than letting them be their

153 intuitive self. Empowerment is the key: teachers used to feel in control of their classroom and their destiny and now this is gone.

The level of empowerment reportedly changed with directors over five years before the case study was conducted. That director "changed us from craftsman to factory. . . . [His] lead-off was that teachers had to stay until 3:30, and could not wear shorts – teachers before were treated as professionals."

When a teacher said that "imposed performance measures" were "limiting teachers' ability to do their jobs" and not taking into account the "whole child," she was expressing the view that teaching was not just about the text book, but also about "life skills." Almost all of the teachers in some way felt teaching students to "learn to learn" was the core of teaching. Worried about the "tech prep," teachers did not want the school to produce students who would be "workplace robots." Others said the guarantee program was too industry-driven, not in the students' best interests. They felt it would interfere with academics, putting too many resources into the vocational areas.

A teacher who left high school teaching to go to middle school teaching did so because she "was becoming very frustrated because of the changes that were not good for the students academically in my area and I wanted to catch the child earlier." The teacher reported that block scheduling was also problematic for the area in which she taught, and trying to teach under block scheduling "took too much out of me."

The “Professor”

The "professor" metaphor also incorporated that of the “professional,” but went further. The professor was a person who had a Master’s or doctoral-level education, typically had five or more years of experience, and who practiced with much independence in the types of research that would be done and the teaching practices that would be implemented and tested. The professor was recognized as a faculty member of a major university.

Before the school became a public school, faculty held joint appointments with the university. They had all of the rights and access of university professors, and their students had the same access as university students to libraries and facilities. By changing the administrative rules and linkages relating the school to the university, the legislature made the first move to eliminate the "professor" metaphor and that of a "lab" school.

When the school was redefined as a public school, with all of the regulations and requirements for standards, evaluation, teaching, and testing that came with that, the role of the professor also changed dramatically. Instead of the focus being innovative practices, research, and training of new teachers, the professors found themselves with little control over what they taught, less control over how they taught it, and little control over the selection of students in their classrooms. A major change in student demographics from “elite” to children “with baggage” had taken place. Teachers had to deal much more with socialization of children, including those with extreme behavior problems. The demographics of the school matched those of more typical public schools, versus those of the lab school as it had existed. The plan to remove the school and

154 professors from the university campus and relocate them to a new school at a significant distance from the university was another erosion of their professorship.

The switch from tenure and being a university professor to being a "continuing contract" employee was criticized during a number of interviews. This switch had implications for how an educator might respond to change. A long-term teacher said, "You don't deal with all of it: you get tenure, then ignore it." Tenure was becoming a thing of the past.

When the researcher asked one of the long-term teachers if teachers were feeling a loss, or might be grieving, the teacher said there was a "death of what the organization was": people were "going through a grieving process and the different phases need time." Some teachers spoke about the changes (legislation, becoming a public school, changing student demographics, hiring practices) that affected their status with regret at their loss, others with anger: both responses could have been grief responses.

The change in metaphor from "professor" to public school teacher, combined with the change from "lab school" to public school (see below) appeared to have a dramatic impact on teachers in the school who had been there under the university system. It did not, however, appear to have that large an impact on the younger, OPS, or contract teachers whose experience was in the public school system or who were fairly new to teaching.

"Lab" School Versus "Public School"

The jargon name for the school, "lab," was a metaphor for a place of innovation, science, experimentation, and research. As a "lab" for a university, the school was also a place of learning for educators-in-training. The formal name of the school also referenced its university base. Hiring standards required advanced graduate degrees and years of experience. Teachers were not originally required to have the kinds of teacher certifications found in public schools. Experimenting with and testing new or improved approaches to education were part of the culture of the school. A teacher said, "A lab school is more willing to take risks on coming up with strategies to meet needs of students."

The lack of legislated budget for educational research at the school and the school becoming an "untapped" resource reduced the linkages to the university. The tension between the purposes of a lab school and the necessities of a public school created a struggle with the two metaphors. At the time of the study, the public school was going to prevail because it was the only way for the school to survive.

The school becoming public was seen by some teachers as "settling for mediocrity," and as having to "justify the lab school." The change was not well regarded by many of the educators who had a history with the lab school. Public schools were thought by some of the educators to have children who were not ready to learn, students who were inferior from socio-economic and academic perspectives, disinterested and uninvolved parents, and mixtures of cultures that were not ideal for a school that served elite populations. The

155 push of the lab school out of the university into the public school arena was "a critical turning point" in what many of the educators believed was a downward trend in quality.

The erosion or loss of the identity metaphors of "professor" for the educators and "lab school" as the environment in which they worked appeared to have the most personal effect on educators who had a history with the school. None of the replacement metaphors held much attraction, particularly for those who felt they were becoming producers of assembly line workers or public school teachers of children with "baggage."

"Vocational" Versus "Academic"

The guarantee was repeatedly seen as the cause of older students leaving.. It was reported that students and their parents did not want the students' focus on academics switched to the vocational efforts required for industry-recognized certifications. Vocational learning was seen as an alternative for those who would not be going to college, or those who would have to work their way through college.

Almost every teacher felt that the guarantee should be an option for, but not a requirement of, every student. It was thought that some students were wasting their talents on anything but "academics." There was also the fear that the guarantee would turn students into "robots" and assembly line workers—the guarantee was associated in some minds with deskilled work and the worst of "corporate America." A student took the position at one meeting that "tracking" was being done at the school.

"Teacher" Versus "Educator"

Although "educator" is used in this case study to refer to all adults in the school who were engaged in providing education to students ("teachers", "supervisors", and "administrators" alike), some of those interviewed believed that "educators" were not necessarily "teachers," that it took a certain amount of time teaching in a classroom setting to be a "teacher" and to make informed decisions that were best left to teachers. Teachers were also viewed as the best candidates to contribute to standards, certification tests, and other education related issues. At times, teachers seemed to feel about "educators" or "supervisors" the same way they felt about politicians:

"The committee writing the [education standards] would not pay teachers’ subs, so teachers could not do it. They got supervisors who do not know teaching to write the standards. When the teacher certification exams were written, they paid teachers to do this. Have teachers do it, and pay teachers to do it.”

"Politicians and educators many times see teachers as necessary evils, wanting to skip over the teacher and get to the kid, but the teacher and child together is education."

“Politicians play out their personal issues on the schools.”

"You cannot live on what you make on a test. The politicians know it is not the end, but they treat you that way."

156 "Decisions [by the Director] are made by shooting from the pants."

The Director "may know education, but not the culture of the school."

The previous director "was used to a factory—top-down system and this is where the change started." The current Director "came from [state government], and is also an organization chart person."

One of the often-expressed criticisms of the Director was that he had little or no classroom teaching experience, only experience in policy and administration, and that this affected his ability to make decisions that were in the best interests of teachers and students. A previous director was also thought to be lacking for the same reasons.

The concern about professionalism, mandates imposed from those external to the school, autonomy in the classroom, and whether or not standards and certification tests were worthy of following or supporting—all revolved around the belief that "teachers" were the ones who had the appropriate experience for determining what was best for students and teachers (and in some cases, the school as an organization). "Politicians" were not viewed as having the experience to be making the decisions they were making, nor were "educators" who lacked classroom experience, such as the current director and some of the previous ones. On numerous occasions, teachers indicated that they trusted themselves to do what was in the best interests of the students, but not others.

157 CHAPTER 4

CONSEQUENCES OF COMPETING METAPHORS ON EDUCATORS AND THE ORGANIZATION

Changes

The driving forces for changes in the lab school were predominantly the legislature, and secondarily the university that was pursuing priorities other than the survival of the school. In light of these factors that controlled the funding and decision-making authority, the Director as a driving force seemed minor by comparison. Changes that included specially funded programs, research, and innovative learning activities were teacher- driven, but for the most part did not have school-wide impact. Other than the Director, there appeared to be little support for most of the changes in the school, leaving fear, uncertainty, and doubt feeding opposition to the changes.

The school's future was in question; mandates were imposing changes on the school; the student body and teachers were changing; outside pressures for measurement were intruding into existing professional spaces; long-term teachers spoke of not being able to transfer to county schools without a cut in pay because of their years of service and salaries being too high for the county; and the status of being a professor at a university lab school was disappearing. Mandated changes were affecting the very identity of teachers as "professionals," and some of them were faced with redefining the metaphor with which they identified themselves. Long-term teachers were also having to surrender their "professor" metaphor and identity, and there appeared to be no replacement metaphors that were as attractive as the ones being redefined or surrendered. With the changes in the school came paradox, as evidenced by the coexistence of opposite beliefs, interests, and actions.

The typifications of themselves as teachers, with the best interests of students at heart, allowed the educators to function as a school that enjoyed some measure of success. However, other typifications created barriers to change and/or team work: directors as "educators" (not teachers), "bureaucrats" (organizational chart people), and "dictators" (decisions made were announced in staff meetings, and the current Director was thought to be making all of the decisions and ignoring other opinions and ideas).

158 Paradoxes such as the coexistence of a "democracy" and a "dictatorship," mandatory educational practices that were thought to both improve professionalism and erode it, as well as others, came up when the researcher's probe questions related to change. Observations of the educators during interviews, in their classrooms, around the school and at special events indicated that they continued to engage with students (and usually with each other) in supportive, creative, and learning organization ways.

It was clear that the educators in the school were acting upon their interpretations of the changes taking place. During the course of creating their realities, the educators used metaphors to make sense of their environment and of the actions of others. A major drawback of what was happening with metaphors in the school was that their construction and use were not part of the change management process--a process that could have been handled differently, as will be discussed shortly.

Realities

It was evident that the lab school's educators were constructing collective meaning, and that collective meaning was to be found much of the time in the company of "like-minded people": in other words, pockets of prevailing perceptions that were strong enough to influence a person's willingness to stay with the organization, to fight or flee.

Educators in the lab school used metaphor to construct their realities of themselves as educators and their school as an organization; to create shared beliefs and realities with others; to interpret what was happening in the school; and to influence decisions—in the past, present, and future. Their stocks of knowledge were used to understand and construct information, much in the way of the sense-making described by Spillane.

Many of the educators understood there were competing realities: some even said this state of affairs was to be expected, and that reality could only exist at the individual level, that one person's reality was no better or truer than another's. A certain level of anarchy appeared to thrive under the lack of shared meaning, whereas Marquardt tells us that organizations that are able to respond well to change are able to do so with some degree of unity while remaining flexible.

Realities that had the power to raise consternation in the minds of educators in the school, and which were both an important part of the rhetoric and the reason for rhetoric, were the questions of whether or not changes in the school were causing educators to "jump ship," and for turnover in the school to be higher than in other schools. Teachers reported that turnover had increased, in part because of unhappiness with changes in the school that were a result of decisions the Director had made. A school data collector said teacher turnover had not changed, and that this perception of higher teacher turnover was a result of "more rumors of it this year." The staff person did add that student turnover in the high school had gone up, but that the elementary and middle schools were "pretty much the same."

159 The beliefs and understandings of educators in the school created a variety of reactions. Among them were fight-flight, avoidance, and engagement. Some of the metaphors found and used in the lab school had to do with organizational issues, others with individual issues, including identity. The organizational metaphor that seemed to have the broadest application to the majority of activities within the school was that of the "learning organization." Educators whose activities fell within those of the learning organization were engaged with each other, with their students, and in teaching and learning. As Spillane found, what educators said did not necessarily match what they were observed doing: only one of the teachers mentioned a learning organization, and that was said in the context of what the Director wanted.

The creation of a new reality would have been well served through the championing of new organization metaphors by leaders within the lab school. This would have been one of the quickest, most effective and lasting ways to create this change, according to Elgin. During this study, teachers reported that the principals in the school did not support many of the changes being mandated by the Director. In Spillane's study, a principal was "not an avid supporter of the district's policies" and the principal saw his role as "buffering" teachers from the district. This could have been a contributing factor when teacher participation and support were lacking at the lab school.

Metaphors

A review of the changes taking place in the lab school during the time of the study makes it apparent that the school was undergoing the changes in metaphor and processes necessary for transforming the original "lab" school into a Professional Development School. This was not, however, the intention or understanding of all the teachers who were concerned with the outcome of the school at that time.

The ability to change and the use of metaphor took on extra importance when considered in the larger context of changes affecting all lab schools. An end-of-study return to the literature revealed a significant reduction in the number of lab schools around the country, and an increasing number of Professional Development Schools (PDSs). Changes that had caused other lab schools to transform themselves in order to survive included many of those discussed in this report.

The use of rhetoric to inform, build, or eliminate metaphors was in evidence, particularly as people in the school grouped with "like minded" people. Rhetoric and metaphor were being used to influence decisions: examples of this included a teacher whose spouse was reportedly meeting with the Director and talking to him, trying to "help things move in different directions, put out fires, that kind of thing." That same teacher had been defining for others what it meant to be a "charter school" and was a key actor in the move to become a charter school. Another example was how descriptions of the new school layout helped build feelings about the school: it was going to be a "pod" and a "mess" to the teachers. Metaphors also built political responses: the Director was a "dictator" to some, supportive of autonomy to others. Metaphors were created around changing

160 programs and student demographics: students could be academically oriented or workplace oriented, "nerds" or children with "baggage." The school could be preparing students to be workplace "robots." Spillane found in his study that human resources and social networks were important in understanding and implementing changes, particularly when dialogue took place between the uninformed and people who correctly and deeply understood the nature of the changes.

This study found teachers operating behind the closed doors of their classrooms, much as Spillane's study found. Teachers in Spillane's study understood that opening themselves to observations, advice, and dialogue with other educators was important for changing the closed-door culture and implementing changes.

To effect change within an organization, the culture must change. The socializing aspects of the culture did not appear to be contributing to an understanding or acceptance of the new school and new metaphors. Cultural change or reinforcement via metaphor was being driven on an individual-by-individual basis. The multiple standpoints were divergent, and older standpoints were taking root in newer teachers as they spent time with the "seasoned" ones. However, the shared metaphor of "teacher" allowed the culture to survive with some strength, even while co-existing with the dissonance caused by other, competing, metaphors. The shared metaphor did not, however, reduce the school's struggle with change.

The culture of the organization was where all other metaphors were acted out. Holding this culture together were certain underlying values, characteristics, and expectations— mainly a commitment to student learning and the best interests of the students. The required guarantee for all graduating students, unlike external demands, was a school- controlled action that was perceived by a number of teachers to be a trespass into the classroom and undermining parents', students', and teachers' decision-making rights. For these teachers, it negatively impacted what they believed were the best interests of the students, and infringed on their autonomy and professionalism.

Metaphors used previously in the school, even a much-liked one like "families," were losing ground to new ones. The "public school" and its changing demographics—both workforce and students—were reportedly causing teachers to leave the lab school. The metaphors in the school were in part constructed because of the pace of change ("roaring train"), how decisions were made ("dictator"), and the way change was implemented ("dictatorship" or "learning organization").

What the Director said and did was seen with such a variety of interpretations, that one overriding metaphor representing the Director could not be determined. Most of the Director's actions seemed to support the implementation of changes brought about by state law and direction, by evaluation and audit findings and recommendations, and by the state's new philosophy regarding lab schools. Objectives and goals shown in the evaluations of the state's lab schools indicated that the state's direction was contradictory: it recognized the need for unique lab schools while promoting the philosophy that they should also be like public schools. The result was that members of the lab school had to be both: they had to invest a much too short supply of time, energy, and resources into

161 being both a unique lab school and a public school. In addition, the leverage that could have been brought to bear when political preferences become mandates was missing from some of the lab school reform: much that appeared in the audit in the form of recommendations did not have the power of written public policy behind it, but still had to be implemented.

The limited attempts made by the Director in showcasing architectural drawings, furnishings of the new school, and plans of its model community, meant to excite parents and educators alike with the idea of a new school and a fresh start in a different part of the community, did not work: these were not as attractive as the identity and the history they were losing. It was difficult to determine how much of this lack of "pep rallying" that may have helped the reconciliation of metaphor and vision was due to selective hearing and non-participation on the part of the educators, and how much may have been due to the Director's need to keep off the radar screen of individuals highly placed in government who reportedly wanted to do away with lab schools. The Director, at one point, had expressed the need to get things done as quickly and smoothly as possible. There was also speculation by a few educators at another point in time as to how much of the political action going on to save the school should be known to others due to possible interference.

Although it was speculated that the Director had removed the teachers' lounge as a place to meet and reinforce each other, there were other activities reinforcing diverse metaphors and stocks of knowledge within the organization. Reinforcement was found in the gravitation of educators toward those who believed as they believed. Putting together and implementing a successful plan for communications might have helped to change the realities. It was unclear to school members whether the Director's actions were an attempt at changing the culture of the school, or if he actually needed the lounge space and believed that the open school concept for the new school would better create a learning environment and improve the use of teacher's time.

Remembering what Lewis said, the use of metaphor is the quickest and most lasting way to change or influence a person's stock of knowledge, which in turn leads to the creation of new and lasting realities. In the lab schools, teachers were left to interpret the meanings of changes in the school, there were no apparent champions "dragging" them successfully into changes (as was found in the Spillane study) with the exception of the arts based education program. There appeared to be no one "creating a critical mass of teacher leaders who convinced other teachers that the new ideas" (Spillane) were important. In spite of this, the elementary and middle schools were very actively engaged in co-learning and mentoring activities.

As stated earlier, there were no metaphors being offered as replacements that held the attraction of the ones being lost. The very rhythm of the school, the parents' mornings and evenings as they dropped off and picked up their children, the proximity of the school to other facilities, would all be disrupted with the move to a new location. The previously mentioned "pep rallies" to talk about all of the benefits of the move would likely have helped build understanding, if not support.

162 It is the use of metaphor to reinforce or change stock of knowledge that makes it so powerful. Without a change in stock of knowledge, which, in turn, interacts with all other perceptions and actions, lasting changes in the culture and in the organization would be difficult, if not impossible. People interacted with others based upon their stock of knowledge, which was informed, enlarged, reinforced, and changed through metaphor: realities were a continuous work in progress.

Educators used metaphors in raising concerns about the school's administration. For instance, some believed that teachers would leave because they had lost control of decisions that they used to have control over, due to the "dictatorial" behaviors of the Director. Multiple and different metaphors existed for the educators, and could vary depending on the level of school operation being discussed—at the student, classroom, or school-wide level. The metaphors could be complementary or contrasting, as demonstrated in selected narratives of the educators.

Multiple metaphors could co-exist in the school for a number of reasons. The narratives of the teachers showed that caring for the students and their learning was their primary reason for being there. This was a common value and purpose shared by teachers within the school's culture. During interviews and observations, the researcher watched adults at the school act as if they had antennae tuned everywhere, as they interrupted adult conversations to give a direction or suggestion to a child (even at some distance away), or to answer a child's question. There was also a strong identity and metaphor shared by all of the teachers: that of being a "teacher," while the menu of approaches to teaching varied from the pedagogue to the experientialist. One teacher said, "I never went into administration because I did not want to deal with papers, money, and parents: I wanted to focus on students even if I'm not paid more." The teacher went on to say, "The kids keep me young."

As mentioned earlier in this study, person-centered metaphors relating to a person's perspectives on life, nurturing, and teaching emerged during a number of interviews. However, there was a lack of connection between organization structure and person- centered metaphors in the organizational literature. Person-centered metaphors that were no longer supported at the school were accompanied by some of the greatest examples of a sense of loss that the educators expressed. While the administration embraced an organizational metaphor such as "learning organization," the teachers fought against and mourned the loss of those centered on them as professionals and the students as beings in need of nurturing and guided development, such as with "family."

Fostering Change

Formal and informal leaders in the lab school—those who promoted change and those who opposed it—had no control over the fact that major changes were being dropped into an old setting, one with a long history filled with expectations for what the school stood for and what it should continue to be. The new setting was yet to be built, and there was rhetoric going on that would help create the perception of the new spaces as a good place

163 to be, or as "pods" and a "mess." According to the Director, the new school's planned spaces were to be open, where teachers and students could interact and learn quickly from each other, and where teachers could focus on students most in need. If the new structure was meant to facilitate a learning organization, it would have helped to define or describe for the educators in the school what it meant to be a learning organization, to engage them in this through action learning, and to teach them to use metaphor and other means to assess how activities in the school either supported or undermined learning and change.

The sets of assumptions and beliefs remaining from previous school environments were more strongly held onto in the face of rapid change. These old assumptions and beliefs helped create the paradoxes, none of which were greater than the lack of connection between the way the majority of those interviewed talked about what was happening in the school and the way they behaved. Although the pain of rapid change and the perceived loss of so much that they valued appeared in the form of what a reader might see as negative and complaining, the way that most of them behaved matched the aspects of a learning organization. In trying to understand this gap between the narratives and the behaviors, the researcher found that it was in the nature of the probe questions that were asked: the questions that related to change and how it was affecting them caused educators to focus on their concerns, fears, and frustrations. On only one occasion was it mentioned that the Director was attempting to turn the school into a learning organization. In order to accomplish this as a unified, fully understood, and embraced metaphor, members of the school could have been brought into a fuller cognitive awareness of what this meant in relation to mandated changes. Educators were left on their own to interpret things in ways that reinforced their existing beliefs rather than fostered learning how to embrace new ones. Metaphor as a strong framing and reframing tool did not appear to be actively used by those in leadership roles.

Communication processes were not working well, particularly between the Director and many of the educators in the school. The Director said that communication was constant and consistent, while some of the educators discounted what he said for a variety of reasons. If the Director could not be the primary communicator, it would have helped if others could have been identified as part of the communications and change management plan. On a number of occasions, educators said they wished the Director would make the reasons for his decisions known. The Director said he thought he had done this. A communications analysis and plan that involved all levels of the school would have been a step in the right direction for correcting this.

Paradox within an organization is increased when change is not effectively managed. Paradox as contradictory and interwoven was in evidence most when the researcher compared what the educators said to how they behaved, particularly with their students. The Director's reduction of ambiguity regarding why certain decisions and changes were made might have helped reduce the amount of apparent paradox in the organization. A better understanding by all of the educators regarding the need for becoming a public school, changing student demographics, implementing the guarantee, and introducing programs for students with special needs into the school might have reduced the friction. There were interactions at all levels of the school, and the Director was engaged in

164 participatory activities. However, the execution of these activities left the educators with a high level of mistrust of the necessity for change, the decisions the Director made, and the answers he gave. Although there seemed to be the intention to improve buy-in for the changes in the school generally, this was not happening to the degree necessary for reducing tensions created by competing metaphors and expectations.

Educators had the same questions that workers in non-educational organizations have. But, unlike other organizations that broke the rumor grapevine, the Director's ability to do this was compromised because the answers that originated with him were not generally trusted. Further, the metaphors used for the Director did not reflect trust. Spillane found trust to be an important element in using human resources.

At a time when the leaders and organization-directed learning might have helped build a consensus for the school's organization metaphors and the future, educators were being left on their own or in small teams to determine their own learning needs. Organization- wide learning sessions, particularly related to the changes in organization identity and metaphor, might have been useful. Most of the dialogue regarding the changes was taking place at meetings that were not well attended, or among "like minded" people.

Educators within the school had created numerous metaphors. There were no newer, more attractive metaphors created at the leadership level that could compete with the old ones being displaced. This lack of creation of an attractive replacement metaphor for the organization was true not only at the Director's level, but also at the Principals' levels: they were focused on their schools or their teams. Promotion of an organization-wide, shared metaphor that was attractive to the long-term teachers was needed. The closest the school came to having a future-oriented metaphor that was at least somewhat attractive was that of "charter" school, and this attraction was based more on the school's survival than its being a preferred mode of operation.

Creating new contexts was difficult at the school: major changes were being "imposed" on the educators by external mandates and by a need to survive. Since the contexts were not addressed in such a way as to create metaphors that embraced change, the new contexts came with the impression of imposition and loss of what was good. Following change management procedures, such as those suggested in the literature, could have provided the opportunity to turn things around. Leaders in the school (besides the Director) could have become change agents, helping to develop a unified metaphor of the school, one with which they were comfortable, and with which they could facilitate understanding of where the school was going and why. The literature demonstrates that such actions can, and do, happen. Such actions would have been useful in transitioning this school from its old metaphor of a lab school to its new one. Again, the participatory activities set up by the Director did not appear to be affecting the taken-for-granted realities: champions or advocates trusted by the actors might have altered this situation. During the year of the study, the Director was making headway politically in getting the resources to build a new school—he was outward focused. Within his own organization there was little vocal support for his efforts. The admirable people skills demonstrated by the other administrators and team leaders were directed at the classroom and school level (elementary, middle, and high), not on the organization as a whole. Mobilization was not

165 occurring for a number of the reasons already mentioned in this study. It would have helped if charisma already existing in the school had been tapped to rally the educators toward a common metaphor or vision that encompassed the changes. Learning could have been quickened and improved had there been a common, rallying metaphor to which the majority could subscribe: this would have taken a different investment of time on the part of leaders in the school.

The metaphor of democracy, which was important to the school's site-based management, was jeopardized by a lack of participation across stakeholders, including parents, teachers, and students. For teachers, there were numerous reasons given for this:

• teachers were already too busy teaching;

• teachers had seen too many "educational experiments"--changes came and went, and teachers were not feeling inclined to engage in more;

• teachers preferred not to disrupt the students;

• teachers were thoroughly engaged with students and did not have time or energy for group activities, committee meetings, etc.;

• teachers had families to rear and found the roles of teacher, parent, spouse, and family member left little or no time for other things, like meetings;

• teachers felt that when group consensus was reached, the information was changed by the Director;

• teachers felt that their time with the school might be limited, and were preparing (at least mentally) to go elsewhere; and

• teachers did not feel empowered to speak up, particularly those who had been there a short amount of time, were OPS, or felt the school was run as a dictatorship.

Carnoy also found similar reasons for a lack of site-based management participation. Spillane saw teachers' sense-making being influenced by "situation or place" (177) in a "career or life path" (178) and this was true at the lab school as well.

The narratives of those in the school showed that they were struggling with issues unique to their school and those of other lab and site-managed schools, such as the lack of participation in self-governance activities, and demands for accountability and "production" versus professionalism and local decision-making. The educators in the school also had to address many of the same challenges others in the American workforce were facing, such as the urge to go back to old ways of doing things when under pressure; the effort it takes to change, particularly while carrying a full-time workload; personal preferences and competencies and fitting within an organizational structure and culture; "rationality" in an organization, and what is rational for whom; independence and

166 interdependence of the workforce, organization, and society; the nature (metaphor) of the organization and how it fits with external and internal demands; the existence of competing metaphors and the consequences or implications for the organization and its workforce; and control over decision-making, particularly during times of change.

There were many opportunities for participation, as previously described in the comparison of the school to a learning organization. Engagement and the processes for getting participation did not appear to be working well for the reasons already mentioned. Spillane saw teachers as "the vital agents of implementation" (114) who ultimately decide what goes on in the classroom. For reform to happen, teachers must be fully involved, particularly when they are rarely provided scripts or blueprints for implementing changes.

Issues were raised by some of the teachers about not engaging or taking risks because of insecurity about the future of the school, or keeping quiet when they did not agree with decisions in order to help the school survive. Questions were raised about how much change teachers could absorb (the "biology"), and over what period of time by people who thought it took time for things to get "planted" and "grow." Teachers engaged in activities appropriate to a "learning organization" or teachers who deliberately created change to keep from "getting bored" or because they liked "learning new things" did not raise these questions or issues. These findings as well as teachers' responses to "quick fix mandates" (Spillane 44) were reflected in Spillane's study as well. Teachers found themselves facing many changes over short periods of time. Even when such changes were seen to be "positive" they could overwhelm teachers because there were "too many positive things happening" (Spillane 56).

Within the lab school, it did not appear that contradictions were being brought to the surface in positive ways: there were open statements of frustration at public meetings that were dismissed or deflected by others at the meetings. Reinforcement and creation of understandings of the organization, its leadership, and the future of the teaching profession took place in private discussions.

Among themselves and with the students, teachers were generating short-term wins all of the time, particularly with successful, innovative teaching projects. The Director's focus and consumption of time, however, was on the longer-term win of moving the school. The principals were focused on supporting the teachers.

Learning Organization

Despite the concerns and unhappiness expressed by some of the educators in response to the questions about changes happening in the school, teachers were observed to be acting in a manner consistent with a learning organization. This difference in teachers' reports and "the practice observed by researchers in these teachers' classrooms" was supported by Spillane's study (132). In order to look more closely at this and to verify that this contradiction was happening in the lab school, an entire section of this study was devoted to this analysis of the school as a learning organization in an earlier section.

167 Those who taught core or state-tested disciplines were challenged to cover all of the requirements and still keep their teaching engaging, up-to-date, and meaningful. Most of the excitement and innovation in the middle and high schools seemed to come from "elective" courses—those not tested by the state, although the integrated art program was used to bridge arts and core courses, and was enthusiastically supported by those who engaged in it. On a daily basis, the elementary school had team teaching and cross-over activities. In the presence of competing demands and metaphors, the school still managed to have most of the characteristics of a "learning organization."

In learning organizations, the stock of knowledge is constantly challenged and thus continues to grow. Applying this to the lab school, the majority of teachers appeared to be active learners, and most reported they were teachers because they enjoyed nurturing and helping others learn. This underlying drive and the support from decision-makers helped the organization to have most of the attributes of a learning organization; and, even with the lack of a commonly understood and accepted metaphor, the school's educators were absorbing organizational change while not necessarily embracing it.

A learning organization is constructed with the assumption that chaos is real and embraceable, change is constant and quick, and actively engaging in change and continuous learning makes an organization viable. Change is part of the everyday process in a learning organization. This point was missed by some of the educators even as they embraced the activities necessary to create a learning organization.

168 APPENDIX A

SURVEY TITLED "TYPES OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED OF ADULT STAFF MEMBERS"

169 TYPES OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED OF ADULT STAFF MEMBERS

Person being interviewed (interviewee): Date:

Title and function of interviewee:

Length of time with this organization:

After reading the informed consent, do you have any questions about the process I will be using for this research project, or any questions about the informed consent?

In the time you have been with the school, what kinds of changes have you seen in the way the school is organized?

What kinds of technologies (both ways of doing things and equipment) have you seen implemented?

Did these new technologies affect the way you or others do your work, and if so, how?

What kinds of requirements or expectations for performance does your school have that are internal to the school, or that have come to your school from the "outside" (such as state or federal performance requirements)?

Are there ways of "measuring" the performance requirements?

Have these requirements affected the way you do your work, and if so, how?

Have these requirements affected the technologies that you or others use and if so, how?

Do you think that any of the factors we have discussed have affected the way you do your work, and if so, how?

In thinking about how your school is organized, do you think that any of the things we have discussed have affected the way it is organized, and if so, how?

Is there anything about what we have discussed that make it easier or harder for you or others to teach children and if so, in what ways?

170 BIBLIOGRAPHY

“A Beginner’s Guide to Action Research.” An Introduction to Action Research. 30 Aug. 2003 .

“A Language of Metaphors.” The Adventures of a Sci-Phi Pilot. 16 Aug. 2003 .

Abell, Arianne. “Interdisciplinary Studies in the Community Colleges.” ERIC Microfiche. Mar. 17, 1999. WebLuis. 11 March 2003. .

Abram, David. The Spell of the Sensuous. New York: Pantheon-Random House, 1996.

AECT. "40.2 Qualitative Research Methods." The Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. Updated August 3, 2001. 30 Aug. 2003 .

Aiex, Nola Kortner. “Communicating within Organizational Cultures.” ERIC Digest Number 5. Indiana, U.S.: 1998. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003 .

Alexander, Ian W. French Literature and the Philosophy of Consciousness: Phenomenological Essays. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1985.

Alford, Robert. "Introductions: Social Theory ‘after’ Postmodernism?" Lecture. Forum on Social Theory ‘After’ Postmodernism: The Next Step? Florida State University, Department of Sociology. Wakulla Springs, Florida. 20-22 Feb. 1998.

Allan, Jane. "Talking Your Way to Success." Accountancy (Feb. 1993).

Alpander, G.G., and Carter, K.D. "Strategic Multinational Intra-Company Differences in Employee Motivation." Journal of Managerial Psychology 6.2 (1991): 25-32.

Always, Joan. “No Body There: Habermas and Feminism." Lecture. Forum on Social Theory ‘After’ Postmodernism: The Next Step? Florida State University, Department of Sociology. Wakulla Springs, Florida. 20 Feb. 1998.

“An Introduction to Praxis Research.” Praxislorschung. 30 Aug. 2003 .

171 Ancona, Paula. "Argue with a Co-worker? You Can Resolve Conflict." Tallahassee Democrat [Tallahassee, Florida] 9 Feb. 1994.

Andrews, Susan, David Brobeck, Gay Fawcett, and Linda Walker. “Principals and Beliefs-Driven Change.” Phi Delta Kappan (Jan 2001): 405-10.

Antonio, Robert. “Social Theory in the Next Century.” Lecture. Forum on “Social Theory ‘After’ Postmodernism: The Next Step?” Florida State University, Department of Sociology. Wakulla Springs, Florida. 22 Feb. 1998.

“Appendix A: Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Research Design 2002. 30 Aug. 2003 .

Applebome, Peter. “Chicago School Decentralization Provides Lessons, but No Verdict.” New York Times 8 Nov. 1995: V145 PA1, PB7.

Armel, Donald. “Achieving Continuous Improvement: Theories That Support a System Change.” Association of Small Computer Users in Education (ASCUE) Summer Conference. Myrtle Beach, SC: June 1997. WebLuis. .

Armenakis, Achilles A., and Arthur G. Bedeian. “Organizational change: a review of theory and research in the 1990s.” Journal of Management; v.25,3,293(2). May-June 1999. Web Luis. 20 July 2003. .

Armour, Leslie. The Concept of Truth. The Netherlands: Koninkijke Van Gorcum and Co., 1969.

Arnheim, Rudolph. Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye. Berkeley: University of California, 1974.

Arnheim, Rudolph. Visual Thinking. Berkeley: University of California, 1969.

Ascher, William. “Forecasting: An Appraisal for Policy-Makers and Planners.” Population Forecasting. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1978.

Ash, Neville. "Facts with FAX." Accountancy (June 1992).

“Assessing the Learning Organization.” AHRD Conference Proceedings. Nebraska, U.S.: Mar 1997. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Auustine, Norman R. “A New Business Agenda for Improving US Schools.” Issues in Science and Technology 13.3 (Spring 1997): 57.

Bacharach, Samuel B. Organizational Behavior in Schools and School Districts. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1981.

172 Baez, Bien, and Mitchel Y. Abolafia. "Bureaucratic Entrepreneurship and Institutional Change: A Sense-Making Approach." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12 (2002): 525-553.

Baile, Jon S. “Gentle Teaching: Trying to Win Friends and Influence People with Euphemism, Metaphor, Smoke, and Mirrors.” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 25.4 (Winter 1992): 879-83. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003 .

Bailey, Kenneth D. Methods of Social Research. New York: The Free Press-Macmillan, Inc., 1994.

Bailey, Leon. Critical Theory and the Sociology of Knowledge: A Comparative Study in the Theory of Ideology. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 1994.

Banathy, B.H. "Systems Design of Education: A Journey to Create the Future." Educational Technology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 1991.

Bann, Stephen. "Roland Barthes the Discourse of History." Comparative Criticism, 3 (1981): 7-20. Mar. 2001 .

Bark, Dennis L., Ed. To Promote U.S. Peace: Foreign Policy in the Mid-1980s. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press-Stanford University.

Barone, Thomas E. “Healing the World, Healing the Curriculum: A review of John Willinksy’s Learning to Divide the World: Education at Empire’s End.” Current Issues in Education. 3.5 (2000). .

Barr, Kellie E.M., et al. "Race, Class, and Gender Differences in Substance Abuse: Evidence of Middle-Class/Underclass Polarization Among Black Males." Social Problems, Vol. 40, No. 3. Berkeley: University of California Press, August, 1993.

Barthes, Roland. "Rhetoric of the Image." Image, Music, Text. Ed. and trans. Stephen Heath. New York: Hill and Wang, 1977. 32-51. Summary by Michael Hancher, Department of English, University of Minnesota. 17 September 1996 .

Barthes, Roland. "The Death of the Author." Image, Music, Text. Ed. and trans. Stephen Heath. New York: Hill and Wang, 1977. 142-49.

Barthes, Roland. "The Photographic Message." Image, Music, Text. Ed. and trans. Stephen Heath. New York: Hill, 1977. 15-31. Summary by Michael Hancher, Department of English, University of Minnesota. 17 September 1996 .

Bartoli, Jill Sunday. “Metaphor, Mind, and Meaning: The Narrative Mind in Action.” Language Arts 62.4 (Apr. 1985): 332-42. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003. .

173 Barton, Len and Stephen Walker, Eds. Social Crisis & Educational Research. London: Croom Helm, 1984

Barty, James, and Morgan Grenfell. "Hope Springs—But Not for the Moment." Accountancy (Jan. 1993).

“Basic Expectations for Graduate Students in Qualitative Research.” Basic Expectations for Qualitative Research. 30 Aug. 2003 .

Baskin, K. Corporate DNA: Learning from Life. Boston: Butterworth Heinemann, 1998.

Baumrind, Diana. "From Ought to Is: A Neo-Marxist Perspective on the Use and Misuse of the Culture Construct." Human Development, 41.3 (May – June 1998): 145, 20.

Becker, Susan K. "New Communication Technology: Helping or Hindering the Message?" Employment Relations Today. Autumn (1991).

Belanger, Ken. "Intelligent Software for Performance Evaluations Can Be Legal Protection." Employment Relations Today. Spring (1991).

Beneria, Lourdes, and Catharine R. Stimpson, eds. Women, Households, and the Economy. Chapter 9. London: Rutgers University Press.

Bennis, Warren. Beyond Bureaucracy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993.

Bennis, Warren and Burt Nanus, “Leadership Now. Leadershop: Building a Community of Leaders.” Abstract and review of Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge January 1997. 29 Mar. 2004 .

Bensman, Joseph, and Robert Lilienfeld. Craft and Consciousness: Occupational Technique and the Development of World Images. New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1991.

Benson, Peter L., and Dorothy L. Williams. Religion on Capitol Hill: Myths and Realities. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1982.

Benson, Thomas W., and Michael K. Prosser. Readings in Classical Rhetoric. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1972.

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. Middlesex, UK: Penguin, 1977.

Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. Social Construction of Reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co, 1966.

Berman, Art. Preface to Modernism. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994.

Berry, Rita S.Y. “Conducting a piece of educational research: Choice of topic, adoption of suitable research methodology, and narrowing down of investigative focus.” Conference of the European Educational Research Association. Ljubljana, Slovenia: 17-

174 20 Sept. 1998. 30 Aug. 2003. .

Bertrand, Olivier. “Assessing and Certifying Occupational Skills and Competencies in Vocational Education and Training.” ERIC Microfiche. 1996. WebLuis. 24 Feb. 2003. .

Bickhard, Mark H. "The Social Ontology of Persons." Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University. Mar 2004 .

Biehler, Robert F., and Jack Snowman. Psychology Applied to Teaching. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1990.

Blair, Lawrence. Rhythms of Vision: The Changing Patterns of Belief. New York: Warner, 1975.

Blankenstein, Alan M. "Lessons from Enlightened Corporations." Educational Leadership.

Blendinger, Jack, and Linda T. Jones. "Create a Healthy School Culture." The School Administrator. April (1988).

Bloor, David, and Paul Kegan. Knowledge and Social Imagery. London and Boston: Routledge, 1976.

Bochner, A. "Embracing Contingencies of Lived Experience in the Study of Close Relationships." Keynote address. International Conference on Personal Relationships. Oxford University. 1990.

Bodgan, Robert, and Steven Taylor. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Bodner, Charles J. The Chart. Miami, FL: Chart Press, 1966.

Bogdan, Robert, and Sari Knopp Biklen. Qualitative Research for Education. Needham Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1992.

Boje, David M. “Chaos and Complexity in Supply Chain Transorganizational Development Networking.” 9 Oct. 1999. 30 Aug. 2003. .

Boje, David M. “Micostoria Analysis.” Qualitative Methods for Management and Communication. 5 Sept. 1999. 30 Aug. 2003. .

Boje, David M. "Narrative Methods for Organizational and Communication Research." Qualitative Methods for Management and Communication Research. 30 Aug. 2003 .

175 Boje, David M. “Storytelling Network Analysis.” Qualitative Methods for Management and Communication. 5 Sept. 1999. 30 Aug. 2003. .

Boje, David M. "Welcome To Module 1: Introduction to Qualitative Methods." Qualitative Methods for Management and Communication Research. 30 Aug. 2003 .

Bold, Mary. “Research on Perspective Focus Groups.” University of North Texas Center for Parent Education. 16 Aug. 2003 .

Bolman, Lee G., and Terrence E. Deal. Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984.

Bolton, Lesley. "Absence Makes the Company Poorer." Accountancy (Jan. 1993).

Bomotti, Sally. “Pondering the Complexities of School Choice.” Phi Delta Kappan (Dec. 1998): 313-16.

Borch, Odd Jarl, et al. “Resource Configuration, Competitive Strategies, and Corporate Entrepreneurship: An Empirical Examination of Small Firms.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 24.1 (Fall 1999): 49. WebLuis. .

Borg, W., J. Gall, and M. Gall. Applying Educational Research. New York: Longman, 1993.

Bostock, Roy. “Putting an Emphasis on Learning.” USA Today Magazine 123 (May 1995): 90.

Bowers, C.A., and David J. Flinders. Responsive Teaching: An Ecological Approach to Classroom Patterns of Language, Culture, and Thought. New York: Teachers College, 1990.

Bowman, James S., and Barbara J. French. "Quality Improvement in a State Agency Revisited."

Bowman, John Robert. “Ethnomethodology and the Process of Theory Construction.” Diss.Florida State University, 1973.

Boyarin, Jonathan. The Ethnography of Reading. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.

Boyett, Joseph H., et al. "What's Wrong with Total Quality Management." Tapping the Network Journal. Spring (1992).

Bracey, Gerald W. "12th Bracey Report." Phi Delta Kappan (Oct. 2002).

176 Bracey, Gerald W. “The 10th Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education.” Phi Delta Kappan (Oct. 2000): 133-44.

Bracey, Gerald W. “The Condition of Public Education.” Phi Delta Kappan (Oct. 2001): 157-69.

Bracey, Gerald W. “The Third Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education.” Phi Delta Kappan (Oct. 1993): 104-11.

Brain, David. "Postmodern Materialism: Material Culture and the Art of Building Communities." Lecture. Forum on Social Theory ‘After’ Postmodernism: The Next Step? Florida State University, Department of Sociology. Wakulla Springs, Florida. February 20-22 Feb. 1998.

Bramald, Rod. “Teaching Probability.” Teaching Statistics. 16.3 (Fall 1994): 85-89. WebLuis. 24 Feb. 2003. .

Brandt, Ron. “No Best Way: The Case for Differentiated Schooling.” Phi Delta Kappan (Oct. 2001): 153 – 56.

Braverman, Harry. Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974.

Brecher, Jeremy. "Global Unemployment Calls for 'Global New Deal.'" Tallahassee Democrat [Tallahassee, Florida] 18 Mar. 1994.

Bredeson, Paul V. “Languages of Leadership: Metaphor Making in Educational Administration.” Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration. ERIC ED 294 296. Pennsylvania U.S. Oct.1987.

Brell, Carl Jr. “Critical Thinking as Transfer: The Reconstructive Integration of Otherwise Discrete Interpretations of Experience.” Educational Theory. 40.1 (Winter 1990): 68. WebLuis. 24 Feb. 2003 .

Brent, Harry, and William Lutz. Rhetorical Considerations: Essays for Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop, 1974.

Bridges, David. “Transferable Skills: A Philosophical Perspective.” Studies in High Education. 18.1 (1993): 43-51. WebLuis. 24 Feb. 2003 .

Bridges, W. Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley, 1991.

Bridges, W. Transitions: Making Sense of Life's Changes. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley, 1980.

Briggs, Xavier de Souza. "Change Theories: Organizing Stakeholders, Building Movement, Setting the Agenda." The Art and Science of Community Problem-Solving

177 Project at Harvard University, June 2003. The Communication Initiative. 26 Oct. 2003 .

Brock, William E. “Education, SCANS Chairman Sees Need for High-Performance Schools.” Vocational Education Journal 67.7 (Oct. 1992): 21-22, 68.

Brokhiser, Richard. The Outside Story: How Democrats and Republicans Re-Elected Reagan. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Co., 1986.

Brown, Gaynor. "A Problem Solved is a System Selected." Accountancy (Apr.1993).

Brown, James Robert. The Rational and the Social. New York: Routledge, 1989.

Brown, Oliver S., and Robert S. Peterkin. “Transforming Public Schools: An Integrated Strategy for Improving Student Academic Performance through Districtwide Resource Equity, Leadership Accountability, and Program Efficiency." Equity & Excellence in Education 32.3 (Dec. 1993): 37-52.

Brown, Richard Harvey. A Poetic for Sociology: Towards a Logic of Discovery for the Human Sciences. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Brown, Richard Harvey. Society as Text: Essays on Rhetoric, Reason, and Reality. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1987.

Brown, W. Steven. 13 Fatal Errors Managers Make and How You Can Avoid Them. New York: Berkley Books, 1985.

Brownstein, Henry. "Surviving as a Qualitative Sociologist: Recollections from the Diary of a State Worker." Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 13, No. 2. New York: Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1990.

Bruner, J. Acts of Meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990.

Bruno-Jofre, Rosa, and Young, Jonathan. “Controversial Issues in Public School Administration: Outline for an Inclusive Institute.” University of Manitoba, Canada. Manitoba, Canada: 1997. WebLuis. .

Bryne, Michelle M. “Evaluating the Findings of Qualitative Research.” AORN Online. 16 Aug. 2003 .

Buch, Kimberly, and Jack Aldridge. "Downsizing Challengers and OD Interventions: A Matching Strategy." Journal of Managerial Psychology.

Burawoy, Michael. Ethnography Unbound. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1991.

Bürger, Peter. The Decline of Modernism. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992.

178 Bürgi, Peter T. “Images of Strategy Working Paper.” Lausanne Switzerland: Imagination Lab, September 20, 2002.

Burke, Sharon Ogden. “Trajectories and Transferability: Building Nursing Knowledge About Chronicity.” Canadian Journal of Nursing Research. 30.4 (Mar. 1999): 243-47. 16 Aug. 2003 .

Burnham, Jack. The Structure of Art. New York: Brazillier, 1971.

Burns, James MacGregor. The Power to Lead. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984.

Burns, R. Introduction to Research Methods. Melbourne: Longmans, 1990.

Burroway, Janet. Writing Fiction. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1987.

Business and School Reform: Accountability for Educational Change. (Transcript).”

Butz, Michael R. Chaos and Complexity: Implications for Psychological Theory and Practice. Washington, D.C.: Taylor and Francis, 1997.

Byrne, John A. “The Horizontal Corporation.” Business Week (December 20, 1993).

Cady, Philip C. “The Eye of the Beholder: Metaphor in Adult Education Research.” International Journal of Lifelong Education 5.2 (Apr.-June 1986): 87-111. Calinescu, Matei. Five Faces of Modernity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1987.

Calvin, William H., and George A. Ojemann. Inside the Brain. New York: New American Library, 1980.

Campbell, Donald T., and Julian C. Stanley. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Co.

Campbell, John L., and Theda Skocpol, eds. American Society and Politics: Institutional, Historical, and Theoretical Perspectives. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.

Campbell, Joseph. The Power of Myth. New York: Doubleday, 1988.

Campbell, Joseph. Transformations of Myth Through Time. New York: Perennial Library, Harper and Row, 1990.

Cantwell, John. “Logics of belief change without linearity.” Journal of Symbolic Logic; v.65,4,1556(18). Dec 2000. Web Luis. 20 July 2003. .

Carnevale, Anthony P., et al. "New Developments in Worker Training: A Legacy for the 1990s." Industrial Relations Research Association Series. Chapters 1 and 9. 1990.

Carnoy, Martin. “The Down Side of Restructuring.” The Education Digest ) May 1991): 3-6.

179 Carr, David K., Kelvin Hard, and William J. Trahant. Managing Change: Opening Organizational Horizons. Arlington, Virginia: Coopers and Lybrand, L.L.P., 1994.

Carroll, Jacquelin H., et al. “Start with a Story: Literature and Learning and Your Classroom.” Language Arts 70.4 (April 1993): 310.

Carroll, Larry, et al. “Consultant Training Workshop for Change Agents. Participant’s Manual." Wyoming, U.S.: 1981. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Cassel, Russell N. “School Accountability Beyond Test Scores - a student centered approach: focus on student not subject matter.” Education.116.4 (date?): 580(6). WebLuis. 10 Sept. 2000. .

Castronovo Fusco, Mary Ann. "Getting the Most from Teamwork." Employment Relations Today. (Summer 1991).

Cavanagh, Tom. Qualitative Research Study Guide. Printed from on 8/30/03.

Chafetz, Jane. "Comments and Observations: ‘After’ Postmodernism, Next Steps?" Lecture. Forum on Social Theory ‘After’ Postmodernism: The Next Step? Florida State University, Department of Sociology. Wakulla Springs, Florida. 20-22 Feb. 1998.

Chamberlain, Daniel Frank. Narrative Perspective in Fiction: A Phenomenological Mediation of Reader, Text, and World. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1990.

Chandler, Daniel. "Semiotics for Beginners." March 2004 .

“Change Theories: Activation Theory of Information Exposure." The Communication Initiative. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 26 Oct 2003 http://www.comminit.com/ctheories/sld-8180.html.

“Change Theories: AIDS Risk Reduction Model (ARRM)" The Communication Initiative. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 26 Oct. 2003 http://www.comminit.com/ctheories/sld-7457.html.

“Change Theories: Buddhist Concept of Communication." The Communication Initiative. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 26 Oct. 2003 http://www.comminit.com/ctheories/sld-3155.html.

“Change Theories: Challenging and Changing Limiting Beliefs." The Communication Initiative. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 26 Oct. 2003 http://www.comminit.com/ctheories/sld-4122.html.

180 “Change Theories: Deconstruction: An Educational Strategy, Reconstructing Criticism in the age of Globalisation." The Communication Initiative. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 26 Oct. 2003 .

“Change Theories: Exchange Theory." The Communication Initiative. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 26 Oct. 2003 .

“Change Theories: Facilitating Community Change." The Communication Initiative. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 26 Oct. 2003 http://www.comminit.com/ctheories/sld-5291.html.

“Change Theories: Family Strengthening Youth Development (FSYD) Theory of Action." The Communication Initiative. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 26 Oct. 2003 http://www.comminit.com/ctheories/sld-7854.html.

“Change Theories: Information-Processing Paradigm." The Communication Initiative. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 26 Oct. 2003 http://www.comminit.com/ctheories/sld-8187.html.

“Change Theories: Locating the Energy for Change: An Introduction to Appreciative Inquiry." The Communication Initiative. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 26 Oct. 2003 http://www.comminit.com/ctheories/sld-6333.html.

“Change Theories: REFLECT." The Communication Initiative. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 26 Oct. 2003 http://www.comminit.com/ctheories/sld-3417.html>.

“Change Theories: Sensation Seeking." The Communication Initiative. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 26 Oct. 2003 http://www.comminit.com/ctheories/sld-8181.html.

“Change Theories: Social-Ecological Approach." The Communication Initiative. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 26 Oct. 2003 http://www.comminit.com/ctheories/sld-8187.html.

“Change Theories: Theory of Planned Behaviour." The Communication Initiative. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 26 Oct. 2003 http://www.comminit.com/ctheories/sld-8185.html.

"Change Theory." The Communication Initiative 15 Aug. 2000 .

“Change Theory: "To Do" Culture vs. "To Be" Culture." The Communication Initiative. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 26 Oct. 2003 http://www.comminit.com/ctheories/sld-7845.html.

“Chapter 13 in R&B.” Qualitative Research 30 Aug. 2003 .

181 “Childbirth Education and Hypnosis. Site Contents.” Leslynotes.com. 26 Feb. 2004 .

Chio, Aaron. "Change Theories: The Logic of the Future: Parallel Thought." The Communication Initiative. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 26 Oct. 2003 http://www.comminit.com/ctheories/sld-7078.html.

Chisholm, Roderick M., and Robert J. Swartz. Empirical Knowledge: Readings from Contemporary Sources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973.

Clandinin, J., and M. Connelly. "Narrative and Story in Practice and Research." The Reflective Turn: Case Studies In and On Educational Practice. Ed. D.A. Schon. New York: Teachers College Press, 1991.

Clark, Burton R. “The Making of an Organizational Saga.” Classics of Organization Theory. Ed. Jay M. Shafritz, and J. Steven Ott. Chicago: The Dorsey Press, 1987.

Clark, David L., and Astuto, Terry A. “Redirecting Reform: Challenges to Popular Assumptions About Teachers and Students.” Phi Delta Kappan (Mar. 1994): 513-20.

Classe, Alison. "Eastern Promise." Accountancy (Feb. 1993).

Classe, Alison. "Massively Parallel Processing." Accountancy (June 1992).

Classe, Alison. "Ties That Bind." Accountancy (Jan. 1993).

Clinchy, Evans. “The Educationally Challenged American School District.” Phi Delta Kappan (Dec. 1998): 272-77.

Clinton, Bill. Transcript. Remarks on signing the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 35.17 (May 3, 1999): 761. 10 Sep. 2000 .

Cobbe, Louise Barrett. “Women’s Income Generation and Informal Learning in Lesotho: A Policy-Related Ethnography.” Diss. Florida State University, 1985.

Cochran-Smith, Marilyn. “The Questions That Drive Reform.” Journal of Teachers Education. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 2000.

Coffey, Elizabeth, and Larry Lashway. "Trends and Issues: School Reform." 16 Aug. 2003 .

Coffman, Stephen L., and Anna L. Eblen. “Metaphor Use and Perceived Managerial Effectiveness.” Journal of Applied Communication Research. 15.1, 2 (Spr-Fall 1987): 53- 66. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003 .

Coghlan, David, and Nicholas S. Rashford. "Uncovering and Dealing with Organizational Distortions." Journal of Managerial Psychology. 5, 3.

182 Cogswell, John. “Analysis of Instructional Systems. Report of a project, new solutions to implementing instructional media through analysis and simulation of school organization.” System Development Corp. Santa Monica, CA: 1966. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Cole, George. "See, Hear, Look, Learn." Accountancy (Feb. 1993).

Coleman, Garry D., and Eileen M. Van Aken. "Applying Small-Group Behavior Dynamics to Improve Action-Team Performance." Employment Relations Today (Autumn 1991).

Coletti, Richard J. "What It Takes To Succeed." Florida Trend 35.12 (April, 1993): 24- 28.

Collins, Jim. Good to Great. New York: Harper Business, 2001.

Collins, Susie, and Otto Collins. “Fight, Flight, or Freeze.” Innerself 26 Feb. 2004 .

Comer, J.P. "Educating Poor Minority Children." Scientific American 259.5 (November, 1988): 42-48.

"Comments on the National Education Goals proposed by the National Governors Association, Congress, and the White House." Vocational Education Journal, 67.7 (October 1992): 28-30.

"Comments on U.S. Department of Labor's Workforce 2000." Vocational Education Journal, 67.7 (October 1992): 28-30.

Connelly, F.M. and D.J. Clandinin. "On Narrative Method, Personal Philosophy and Narrative Unities in the Story of Teaching." Journal of Research In Science Teaching 23.4 (1986):293-310.

Connelly, F.M., and D.J. Clandinin. "Stories of Experience and Narrative Inquiry." Educational Researcher 19.5 (1990): 2-14.

Conway, James A., and Frank Calzi. "The Dark Side of Decision-Making." Educational Leadership (December 1995/January 1996).

Cooley, Ralph, and Ramona Ballenger. "Cultural Retention Programs and Their Impact on Native American Indians." Language Renewal Among Native American Indian Tribes. Ed. R. St. Clair and William Leap. Rossyln, VI: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 1981.

Cooley, Ralph E. "Language Attitudes in the U.S.: The impact on Native Americans." Language and the Politics of Accommodation. Ed. R. St. Clair and Moshe Nahir. New York: Human Sciences, 1981.

183 Cope, Nigel. "Boom Amid the Gloom." Accountancy (Jan. 1993).

Coral, Lynda. "Planning for the Pregnant Pause." Accountancy (Feb. 1993).

Corbin, Juliet, and Anselm Strauss. "Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria." Qualitative Sociology 13.1 (Spring 1990).

Corbitt, Terry. "The Computing Iceberg." Accountancy (June 1993).

“Cornerstone: Foundations for Economic Leadership." SRI International. Tallahassee, Florida: The Florida Chamber of Commerce. April, 1989.

Cornford, Francis M. Principium Sapientiae: The Origins of Greek Philosophical Thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1952.

Council of Chief State School Officers. "Connecting School and Employment." 1991.

Covin, Jeffery G., and Morgan P. Miles. “Corporate Entrepreneurship and the Pursuit of Competitive Advantage.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 23.3 (Spring 1999): 47. WebLuis. .

Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1994.

Creswell, J.W. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1998.

Crew, Rudolph F. “Creating a Performance-Driven System.” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review. 4.1 (March 1998): 7.

“Criteria for Assessing Naturalistic Inquiries as Reports.” Paper. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. 5 April 1988.

“Criteria for Soundness of Qualitative Research .” Qualitative Research in Education. 30 Aug. 2003 .

Croft, Chris. “The Design of Organizations.” Introduction. Chris Croft’s Home Page. 1 Sep. 2003 .

Crossan, Mary M., et al. “An Organizational Learning Framework: from Intuition to Institution.” Academy of Management Review 24.3 (July 1999): 522. WebLuis. .

Cuseo, Joseph B. “The Transfer Transition: A Summary of Key Issues, Target Areas and Tactics for Reform.” ERIC Microfiche. 1998. WebLuis. 24 Feb. 2003. .

Cutright, Marc. “Can Chaos Theory Improve Planning?” Planning for Higher Education 25.2 (Winter 1996-1997): 18-22. WebLuis. .

184 Czarniawska, Barbara. “Metaphors and the Cultural Context of Organizing.” Gothenburg Research Institute, School of Economics and Commercial Law. Handelshögskolan: Göteborg University, 2001.

Dacin, M. Tina, Jerry Goodstein, and W. Richard Scott. “Institutional Theory and Institutional Change: Introduction to the Special Research Forum.” Academy of Management Journal. 45.1 (Feb. 2002): 45. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Daley, Dennis. M. "Pay for Performance, Performance Appraisal, and Total Quality Management." Performance and Total Quality Management.

Dana, Nancy Fichtman. “Discovering Researcher Subjectivities, Perceptions, and Biases: A Critical Examination of Myths, Metaphors, and Meaning Inherent in University-School Collaborative Action Research Paper.” ERIC Microfiche. Nov. 1992. WebLuis. 10 Mar. 2003 .

Darrah, Charles N. "Workplace Training, Workplace Learning: A Case Study." Human Organization (1995) 54: 31-41.

David, Jane L. “School-Based Decision Making: Kentucky’s Test of Decentralization.” Phi Delta Kappan (May 1994): 706-12.

David, Jane L. “School-Based Decision Making; Kentucky’s Test of Decentralization.” Phi Delta Kappan 75.9 (May 1994): 706-07.

David, Jane L. "The Who, What, and Why of Site-Based Management." Educational Leadership (Dec. 1995): 4.

David, Miriam E. “Approaches to Organizational Change.” Educational Administration Bulletin. 1.1 (Spring 1972): 24-29. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Davis, Mike. City of Quartz. New York: Vintage Books, 1992.

Davis, Robert Con. “The Case for a Post-Structuralist Mimesis: John Barth and Imitation.” American Journal of Semiotics 3.3 (1985): 49-72.

Davis, Walter A. The Act of Interpretation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1978.

Dawes, Sharon S. “Government and Technology: User, Not Regulator. (Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12.4 (Oct. 2002): 627. WebLuis. .

Dawson, Patrick. “Reshaping Change: A Processual Prospective.” Understanding Organizational Change. New York: Routledge, 2003. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

185 Day, Christopher E. "The Life and Work of Teachers: International Perspectives in Changing Times". ERIC ED 436 483. New York, U.S. 2000. .

De Ciantis, Cheryl. “Using an Art Technique to Facilitate Leadership Development.” ERIC Microfiche. 1995. WebLuis. 24 Feb. 2003. .

De Guerreo, Maria C.M., and Olga S. Villamil. “Exploring ESL Teachers’ Roles through Metaphor Analysis.” TESOL Quarterly 34.2 (Summer 2000): 341-51. WebLuis. 10 Mar. 2003 .

Deal, Terrence E. and Kent D. Peterson. The Principal's Role in Shaping School Culture.Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Programs for the Improvement of Practice, 1990.

Deal, Terrence E. and Victor J. Baldridge. An Organizational View of Educational Innovation. Research and Development Memorandum No. 126. Stanford University, CA: Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching, 1974.

Deazin, Robert, Mary Ann Glynn, and Robert K. Kazanjian. “Multilevel Theorizing about Creativity in Organizations: a Sense-Making Perspective.” Academy of Management Review 24.2 (Apr. 1999): 286. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

DeLamarter, Richard Thomas. Big Blue: IBM’s Use and Abuse of Power. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1986.

Demerath, Nicholas J. System, Change, and Conflict: A Reader on Contemporary Sociological Theory and the Debate Over Functionalism. New York: Free Press, 1967.

Deming, Donald D. Company Organization for Packaging Efficiency. New York: Foundation for Management Research, 1962.

Deming, Robert Herschel. Characteristics of an Effective Management Control System in an Industrial Organization. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1968.

Denison, D., R. Hooijberg, and R.E. Quinn. "Paradox and Performance: Toward a Theory of Behavioral Complexity in Managerial Leadership." Organization Science (1995): 524- 40.

Denzin, N., and Yvonna Lincoln, eds. "Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research." Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1994.

Detweiler, Robert. Story, Sign, and Self: Phenomenology and Structuralism as Literary Critical Methods. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978.

Deutsch, Eliot. On Truth: An Ontological Theory. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii, 1979.

186 Diaz, David P. Whole Health CD/Web Hybrid. 2004. 19 Feb. 2004 .

Dick B. (2000). A Beginner’s Guide to Action Research. [online}. Available at .

Dick, Bob. "A Beginner's Guide to Action Research." An Introduction to Action Research. 30 Aug. 2003. .

Dickens, David R., Frederick W. Preston, and Geremia Veglia. "Transformations in the Workplace: the Case of Diesel Mechanics." Pages 27-32.

Dickmeyer, Nathan. “Metaphor, Model, and Theory in Education Research.” Teachers College. 91.2 (Winter 1989): 151-60. WebLuis. 10 Mar. 2003 .

DiMaggio, P. “Culture and Economy” Handbook of Economic Sociology. Ed. R. Swedberg. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.

Dinatale, John J. Review of "School Improvement and Restructuring: Threefold Approach." NASSP Bulletin 78.564 (Oct. 1994): 79.

DiSessa, Andrea A., and Bruce L. Sherin.“What Changes in Conceptual Change?” International Journal of Science Education 20.10 (Dec. 1998): 1155-91. WebLuis. .

Donahue, Phil. The Human Animal. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985.

Dondis, A. A Primer of Visual Literacy. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1973.

Dooley, Kevin. Complex Adaptive Systems: A Nominal Definition. 26 Oct. 1996. 30 Aug. 2003. .

Douglas, J. Yellowlees. "Social Impacts: The Framing of Hypertext—Revolutionary for Whom?" Center for Research into Innovation, Culture and Technology, Brunel. University of West London, 2004.

Douglas, Jack D. Understanding Everyday Life. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1970.

Dourish, Paul., and Graham Button. “On ‘Technomethodology’; Foundational Relationships Between Ethnomethodology and System Design.” Human Computer Interaction 13 (1998): 1 – 28.

Duffy, Gerald G. “Professional Development Schools and the Disempowerment of Teachers and Professors.” Phi Delta Kappan 75.8 (Apr. 1994): 596-600. WebLuis. 30 Aug. 2003. .

187 Duncan, W. Jack, and Joseph G. Van Matre. “The Gospel According to Deming: Is It Really New?” Business Horizons (July-August 1990).

Dwyer, Francis M. Strategies for Improving Visual Learning. State College, PA: Learning Services, 1978.

"E. Metaphors." University of Alabama, Education. Educational Leadership & School Restructuring AEL 602. 16 Aug. 2003 .

Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.

Easton, Peter A. "Structuring Learning Environments: Lessons from the Organization of Post-Literacy Programs." UNESCO Institute for Educational and Kluwer Academic Publishers. International Review of Education 35 (1989): 423-44.

Easton, Peter A. "Sharpening Our Tools: Improving Evaluation in Adult and Nonformal Education." UIE Studies 4. A joint publication of the UNESCO Institute for Education and the German Foundation for International Development. Hamburg, Germany: Robert Seeman, 1997.

Edelman, Murray. Politics as Symbolic Action: Mass Arousal and Quiescence. New York: Academic Press, 1971.

Education Digest 57.1 (Sept. 1991): 23.

Education Journal October 2001.

Educational Leadership, Mar. 1999.

“Educational Research Methodology.” Doctoral Research Design Course. 16 Aug. 2003 .

Edwards, Charlotte. Writing from the Inside Out. Cincinnati: Writer's Digest Books, 1984.

Edwards, Richard. “Changing Places? Flexibility, Lifelong Learning and a Learning Society.” New York, U.S.: 1997. WebLuis. .

Edwards, Richard. Contested Terrain. New York: Basic Books, 1979.

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. “Stanford Computer Industry Project Organization and Strategy.” SCIP-Organization & Strategy. 7 Mar. 2004 .

Eisenhart, Kathleen M. “Paradox, Spirals, Ambivalence: The New Language of Change and Pluralism.” Academy of Management Review 25 (2000): 703+.

188 Eisner, Elliot W. "Forms of Understanding and the Future of Educational Research." Educational Researcher. 22.7: 5-7.

Eisner, Elliot W. The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1991.

Eisner, Elliot W. “What Does It Mean to Say a School Is Doing Well?” Phi Delta Kappan (Jan. 2001): 367 – 72.

Elam, Stanley M, Lowell C. Rose, and Alec M. Gallup. “The 25th Annual Phi Delta Kappan/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools.” Phi Delta Kappan (Oct. 2001): 137-52.

Elford, I. Chris. “Performance Indicators in Postsecondary Education in Alberta: An Analysis.” AIR 1996 Annual Forum Paper. Alberta, Canada: May 1996. WebLuis. 10 Mar. 2003 .

Elgin, Suzette Haden. "Metaphor in Mediation: Mediation Is a What?" Internet.

Elmer, Vickie. "Workers, Take Note: Change Equals Survival in Today's Competitive Workplace." Tallahassee Democrat [Tallahassee, Florida] 31 Mar. 1994.

Ely, Donald P. “New Perspectives on the Implementation of Educational Technology Innovations.” New York, U.S.: 1999. WebLuis.11 Mar. 2003 .

Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 16 Aug 2003 .

End, Laurel J. “Unearthing Grounds: Some Studies of Metaphor Comprehension.” ERIC Microfiche. May 1984. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003. .

Enright, D. J. Fields of Vision: Literature, Language, and Television. Oxford, UK: Oxford University, 1990.

Epstein, Edward Jay. Between Fact and Fiction: The Problem of Journalism. New York: Vintage-Random House, 1975.

Erdem, Ferda, and Cigdem Satir. “Analysis of Organization Culture Through Metaphors in Different Organizations.” Metaphor and Metonomy Abstract. 16 Aug. 2003

ERIC ED 429-178.

ERIC ED 437-423.

“Ethics: The Failure of Positivist Science." Paper. Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Washington, DC. 20 Apr. 1987).

Fawcett, Gay, David Brobeck, Susan Andrews, and Linda Walker. “Principals and Beliefs-Driven Change.” Phi Delta Kappan. (Jan. 2001): 405 – 10.

189 Fetler, Mark E. “Carrot or Stick? How Do School Performance Reports Work?” Education Policy Analysis Archives 7.13 (October 7, 1994).

Fiedler, Tom. "What Unions Gave Us We Now Take for Granted." Tallahassee Democrat [Tallahassee, Florida] 2 Mar. 1994

“Fight or Flight.” ESE 502 Behavioral Management in Special Education. 26 Feb. 2004 .

“Fight or Flight: The Evolution of Stress.” Stressstop.com Catalog. 26 Feb. 2004 .

Finegan-Stoll, Colleen. “Using Metaphors in Education.” Wright State University. 16 Aug. 2003 .

Flores, Vicente Quezada. "Change Theories: Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire – An Analysis." The Communication Initiative. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 26 Oct. 2003 http://www.comminit.com/ctheories/sld-7077.html.

Florida. Commission on Education Reform and Accountability. Annual Report and Recommendations. Tallahassee: State of Florida, 1997.

Florida. Department of Education. A review of the Implementation of Blue Print 2000: A Mid-Year Review, 1993-1994. Oct. Report No. 94-08, Tallahassee: State of Florida, 1994.

Florida Department of Education. Supplementary Report on the Implementation and Impact of Blue Print 2000 in Five Districts and Nineteen Schools Evaluated. April Report No. 95-54 Tallahassee: State of Florida, 1996.

Florida. Department of Education. The Implementation and Impact of Blue Print 2000 Administered by the Department of Education. April Report No. 95-53, Tallahassee: State of Florida, 1996.

Florida. Department of Labor and Employment Security. Florida Workforce 2000. Tallahassee, FL: State of Florida, 1992.

Florida. Governor's State Job Training Coordinating Council. Preparing for the 21st Century: Foundations for an Integrated Human Investment System. Report for the 1991 Florida Legislature. Tallahassee, FL: State of Florida, 1991.

Fones-Wolf, Elizabeth. “Business Propaganda in the Schools: Labor’s Struggle Against the Americans for the Competitive Enterprise System, 1949-1954.” History of Education Quarterly 40.3 (Fall 2000): 255-78.

Ford, Daniel. Meltdown. New York: Touchstone-Simon and Schuster, 1986.

190 Ford, J. D., and R.W. Backoff. "Organizational Change In and Out of Dualities and Paradox." Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1988.

Foster, Hal. The Anti-Aesthetic. Seattle, WA: Bay Press, 1983.

“Four Philosophy Alternatives to Semiotics in QM.” Philosophy Alternatives to Semiotics. 30 Aug. 2003 .

Fox, William M. “Changing Human Behavior and Institutions Toward 21st Century Paradigms – a Theoretical Construct.” A Review of General Semantics. 56.2 (Summer 1999): 147. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Frankel, Charles, et al. Social Theory and Social Invention. Cleveland: Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1968.

Fraser, Wilma. “Learning from Experience: Empowerment or Incorporation?” England, U.K.: 1995. WebLuis. 24 Feb. 2003 .

Freadman, Richard, and Lloyd Reinhardt, eds. On Literary Theory and Philosophy. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991.

Freedman, Lauren. “Six Beliefs: Literature in the Middle.” English Journal 83.7 (Nov. 1994): 95.

Freeman, R. Edward. “Divergent Stakeholder Theory.” Academy of Management Review 24.2 (Apr. 1999): 233. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Fried, Robert L. “Parent Anxiety and School Reform: When Interests Collide, Whose Needs Come First?” Phi Delta Kappan (Dec. 1998): 288-96.

Friedman, Andrew L., and Samantha Miles. “Developing Stakeholder Theory.” Journal of Management Studies 39.1 (Jan. 2002): 1. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Friedman, Robyn A. “Laboratory Schools.” South Florida Parenting Online. 18 Jan. 2004 .

Frisby, David. The Alienated Mind: The Sociology of Knowledge in Germany 1918 - 33. New York: Humanities Press, 1993.

“From Literature, the Inspiration to Give Up Lives of Crime.” New York Times 6 Oct. 1993: B8 (N), B10 (L), col. 2.

Fruchter, Norm. “Rethinking School Reform.” Social Policy 20.1 (Summer 1989): 16.

191 Fuhrman, Susan H., and Richard F. Elmore. “Ruling Out Rules: The Evolution of Deregulation in State Education Policy.” Teachers College Record 97.2 (Winter 1995): 279-309.

Fullan, M. Change Forces: The Sequel. New York: Falmer Press, 1999.

Fullan, M.G. The New Meaning of Educational Change 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press, 1991.

Fullan, M.G., and M.B. Miles. "Getting Reform Right: What Works and What Doesn't." Phi Delta Kappan 73.10(1992): 745-52.

Fusco, Mary Ann Castronovo. “Getting the Most from Teamwork.” Employment Relations Today, (Summer 1991).

Gaarder, Jostein. Sophie’s World. New York: Berkley Books, 1996.

Galagan, Patricia A. “The Learning Organization Made Plain.” Training and Development, (Oct. 1991).

Galvin, Tiffany L. “Examining Institutional Change: Evidence from the Founding Dynamics of U.S. Health Care Interest Associations.” Academy of Management Journal 45.4 (August 2002): 673-96. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Garcia, Reloy, and Lloyd Hubenka. The Narrative Sensibility: An Introduction to Fiction. New York: David McKay Co., 1976.

Gardels, Nathan. “Beyond Capitalism. (Interview with management expert and author Peter Drucker).” New Perspectives Quarterly. 15.2 (Spring 1998): 4. WebLuis. 24 Feb. 2003 .

Gare, Arran. "Narratives and the Ethics and Politics of Environmentalism: The Transformative Power of Stories." Theory and Science (2001). Produced by ICAAP. .

Garfinkel, Harold, ed. Ethnomethodological Studies of Work. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986.

Garfinkel, Harold. Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Ed. Anne Warfield Rawls. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2002.

Gash, Nicholas. "Money for Old Computers." Accountancy (Apr. 1993).

Gasser, Linda. "Designing Internal Communications Strategies: A Critical Organizational Need." Employment Relations Today (Winter 1989/90).

Gebauer, Gunter, and Christoph Wulf. Mimesis: Culture, Art, Society. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1992.

192 Geddes, Deanna. “Lecture 8: Metaphors and How They Frame (and Explain) What We See.” The Fox School of Business and Mangement, Temple University. 16 Aug. 2003 .

Gemmill, Gary, and Judith Oakley. "Leadership: An Alienating Social Myth?" Human Relations 45.2 (1992).

Gentner, Dedre. “Evidence for a Structure-Mapping Theory of Analogy and Metaphor.” ERIC Microfiche. Dec. 1986. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003. .

Gephart, Robert. “Paradigms and Research Methods.” Research Methods Forum. 4 (Summer 1999). 30 Aug. 2003 .

Geraci, Bill. “Local Decision Making: A Report from the Trenches.” Educational Leadership (Dec 1995/Jan 1996): 50-52.

Gibaldi, Joseph. MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers: Sixth Edition. New York: The Modern Language Association, 2003.

Giddens, Anthony, and Jonathan H. Turner, eds. Social Theory Today. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987.

Gill, Peggy B. "Narrative Inquiry: Designing the Process, Pathways and Patterns of Change." Systems Research and Behavioral Science 18 (2001): 335+.

Gilley and Eggland. Principles of Human Resource Development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1989.

Gittins, Robert. "Qualitative Research: An Investigation Into Methods and Concepts in Qualitative Research." University of Wales Bangor, School of Informatics. Fall 2003 .

Glazer, Myron. The Research Adventure: Promise and Problems of Field Work. New York: Random House, 1972.

Glickman, Carl D. “Dichotomizing Education: Why No One Wins and America Loses.” Phi Delta Kappan( Oct. 2001): 147 – 52.

Goetz, Judith, and Margaret LeCompte. "Ethnographic Research and the Problem of Data Reduction." Anthropology and Education Quarterly 12 (1981): 51-70.

Goffman, Erving. Asylums. Garden City, New York: Anchor-Doubleday and Company, 1961.

Gold, Barry Allen. “Punctuated legitimacy: a theory of educational change.” Teachers College Record; v.101, 2, 192(2). Winter 1999. Web Luis. 20 July 2003. .

193 Goldenberg, Sheldon. Thinking Methodologically. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1992.

Goldschmidt, Walter. Comparative Functionalism. Berkely and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996.

Goleman, Daniel. Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books, 1997.

Gombrich, E.H. Ideals and Idols: Essays on Values in History and in Art. Oxford, UK: Phaidon, 1979.

Gombrich, E.H. Meditations on a Hobby Horse and Other Essays on the Theory of Art. London, UK: Phaidon, 1963.

Goodin, M. Elspeth. “The Transferability of Library Research Skills from High School to College.” School Library Media Quarterly 20.1 (Fall 1991): 33-41. WebLuis. 24 Feb. 2003 .

Goodman, Nelson. Languages of Art. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1976.

Goodnow, Jacqueline J. “Change within Limits. Commentary.” Human Development 40.2 (Mar.-Apr. 1997): 91-95. WebLuis. .

Gordon, Dianna. “Florida school board gets some PR help.” State Legislatures 24.7 (July- Aug. 1998): 41. 10 Sep. 2000 .

Gotshalk, D.W. The Structure of Awareness. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1969.

Gottfried, Paul, and Thomas Fleming. The Conservative Movement. Boston, MA: Twayne Publishers-G. K. Hall and Co, 1988.

Gouldner, Alvin. Anti-Minotaur: The Myth of a Value-Free Sociology. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe- MacMillan Co.

Graham, Robert J. “Voice, Archive, Practice: The Textual Construction of Professional Identity.” Journal of Educational Thought/Revue de la Pensee Educative 27.2 (Aug. 1993): 186-99. WebLuis. 24 Feb. 2003. .

Gras, Vernon W. European Literary Theory and Practice: From Existential Phenomenology to Structuralism. New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1973.

Green, Thomas F. “Competency-Based Education Viewed from ‘The System’.” ERIC ED160732. New York, U.S.

Greenhalgh, Trisha. "Keep Away from the Edge." Accountancy (Feb. 1993).

194 Grim, Patrick. The Incomplete Universe: Totality, Knowledge, and Truth. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1991.

Grimmett, Peter P. “Toward a Practice of Scholarship: Beyond the Private Cold War.” Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 5.3 (Spring 1990): 225-59. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003. .

Grindal, Bruce T. "The Spirit of Humanistic Anthropology." Anthropology and Humanism, 18.2 (1993):46-47.

Grindal, Bruce T., and Rhodes, Robin. “Journalism and Anthropology Share Several Similarities.” Journalism Educator, 41.4 (Winter 1987): 4, 11-13, 33.

Groden, Michael, and Martin Kreiswirth, eds. "Barthes, Roland." The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997. March 2003 http://www.press.jhu.edu/books/hopkins_guide_to_literary_thoery/roland_rarthes.html.

Grugeon, Elizabeth, and Peter Walden, eds. Literature and Learning. London: Ward Lock Educational in Association with Open University Press, 1978.

Guba, Egon G., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. "Epistemological and Methodological Bases of Naturalistic Inquiry." Educational Communication and Technology 30 (1982): 233-52.

Guba, Egon G., and Yvonna S. Lincoln, Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1985.

Guskey, Thomas R., and Kent D. Peterson. "The Road to Classroom Change." Educational Leadership (Dec. 1995/Jan. 1996).

Haig, Mavis. Co-ordinating Writer, Science in the New Zealand Curriculum. "The Many Faces of Case Study Research as Illustrated Through Case Studies of Investigative Practical Work in Year 12 Biology Programmes." Auckland College of Education. 30 Aug. 2003 .

Hajdukiewicz, John R., and Kim J. Vicente. “Designing for Adaptation to Novelty and Change: Functional Information, Emergent Feature Graphics, and Higher-Level Control.” Human Factors v.44, 4, 592(19). (Winter 2002). WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Hall, Paul T. and Josephine Bonan. “Site-Based Management: Decentralization and Accountability.” Education Digest 57.1 (Sept. 1991): 23.

Hall, William. “Competency-Based Training and Assessment. Review of Research 1.” ERIC Microfiche. 1994. WebLuis. 24 Feb. 2003 .

Handel, Michael J. The Sociology of Organizations: Classic, Contemporary, and Critical Readings. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications,2002.

195 Hannaway, Jane, and Martin Carnoy, eds. Decentralization and School Improvement: Can We Fulfill the Promise? San Fancisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.

Hannaway, Jane. “Political Pressure and Decentralization in Institutional Organizations: The Case of School Districts.” Sociology of Education 66.3 (July 1993) 147.

Hanrahan, Mary. "Challenging the Dualistic Assumptions of Academic Writing: Representing Ph.D. Research As Embodied Practice.” Forum for Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research Online Journal. 4.2. March 2004 .

Hansen, Jette G. “Interactional Conflicts Among Audience, Purpose, and Content Knowledge in the Acquisition of Academic Literacy in an EAP Course.”

Hanson, Norwood. Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge, England: University Press, 1958.

Hargreaves, Andy. "Beyond Anxiety and Nostalgia: Building a Social Movement for Educational Change." Phi Delta Kappan (Jan. 2001): 373-77.

Harrington, Austin. “From Hegel to the Sociology of Knowledge: Contested Narratives.” Theory, Culture, & Society 18.6 (Dec. 2001): 125. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Harris, D. “The Textual Metaphor In Barthes' 'New Semiology.'” A Society of Sign? London: Routledge, 1996. Mar. 2004 .

Harris, Louis. The Anguish of Change. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1973.

Harris, Sandra. Review of "Decentralization: The Administrators Guidebook to School District Change." NASSP Bulletin (May 1995): 129.

Hart, Kenneth E. "Introducing Stress and Stress Management to Managers." Journal of Managerial Psychology. 5, 2.

Hartman, Joan E., and Ellen Messer-Davidow. (En)gendering Knowledge: Feminists in Academe. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1991.

Hatch, “Qualitative Research in Adult, Career, and Career-Technical Education, Introduction: What is Qualitative Research?” ERIC 1985. Sep. 2003 .

Hatch, M.J., and S.B. Ehrlich. "Spontaneous Humour as an Indicator of Paradox and Ambiguity in Organizations." Organization Studies 14 (1993): 505-26.

Hatcher, Evelyn. Visual Metaphor: A Formal Analysis of Navajo Art. St. Paul, MN: West, 1974.

196 Hausfather, Sam. “Laboratory Schools to Professional-Development Schools: The Fall and Rise of Field Experiences in Teacher Education.” The Educational Forum. 65.1 (Fall 2000): 31-39.

Hawkinshire, Frank B., and William A. Ligget. "Lewin's Paradigm of Planned Change: Theory and Application." Advances in Field Theory. Newbury Park: Sage, 1990.

Hayes, John, and Christopher W. Allison. “Cognitive Style and the Theory of Practice of Individual and Collective Learning in Organizations.” Human Relations 51.7 (July 1998): 847. WebLuis. .

Hayles, Katherine. Chaos Bound: Orderly Disorder in Contemporary Literature and Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Hazelrigg, Lawrence. Social Science and the Challenge of Relativism, Volume 1: A Wilderness of Mirrors—On Practices of Theory in a Gray Age. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University Press, 1989.

Hazelrigg, Lawrence. Social Science and the Challenge of Relativism, Volume 2: Claims of Knowledge—On the Labor of Making Found Worlds. Tallahassee, FL: University Press of Florida, 1989.

Hazelrigg, Lawrence. Social Science and the Challenge of Relativism, Volume 3: Cultures of Nature. Tallahassee, FL: University Press of Florida, 1995.

Healy, Marilyn, and Chad Perry. "Comprehensive Criteria to Judge Validity and Reliability of Qualitative Research Within the Realism Paradigm." Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal. 3.3 (2000): 118-126.

Heath, Chip. “Goals as reference points.” Cognitive Psychology; v.38,1,79(3). Feb 1999. Web Luis. 20 July 2003. .

Hein, Karl Friedrich. The Phenomenological Structure of Fictional Worlds. 1972.

Heitt, Michael. “Managing Stress.” John Hopkins University. 19 Feb. 2004 .

Heller, Scott. “Scholars Defend Their Efforts to Promote Literature by Women and Blacks, Decry Attack by Bennett.” Chronicle of Higher Education 17 Feb. 1988: A1 (2).

Herbert, Elsie, and Dale Thorn. Review of "Accreditation as a Tool of Accountability and Incentive." Journalism Educator 47. 4 (Winter 1993): 55.

Herman, Nancy J., and Charlene E. Miall. "The Positive Consequences of Stigma: Two Case Studies in Mental and Physical Disability." Qualitative Sociology 13.3 (1990).

197 Herndl, Carl G., and Cynthia A. Nahrwold. “Research as social practice: a case study of research on technical and professional communication.” Written Communication; v.17,2,258(39). April 2000. Web Luis. 20 July 2003. .

Herrington, Carolyn D., and Michael C. Biance. “Accountability and School Choice: Florida Chooses Vouchers.” Florida State University: Learning Systems Institute, April 2000.

Hess, Laura. “Fight, Flight or Flow?” Fight Flight. 26 Feb. 2004 .

Hewitt, Regina. “Towards a Wordsworthian Phenomenology of Reading: ‘The Childless Father’ and ‘Poor Susan’ as Paradigms.” Essays in Literature 16.2 (Fall, 1989): 188.

Hewson, Mariana G. A’B,. and Daryl Hamlyn. “Cutural Metaphors: Some Implications for Science Education.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly. 16.1 (Spr 1985): 31-46. WebLuis. 10 Mar. 2003 .

Heyneman, Stephen P. "American Education: A View from Outside." International Journal of Leadership. 2.1 (Jan.-Mar. 1999): 31-41.

Hick, Virginia Baldwin. "Employers Emphasizing How Bad That New Job Will Be." Tallahassee Democrat [Tallahassee, Florida]. 23 Feb. 1994.

Higbee, Kenneth L. Your Memory. New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1988.

Hildebrand, Scott. "Writing and Designing Campaign Literature: How to Reach the Four Voter Groups." Campaigns and Elections 17.5 (May 1996): 38.

Hiles, David. “Paradigms Lost – Paradigms Regained.” Summary of the paper presented to the 18th International Human Science Research Conference. Sheffield, U.K.: Jul 1999. 30 Aug. 2003 .

Hill, Paul T. “Site-Based Management: Decentralization and Accountability.” Education Digest. (Sept. 1991): 23.

Hipps, Jerome A. “Trustworthiness and Authenticity: Alternate Ways to Judge Authentic Assessments.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. California, U.S.: Atlanta, GA, 12 Apr. 1993. WebLuis. 24 Feb. 2003 .

Hitt, Michael A., et al. “Corporate Entrepreneurship and Cross-Functional Fertilization: Activation, Process, and Disintegration of a New Product Design Team.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. 23.3 (Spring 1999): 145. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

198 Hoepfl, Marie C. “Choosing Qualitative Research: A Primer for Technology Education Researchers.” Journal of Technology Education. 9.1 (Fall 1997): 30. Digital Library and Archives. 30 Aug. 2003 .

Hoerr, Thomas R. “A Case for Merit Pay.” Phi Delta Kappan (Dec. 1998): 326-327.

Hold, Maurice. "Deming on Education: A View from the Seminar." Phi Delta Kappan (December 1993).

Holpp, Lawrence. "Technical Training for Nontechnical Learners." Training and Development Journal (October 1987): 54-57.

Horowitz, Irving Louis. Philosophy, Science, and the Sociology of Knowledge. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher,1961.

Horowitz, I. L. The Decomposition of Sociology. 1993.

Hossam, Ihab. Paracriticisms. “POSTmodernISM: A Paracritical Bibliography.” (1975).

Howe, Kenneth., Margaret Eisenhart, and Damian Betebenner. “School Choice Crucible: A Case Study of Boulder Valley.” Phi Delta Kappan. (October 2001): 137 – 46.

Hudelson, Dale. "Roots of Reform." Vocational Education Journal. 67.7 (October 1992) 28-30.

Hudson, Christopher. "From Social Darwinism to Self-Organization: Implications for Social Change Theory." Social Services Review 74 (2000): 553+.

Hull, G. "Research with Words: Qualitative Inquiry." Focus On Basics 1, no. A. Boston, MA: National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy, 1997.

Hultman, Glenn and Klasson, Alger. “Paradoxes, Mini-Worlds and Learning Processes: The dynamics of Change in Small Companies.” Studies in Continuing Education. 20.1 (May 1998): 51-69. WebLuis. 10 Mar. 2003 .

Hummel, Steve. “Fight, Flight—or Tie a Knot & Swing.” Stress Management 26 Feb. 2004 .

Humphries, Elspeth, and Beres Senden. “Leadership and change: A dialogue of theory and practice.” Australian Journal of Early Childhood; v.25, 1, 26. March 2000. Web Luis. 20 July 2003. .

Hutcheon, Linda. The Politics of Postmodernism. New York: Routledge, 1989.

Huy, Quy Nguyen. “Emotional Capability, Emotional Intelligence, and Radical Change (special topic forum on multilevel theory building).” Academy of Management Review. 24.2 (Apr 1999): 325. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

199 Hyde, Albert C., ed. "Implications of Total Quality Management for the Public Sector." Public Productivity and Management Review 16.1 (Fall 1992).

Hyland, Terry. “Vocational Studies, Lifelong Learning and Social Values: Investigating Education, Training and NVQs Under the New Deal.” ERICMicrofiche. 1999. WebLuis. 10 Mar. 2003 .

Iacocca, Lee, with William Novak. Iacocca. New York: Bantam Books, 1984.

“Ideology Not Art’s Only Role.” Beijing Review 35.34 (August 24, 1992): 7, 2.

Ilg, Timothy J. "Building-Based Budgeting and Decentralization: A 20 Year Perspective." ERIC ED 435-401.Ohio, U.S., 18 Mar. 1999.

“Images of Organization and Development of Information Society: Going Into Metaphors." 16 Aug. 2003 http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/SEED/Vol1- 2/MesjSEED.htm.

“Images of Organization Book Summary.” Edgeware Filing Cabinet. 16 Aug. 2003 .

Imel, Susan, Sandra Kerka, and Michael Wonacott. "Introduction: What Is Qualitative Research?" Qualitative Research in Adult, Career, and Career-Technical Education. ERIC Practitioner File, 2002. 30 Aug. 2003 .

Imershein, Allen W. Comments on Constructing School Organization Through Metaphor: Making Sense of School Reform. Diss. by Nolia C. Brandt, Florida State University. Summer 2004.

Imershein, Allen W. The Epistemological Bases (or Basis?) of Social Order: Toward Ethnoparadigm Analysis. in Sociological Methodology. Ed. David R. Heise. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1977.

Imeson, Jaeanne. “A Novel Use of Literature to Integrate Environmental Education with Social Studies.” The Social Studies 86.5 (Sept.-Oct. 1995): 215.

Immegart, Glenn L., and Francis J. Pilecki. “Assessing Organizational Output: A Framework and Some Implications.” Education Administration Quarterly 6.1 (Winter 1970): 62-76. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Index Terms for Press Photos: Thesaurus Design Principles. "Chapter 5: Visual Subject Analysis.” Mar. 2004 .

“Intelligence reports on federal policy-making, weekly summary of federal actions.” National Journal Reports 24.36 (Sep 5, 1992), 32.26 (Jun 24, 2000). WebLuis. 4 Nov. 2000 .

"Introduction: Time in Institutional Theory,” University of Kansas. 1998.

200 Jacob, Evelyn. “Qualitative Research Traditions: A Review.” Review of Educational Research 57.1 (Spring 1987): 1-50.

Jawahar, I.M., and Gary L. McLaughlin. “Toward a Descriptive Stakeholder Theory: An Organizational Life Cycle Approach.” Academy of Management Review 26.3 (July 2001): 397(18). WebLuis. 20 July 2003. .

Jeffers, Carol S. “Research as Art and Art as Research: A Living Relationship.” Art Education 46.5 (Sept. 1993): 12-17. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003. .

Jenlink, P.M., and A.A. Carr. "Conversation as a Medium for Change in Education." Educational Technology 36.1 (1966): 31-38.

Jennings, Wayne, and Joe Nathan. “Startling/Disturbing Research on School Program Effectiveness.” Phi Delta Kappan (March 1997).

Johnson, B.L. "Reconsidering the Educational Restructuring Process: An Exercise in Retrospective Sense-Making.” Journal of School Leadership 1.7 (1998): 540-68.

Johnson, Elsie. “Anticipatory Leadership.” Catalyst for Change. 10.3 (Spring 1981): 27- 31. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Johnson-Sheehan, Richard D. “Scientific Communication and Metaphors: An Analysis of Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity Paper.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication. 25.1 (1995): 71-83. WebLuis. 10 Mar. 2003 .

Johnston, W., and Packer, A. E.Workforce 2000: Work and Workers in the 21st Century. Chapters 1, 2 (1), and 4. Indianapolis, IN: The Hudson Institute, 1987.

Jones, Raya A. “The Child-School Interface: Environment and Behavior.” Children, Teachers, and Learning Series. Virginia, U.S.: 1995. WebLuis. 10 Mar. 2003 .

Joyce, Peter J., and Kenneth P. Voytek. “ Navigating the New Workplace.” Vocational Education Journal 71.5 (May 1996): 33-42, 48. May 1996. WebLuis. 24 Feb. 2003. .

“Judging the Scientific Rigor of Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Research. 16 Aug. 2003 .

Jung, Karl G. Man and His Symbols. New York: Doubleday, 1969.

Kaelin, Eugene Francis. The Unhappy Consciousness: the Poetic Plight of Samuel Beckett: An Inquiry at the Intersection of Phenomenology and Literature. Hingham, MA: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1981.

Karweit, Nancy. Review of "Driving School Improvement with Assessments." NASSP Bulletin 77.555 (Oct. 1993): 1.

201 Katz, Barry. “The Acculturation of Thought: Transformation of the Refugee Scholar in America.” The Journal of Modern History 63.4 (Dec. 1991): 740.

Kauffman, Dan, and Khalid Hamza. “Educational Reform: Ten Ideas for Change, Plus or Minus Two.” SITE Conference 1998. Florida, U.S.: 1998. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003 .

Kayany, Joseph M. “The Significance of Relational Control In Interactive Media Choice.” Diss. Florida State University, 1993. Tallahassee, FL: Technology Mediated Communication Situations, 1993.

Kearny, Margaret H., and Joanne O'Sullivan. "Identity Shifts as Turning Points in Health Behavior Change." Western Journal of Nursing Research 25 (2003): 134-53.

Keenan, Denis. "Safe and Healthy In the Office." Accountancy (Apr. 1993).

Keenan, Denis. "Too Much Time Off." Accountancy (Apr. 1993).

Keirsey, David, and Marilyn Bates. Please Understand Me: Character and Temperament Types. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis, 1984.

Keller, John M. "Strategies for Stimulating the Motivation to Learn." Performance and Instruction (October, 1987).

Kelly, John E. Scientific Management, Job Redesign and Work Performance, Preface, Chapters 8, 9, and Appendix. New York: Academic Press-Harcourt Brace Jovanich, 1982.

Kennedy, George A. Comparative Rhetoric: An Historical and Cross-Cultural Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University, 1997.

Kennedy, Mary M. “The Connection between Research and Practice.” Educational Researcher 26.7 (Oct. 1997): 4-12. WebLuis. .

Kenyon, Alfred and Mathur, Shiv Sahai. "Strategies for Corporate Success." Accountancy (Feb. 1993).

Kerfoot, Karlene. "Creating the Forgetting Organization." Nursing Economics (Jan. 1999): 64(1).

King, A., Ed. What Is Postmodern Rhetoric? Postmodern Political Communication. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992.

Kirtpatrick, R. George, George N. Katsiaficas, and Mary Lou Emery. “Critical Theory and the Limits of Sociological Positivism.” Archives of the Transforming Sociology Series if the Red Feather Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology. 1978. 20 July 2003 .

202 Klees, Steven J., and George J. Papagiannis. "Education and the Changing World of Work: Implications for Math, Science, and Computer Education in Florida." Center for Policy Studies in Education. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University, June 1989.

Knowles, Rex, and Trudy Knowles. “Accountability for What?” Phi Delta Kappan (Jan. 2001): 390-92.

Kochan, Thomas A. “On the Paradigm Guiding Industrial Relations.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 53.4 (July 2000): 704. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Kögler, Hans-Herbert. “A Critical Hermeneutics of Subjectivity: Cultural Studies as Critical Theory.” Lecture. Forum on “Social Theory ‘After’ Postmodernism: The Next Step?” Florida State University, Department of Sociology. Wakulla Springs, Florida. 20 – 22 Feb. 1998.

Kohl, Herbert. “Education in a Fix (Proposals for Restructuring United States Public Education) (Restructuring Education)." The Vocational Education Journal (Oct. 1992): 32.

Kohn, Alfie. "Fighting The Tests: A Practical Guide to Rescuing Our Schools." Phi Delta Kappan (Jan. 2001): 349-57.

Kornbluh, Hyman, and Richard T. Greene. "Learning, Empowerment, and Participative Work Processes: the Educative Work Environment." Socialization and Learning at Work. Avebury, 1991.

Krashen, Stephen. “More Smoke and Mirrors: A Critique of the National Reading Panel Report on Fluency.” Phi Delta Kappan (October 2001): 119 – 123.

Kronegger, Marlies, and Anna-Teresa Tymieniechka, eds. Allegory Old and New: In Literature, the Fine Arts, Music, and Theatre, and Its Continuity in Culture. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992.

Krueger, Alan B. “Reassessing the View That American Schools Are Broken.” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review 4.1 (1998): 29.

Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Number Two of the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970.

Kunde, Diana. "Working for Change: Professionals Seek Flexible Hours After Having Kids." Tallahassee Democrat [Tallahassee, Florida] 9 Mar. 1994..

La Porte, Elizabeth. “Teaching: Getting it Right.” Cambridge Journal of Education. 26.3 (Nov 1996): 361-66. WebLuis. 10 Mar. 2003 .

203 Labouchere, Peter. "Change Theories: Problem Focus or Outcome Focus." The Communication Initiative Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 26 Oct. 2003 http://www.comminit.com/ctheories/sld-4123.html.

Laetus In Praesens. "Innovative Global Management Through Metaphor." Paper prepared for the Conference on Social Innovation in Global Management organized by the Weatherhead School of Management of Case Western Reserve University (Cleveland, November 1989). 29 Mar. 2004 .

Laird, Dugan. Approaches to Training and Development. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley, 1985.

Lakoff, George. "The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor." [email protected]. January 29, 1993. copyright George Lakoff, 1992.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Lange, John T. “Site-Based, Shared Decision Making: A Resource for Restructuring.” NASSP Bulletin (Jan. 1993): 98.

Langholz Leymore, Varda. Hidden Myth: Structure and Symbolism in Advertising. New York: Basic Books, 1975.

Larry, Carroll, et al. “Consultant Training Workshop for Change Agents. Participant’s Manual.” Landers, Wyoming: Rocky Mountain Teacher Corps Network, August 1980.

Larson, Magali Sarfatti. The Rise of Professionalism. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1977.

Larson, Robert L. Changing Schools from the Inside Out. 2nd ed.. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company, 1999.

Lather, P. "Critical Frames in Educational Research: Feminist and Post-Structural Perspectives." Theory Into Practice 31 (1992): 87-99.

Lawley, James. “Metaphors of Organisation – Part 1.” Effective Consulting. 1.4 (Sep 2001). 16 Aug. 2003 .

Lawley, James, and Tompkins, Penny. “Learning Metaphors.” SEAL Journal. (Dec 2000). 16 Aug. 2003 .

Layoun, Mary N. “Fictional Formations and Deformations of National culture.” The South Atlantic Quarterly 87.1 (Winter 1988): 53.

"Leadershift: Five Lessons for Leaders in the 21st Century." Abstract. VideoLearning Systems, Inc. A LearnCom Group Company. 29 Mar. 2004 .

204 Leana, Carrie R., and Bruce Barry. "Stability and Change as Simultaneous Experiences in Organizational Life." Academy of Management Review 25.4 (Oct. 2000): 753.

Learmonth, James. “Let Us Rehabilitate Accountability.” Times Educational Supplement 15 Mar 1996.

LeCompte, M., and J. Goetz. "Problems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research." Review of Educational Research 52 (1982): 31-60.

"Lecture 8: Metaphors and How They Frame (and Explain) What We See." Temple University. 16 Aug. 2003 .

Lee, Orville. “Is Cultural Theory the Future of Social Theory?” Lecture. Forum on Social Theory ‘After’ Postmodernism: The Next Step? Florida State University, Department of Sociology. Wakulla Springs, Florida. 20-22 Feb. 1998.

Lee, T.W., T.R. Mitchell, and C.J. Sablynski. "Qualitative Research in Organizational and Vocational Psychology, 1979-1999." Journal of Vocational Behavior 55.2 (October 1999): 161-187.

Leidner, Robin. Fast Food, Fast Talk. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993.

LeMon, R.E., and Gita Wijesinghe Pitter. “Standardizing across Institutions: Now That We All Look Alike, What Do We Look Like?” ERIC Microfiche. 1996. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003. .

“Lesson: Qualitative Research.” Northern Arizona University. 16 Aug. 2003 .

Levine, Herbert M. World Politics Debated. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1983.

Levitan, Sar A., and Frank Gallo. A Second Chance. W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. 1988.

Lewicki, Pawel. “On the Status of Nonconscious Process in Human Cognition: Comment on Reber.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118.3 (Sept. 1989): 239.

Lewin, Roger. Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos. New York: Macmillan, 1992.

Lewis, Marianne W. "Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Guide." Academy of Management Review 25.4 (Oct. 2000): 760.

Leymann, Heinz, and Hy Kornbluh, eds. Socialization and Learning at Work: A New Approach to the Learning Process in the Workplace. Forward and 1-29 and 281-299. Avebury, 1991.

205 Lieberson, Stanley. Making It Count: The Improvement of Social Research and Theory, 1985.

Liebow, Elliott. Tally’s Corner. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1967.

Lincoln, Yvonna S. "Bridging the Gap: New Constructs for Organizations and Appropriate Methodologies." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education. Chicago, IL, March 12-14, 1984.

Lincoln, Yvonna. "Negotiating Politics in Organizational Cultures: Some Considerations for Effective Program Evaluation." ERIC ED 268 893 Kansas U.S. 1986. .

Lincoln, Yvonna, ed. Organizational Theory and Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985.

Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. “But Is It Rigorous? Trustworthy and Authenticity in Naturalistic Evaluation.” New Directions for Program Evaluation. 30 (June 1986): 73-84.

Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. "Criteria for Assessing Naturalistic Inquiries as Reports." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA, 5-9 April 1988.

Lincoln, Yvonna S. and Egon G. Guba. "Ethics: The Failure of Positivist Science". Paper presented at the Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Washington, DC, 20-24 April 1987.

Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1985.

Lindle, Jane Clark. “Lessons from Kentucky About School-Based Decision Making.” Educational Leadership (Dec 1995): 20.

Litowitz, Douglas. “Postmodern Theory and the Law: An Overview and Assessment.” Lecture. Forum on “Social Theory ‘After’ Postmodernism: The Next Step?” Florida State University, Department of Sociology. Wakulla Springs, Florida. 20 – 22 Feb. 1998.

Locke, Don. Perception and Our Knowledge of the External World. New York: Humanities Press, 1967.

Louis, Karen Seashore. “Beyond Bureaucracy: Rethinking How Schools Change.” Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc). University of Minnesota: 1993.

Louis, Meryl Reis. “Organizations as Culture-Bearing Milieux.” Classics of Organization Theory. Ed. Shafritz, Jay M. and Steven J. Ott. Chicago: The Dorsey Press, 1987.

Loveman, Gary W., and Tilly, Chris. "Good Jobs or Bad Jobs?" International Labour Review 127.5 (1988).

206 Lozano, Wendy G., and Foltz, Tanice G. "Into the Darkness: An Ethnographic Study of Witchcraft and Death." Qualitative Sociology 13.3 (1990): 211-234.

Luff, Paul, Jon Hindmarsh, and Christian Heath, eds. Working Studies: Recovering Work Practice and Informing System Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Lundberg, Craig C. “Surfacing Organizational Culture.” Journal of Managerial Psychology.

Lynton and Pareek. Training for Development. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1990.

Lyotard, Jean-Francois. “Answering the Question: What Is Postmodernism?” The Postmodern Condition.

MacErlean, Neasa. "A New Dawn for Western Management?" Accountancy (June 1993).

MacErlean, Neasa. "Looking and Learning." Accountancy (May 1992).

MacIntyre, A. "The Virtues, the Unity of a Human Life and the Concept of Tradition." Memory, Identity, Community: The Idea of Narrative in the Human Sciences. Ed. L. Hinchman and S. Hinchman. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997.

Mackley, Timm. "As Diverse As the People We Serve: The Case Study of Reynoldsburg High School." Transforming Learning Communities. ERIC ED 436 845. Ohio, U.S., 1999.

Macpherson, Reynold. “Building a Communitarian Policy of Educative Accountability Using Critical-Pragmatist Epistemology.” Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL: Mar. 1997. WebLuis. .

Macpherson, R.J.S. “Why We Must Hold Our Schools to Account (Accountability in Schools)." Times Education Supplement 6 Dec 1996.

Magliola, Robert R. Phenomenology and Literature: An Introduction. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1977.

Magnusson, Paul. “John Dewey, Meet Peter Drucker." Business Week 8 Jan 1996: 74B.

“Management Metaphors-the Beginning of ‘Non-linear’ Leadership.” Stjernholm Strategic Innovation. 16 Aug. 2003 .

Mann, Dale. “Conditional School Deregulation.” Education Digest, (May 1999): 17.

Manning, Peter K. “Metaphors of the Field: Varieties of Organizational Discourse.” Administrative Science Quarterly. 24.4 (Dec 1979): 660-71. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003 .

207 Marquardt, Michael. Building the Learning Organization: A Systems Approach to Quantum Improvement and Global Success. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996.

Marquardt, Michael J. “Building the Learning Organization: A Systems Approach to Quantum Improvement and Global Success.” New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996. WebLuis. 19 Mar. 2004 .

Marquardt, Michael J. Building the Learning Organization: Mastering the 5 Elements for Corporate Learning. 2nd ed. California: Davies-Black Publishing, 2002.

Marshall, C. "Goodness Criteria: Are They Objective or Judgement Calls?" The Paradigm Dialog. Ed. Egon Guba. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990.

Marshall, C., and G.B. Rossman. Designing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999.

Marsick, Victoria J., ed. Learning in the Workplace. Croom Helm Series on Theory and Practice of Adult Education in North America. New York: Croom Helm.

Martin, Shan. Managing Without Managers.. Beverly Hills:Sage Publications, 1983.

Martinez, Charles E. “Appreciative Inquiry as an Organizational Development Tool.” Performance Improvement. 41.8 (Sep 2002): 32-37. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Massey, Alexander. “Methodological Triangulation, or How to Get Lost Without Being Found Out.” Triangulation in Qualitative Research. 30 Aug. 2003 .

Matejka, Ladislav, and Irwin Titunik. Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977.

Mauch, Werner, and Uta Papen. eds. “Making a Difference: Innovations in Adult Education.” ERIC Microfiche. 1997. WebLuis. 24 Feb. 2003. .

McBride, Brent A. “Research in Child Development Laboratory Programs: Balancing the Needs of Researchers, Teachers, and Children.” Child Development Laboratory, University of Illinois. 18 Jan. 2004 .

McClain, John D. "Productivity Up, Labor Costs Down." Tallahassee Democrat [Tallahassee, Florida] 9 Mar. 1994.

McFee, Douglas. Limitless Learning. Tuscon, AZ: Zephyr Press, 1996.

McKinley, William, and Andreas Georg Scherer. "Some Unanticipated Consequences of Organizational Restructuring." Academy of Academic Review 25 (2000): 735+.

208 McKlagan, Patricia A. "The Change-Capable Organization." Training and Development 57 (2003): 50-59.

McLagan, Patricia A.. Models for Excellence. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development, 1983.

McLagan, Patricia A. Models for HRD Practice: The Models. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development, 1989.

McLagan, Patricia A. Models for HRD Practice: The Practitioner's Guide. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development, 1989.

McLaughlin, M.W. "The Rand Change Agent Study Revisited: Macro Perspectives and Micro Realities." Educational Researcher 19.9 (1990)11-16.

McLean, Gary N. ,and John Persico, Jr. "An Updated Model for Implementing a Quality and Productivity System." Journal of Managerial Psychology, 5, 1.

Mcleish, John. The Theory of Social Change; Four Views Considered. New York: Schocken Books, 1969.

McPhee, Doug. Limitless Learning: Making Powerful Learning an Everyday Event. Tucson, Arizona: Zephyr Press, 1996.

Meall, Lesley. "Homework as a Growth Industry." Accountancy (Mar. 1993).

Meall, Lesley. "Hotline to the Future." Accountancy (Feb. 1993).

Meall, Lesley. "The Mechanics of Getting Technology Aid." Accountancy (Apr. 1993).

Meall, Lesley. "The Shape of Things to Come." Accountancy (Apr. 1992).

Mehan, Hugh. Learning Lessons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979.

Mehan, Hugh. "The Study of Social Interaction in Educational Settings: Accomplishments and Unresolved Issues." Human Development Jul/Aug 1998. Copyright S. Karger AG Jul/Aug 1998. Mar. 2004 .

Mehan, Hugh, and H. Wood. The Reality of Ethnomethodology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1975.

Mehan, Hugh and Lea Hubbard. "Tracking Untracking: Evaluating the Effectiveness of an Educational Innovation." Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence (CREDE). University of California eScholarship Repository. Mar. 2004 http://repositories.cdlib.org/crede/rschbrfs/research_brief03/.

Meirs, Paul. "The Other Side of Representation: Critical Theory and the New Cognitivism." MLN [Modern Language Notes] 107.5 (December, 1992): 950.

209 Merriam, S.B. "Assessing and Evaluating Qualitative Research." Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis. Ed. S.B. Merriam. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.

Merriam, S.B. "Introduction to Qualitative Research." Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis. Ed. S.B. Merriam. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.

Merriam, S.B. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and expanded from Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.

Merry, Uri. Coping with Uncertainty: Insights from the New Sciences of Chaos, Self Organization, and Complexity. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1995.

Merz, Carol, and Gail Furman. “Community and Schools: Promise and Paradox.” New York, U S.: 1997. WebLuis. .

Mesjasz, Czeslaw. “Images of Organisation and Development of Information Society: Going into Metaphors.” Cracow University of Economics. 16 Aug. 2003 .

“Metaphor.” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 2004. 29 Aug. 2003. .

“Metaphor.” Georgia Institute of Technology. 16 Aug. 2003 .

“Metaphor Sites: General Information about Metaphors.” List of Metaphor Sites. 16 Aug. 2003 .

Metz, Christian. Film Language. New York: Penguin Books, 1974.

Meyer, John W., and W. Richard Scott. Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1983.

Meyrowitz, Joshua. Analyzing Media: Metaphors as Methodologies ERIC ED 206 030 New Hampshire, U.S. (1980)..

Midgley, Carol, and Steward Wood. “Beyond Site-Based Management: Empowering Teachers to Reform Schools.” Phi Delta Kappan. (Nov 1993): 245-52.

Milkman, Ruth, and Cydney Pullman. "Technological Change in an Auto Assembly Plant." Work and Occupations 18.2 (May 1991): 123-47.

Miller, David L., ed. The Individual and the Social Self: Unpublished Work of George Herbert Mead. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982.

210 Milstein, Mike M., and Dan E. Inbar. "The ABCs of Organizational Behavior." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA, 5-9 April 1988.

Minh-ha, Trinh T. Woman, Native, Other. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1989.

Mises, Ludwig von. Liberalism in the Classical Tradition. The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. New York: Cobden Press, 1985.

Mitchell, Coral. “Effecting Change in Organizations.” Effecting Change in Educational Organizations. Education 5P72. 30 Aug. 2003 .

Mitchell, Coral. “Introduction to Educational Research.” Educational Research Methods. 30 Aug. 2003. .

Mitchell, Coral. “Organizational Behavior in Educational Institutions.” Educational Research Methods. 30 Aug. 2003. .

“Models Listed by Type.” The Catalog of School Reform. 16 Aug. 2003 .

Moffett, James. “On to the Past Wrong-Headed School Reform.” Phi Delta Kappan. (April 1994): 585-90.

Moore, John H., ed. To Promote Prosperity: U.S. Domestic Policy in the Mid-1980s. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press-Stanford University, 1984.

Morgan, Gareth. “Can Organizations Learn to Learn?” Organizations: Cases, Issues, Concepts. Paul Chapman Publishing/The Open University, 1991.

Morgan, Gareth. Images of Organization. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1986.

Morgan, Gareth. Images of Organization: New International Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996.

Morgan, Gareth. Images of Organization: The Executive Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., 1998.

Morgan, Gareth. “Provocative Ideas: Imaginization.” Imaginization Online. 17 Aug. 2003 .

Moriarty, Anthony, Robert G. Maeyama, and Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Review of “A CLEAR plan for school crisis management (the cognizance of personnel, the linkages they establish, the evaluation of crisis, the accountability procedures, and the relationship between the police and the school).” NASSP Bulletin 77.552 (April 1993): 14.

211 Morin, Edgar. "Change Theories: The Anthropology of Freedom." The Communication Initiative. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 26 Oct. 2003 .

Morris, Michael H., and Foard F. Jones. “Entrepreneurship in Established Organizations: The Case of the Public Sector.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. 24.1 (Fall 1999): 71. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Morris, Robert. "Business Nugget." Summary of The Leadership Engine: How Winning Companies Build Leaders at Every Level by Noel M. Tichy. Eastbook.com Books for Leaders. 29 Mar. 2004 .

Moser, Paul K., ed. A Priori Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Morstain, Barry R. and John C. Smart. "A Motivational Typology of Adult Learners." Journal of Higher Education (Nov/Dec 77).

Munby, Hugh. “Teachers’ Professional Knowledge: A Study of Metaphor.” ERIC Microfiche. 3 Mar. 1985. WebLuis. 10 Mar. 2003. .

Muncey, Donna, and Patrick McQuillan. "Protecting Your School's Interest While Promoting Quality Research." Oakland, CA: CESNational. July 1990. Mar. 2004 .

Murnane, Richard J. "Standards, Information, and the Demand for Student Achievement." Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review 4.1 (1998): 117.

Murphy, E.L. “Ethnographic Research.” Ethnographic Research. 30 Aug. 2003 .

Murphy, Jerome T. "The Paradox of Decentralizing Schools: Lessons from Business, Government, and the Catholic Church.” Phi Delta Kappan 70.10 (June 1989): 808.

Murphy, Sheigla, Dan Waldorf, and Craig Reinarman. "Drifting into Dealing: Becoming a Cocaine Seller." Qualitative Sociology 13.4 (1990).

Murray, Charles. Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980. New York: Basic Books, 1984.

Murray, Michael."Ingarden and the End of Phenomenological Aesthetic." Research in Phenomenology, 19 (Fall, 1990): 171.

Myers, Michael D., ed. “Qualitative Research in Information Systems.” MIS Quarterly. 21.2 (Jun 1997): 241-242. MISQ Discovery. Archival Version, Jun 1997 .

212 Mylen, Jean. “Strategic Safari: the need for a more viable planning process has motivated some educators to explore future-based planning as a way to initiate and sustain organizational change.” Leadership 31.3 (Jan-Feb. 2002): 16. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Nadler and Nadler. Developing Human Resources. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989.

Nadler, Leonard. Corporate Human Resources Development. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1980.

Nafafizadeh, Mehrangiz, and Mennerick, Lewis A. "Sociology of Education or Sociology of Ethnocentrism? The Portrayal of Education in U.S. Introductory Sociology Textbooks" from Teaching Sociology.

Nagel, Stuart S. Public Policy: Goals, Means, and Methods. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1984.

NASSP Bulletin May 1995: 129.

NASSP Bulletin May 1996.

Natanson, Maurice Alexander. Literature, Philosophy, and the Social Sciences: Essays in Existentialism and Phenomenology. The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Jijhoff, 1962.

Natanson, Maurice Alexander. Phenomenology and Social Reality: Essays In Memory of Alfred Schutz. The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1970.

Natanson, Maurice Alexander, Philosophy of the Social Sciences. New York: Random House.

National Coalition of Education Activists. “Action for Better Schools.” Fall 2000.V7, N2.

Neffinger, G.G. "Real Learning in Unreal Circumstances." Journal of Managerial Psychology.

Negotiations: Varieties, Contexts, Processes, and Social Order. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers, 1978.

Negroponte. "Where Do New Ideas Come From?" Wired Jan. 1996.

Nelson, Wade. “Time Quake Alert: Why Payment by Results is the Worst ‘New’ Reform to Shake the Educational World, Again and Again.” Phi Delta Kappan (Jan. 2001): 384- 392.

“New Schools of Thought.” Michigan State University. 18 Jan. 2004 .

213 Nevite, Neil, and Mebs Kanji. “Orientations Towards Authority and Congruency Theory.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology; v.40, 1, 160. Feb 1999. Web Luis. 20 July 2003. .

Newman, Judith M. “We Can’t Get There From Here: Critical Issues in School Reform.” Phi Delta Kappan (Dec. 1998): 288-296.

Newmann, Fred M., M. Bruce King, and Mark Rigdon. Review of "Accountability and School Performance: Implications from Restructuring Schools." Harvard Educational Review (Spring 1997).

Nisbet, Robert. Conservatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986.

“NOCDLS Bulletin No.27, Spring 1996.” National Organization of Child Development Laboratory Schools. 18 Jan. 2004 .

Nonaka, I. “Managing Innovation as an Organizational Knowledge Creation Process.” Technology Strategies in the Nineties Conference. 21 May 1992.

Nooteboom, Bart. “Innovation, Learning, and Industrial Organization.” Cambridge Journal of Economics (Mar. 1999): 127. WebLuis. .

Northcraft, Gregory B., and Margaret A. Neale. Organizational Behavior: A Management Challenge. New York: The Dryden Press, 1994.

Norton, Rob. "Change Theories: Unintended Consequences." The Communication Initiative 26 Oct. 2003 http://www.comminit.com/chtheories/sld-8820.html.

Nossiter, Vivian, and Gerald Biberman. “Projective Drawings and Metaphor: Analysis of Organizational Culture.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 51.5 (Nov./Dec. 2000): 331- 333.

O'Brien, Jodi A., and Kollock, Peter."Social Exchange Theory as a Conceptual Framework for Teaching the Sociological Perspective." Teaching Sociology 19 (April 1991) 140-53.

Odland, Jerry. “Education Reforms and National Standards.” Childhood Education 69.1 (Fall 1992): 32B.

Office Chatter: "Temporary jobs are usually just that"; "Help wanted: abuse counselors"; "This job's for you if the horseshoe fits." Tallahassee Democrat [Tallahassee, Florida] 2 Feb. 1994.

Ohanian, Susan. “News from the Test Resistance Trail.” Phi Delta Kappan (Jan 2001): 363-66.

O'Keefe, Bernard M. "Qualitative Research: An Introduction." Department of Speech- Language Pathology, University of Toronto. (Fall 2003) Contact [email protected].

214 Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J., and Larry G. Daniel. “Typology of Analytical and Interpretational Errors in Quantitative and Qualitative Educational Research.” Current Issues in Education. 6(2) 9.2 (Feb 2003)30 Aug. 2003 .

Ornsein, Allan C. “Rural-Urban School Districts: Trends in Consolidation and Decentralization.”

Osborne, Harold. Aesthetics and Art Theory: An Historical Introduction. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1970.

O’Toole, Laurence J., Jr, and Kenneth J. Meier. “Plus a change: public management, personal stability, and organizational performance.” Journal of Public Administration Research 13.1 (Jan 2003): 43. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

“Overview of Generalizability and Transferability.” Writing @ CSU: Writing Guide. 16 Aug. 2003 .

Pace, Smith, and Mils Pace. Human Resource Development: The Field. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991.

Packard, Vance. The Hidden Persuaders. New York: Pocket Books, 1957.

Papagiannis, George. "Microcomputers, Maieutics and Education: Policy Implications." Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.

Parenti, Michael. Democracy for the Few. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995.

Paris, Kathleen A. "Strategic Planning in the University." University of Wisconsin- Madison Office of Quality Improvement. November2003. Copyright 2003. University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents. 29 Mar. 2004 .

Parker, Laurence, et al. “The Urban Context of Schools and Education: Community, Commitment, and Change.” Educational Theory 48.1 (Winter 1998): 123-37. WebLuis. .

Peirce, Neal R. "The Gathering School Revolution." Abstract. National Journal 29.1 (Jan 4, 1997): 36.

Pekarsky, Daniel. “Moral Education and Transfer-From the Classroom into the Work and from One Generation to the Next.” Theory and Research in Social Education 9.4 (Winter 1982): 105-111. WebLuis. 24 Feb. 2003 .

Peltason, Timothy. “Learning How to See: ‘The Holy Grail.’” Victorian Poetry 30.3-4 (Autumn-Winter 1992): 463.

215 Perry, Chad. "After Further Sightings of the Heffalump." Journal of Managerial Psychology. 5, 2.

Peters, Guy B, and Jon Pierre. “Institutions and Time: Problems of Conceptualization and Explanation.” Journal of Public Administration and Theory (1998): 565.

Petrun, Craig J., and Susan M. Belmore. “Metaphor Comprehension and Cognitive Effect.” Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychology Association. Kentucky, U.S.: April 1981. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003 .

Peyre, Henri. Observations on Life, Literature, and Learning in America. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1961.

Philosophical Reflection of Man in Literature: Selected Papers from Several Conferences. Conferences held by the International Society for Phenomenology and Literature in Cambridge, MA. Hingham, MA: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1982.

Philosophy of the Social Sciences. New York: Random House.

Piaget, J. Sociological Studies. New York: Routledge, 1995.

Piccinin, Serge, and others. “Assertion Training Outcome and Generalization Effects under Didactic vs. Facilitative Training Conditions.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 41.6 (date?): 753-62. WebLuis. 24 Feb. 2003. .

Pietersen, Willie. "The Mark Twain Dilemma: the Theory and Practice for Change Leadership." Journal of Business Strategy 23 (2002): 32-38.

Pineau, Elyse Lamm. “Teaching Is Performance: Reconceptualizing a Problematic Metaphor.” American Educational Research Journal 31.1 (Spring 1994): 3-25. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003 .

Pitchard, Joan-Elies Adell. "Change Theories: Contemporary Popular Music and the Construction of Meaning: Beyond Sociology and Musicology."

Polanyi, Michael. Personal Knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1958.

Polka, Brayton. Truth and Interpretation: An Essay in Thinking. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990.

Popenoe, David. “American Family Decline, 1960-1990: A Review and Appraisal.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 55 (August 1993): 527-55.

Popkewitz, Thomas S. “Reviewing reviews: RER, research, and the politics of educational knowledge. (‘Review of Educational Research’).” Review of Educational Research; v.69,4,397-399. Winter 1999. Web Luis. 20 July 2003. .

216 Popkin, Richard H., and Avrum Stroll. Philosophy Made Simple. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Pouravood, Roland C. “Chaos, Complexity, and Earning Community: What Do They Mean for Education?” School Community Journal 7.2 (Fall-Winter 1997): 57- 64. WebLuis. .

Powell, Walter W., and Paul J. DiMaggio, eds. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991.

Preissle, Judith (Goetz), and Margaret LeCompte. Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research. Orlando: Academic Press, 1984.

Prestine, Nina A. “Extending the Essential Schools Metaphor: Principal as Enablar.” Journal of School Leadership 3.4 (1993): 356-79.

Prigone, Ilya. The End of Certainty: Time, Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature. New York: Free Press, 1996.

Pugh, Sharon L. “Metaphor and Learning.” Reading Research and Instruction. 28.3 (Spring 1989): 92096. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003 .

Purkiss, Alan. "Revolutions in Reverse." Accountancy (Feb. 1993).

Putnam, L.L. "Contradictions and Paradoxes in Organizations." Organization Communications: Emerging Perspectives. Ed. L. Thayer. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1986.

“Qualitative Research Preliminary Exam, Study Guide.” Qualitative Research Study Guide. 30 Aug. 2003 .

“Qualitative Research.” Oklahoma State University. 16 Aug. 2003 .

Quinn, R.E., J.A. Kahn, and M.J. Mandl. "Perspectives on Organizational Change: Exploring Movement at the Interface." Organizational Behavior: The State of Science. Ed. J. Greenberg. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994.

Quinn, Robert E. and Kim S. Cameron, Eds. Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Pub. Co., 1988.

Raelin, Joseph A. “Work-based Learning in Practice.” Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counseling Today 10.6-7 (1998): 280-83. WebLuis. .

Rago, William V. "Adapting Total Quality Management (TQM) to Government: Another Point of View." Public Administration Review. 54.1 (January/February 1994).

217 Rahn, Mikala L. Accountability Systems: Performance Standards and Assessment. ERIC ED 429-178. California, U.S. 3/1999. .

Rainey, Hal G. “Using Comparisons of Public and Private Organizations to Assess Innovative Attitudes Among Members of Organizations.” Public Productivity and Management Review; v.23, 2, 130(20). Dec 1999. Web Luis. 20 July 2003. .

RAND Corporation. High Schools with Character. 1990.

Rasmussen, Tover. “Debureaucratization? – Understanding the Development in the Danish Public Sector.” How to Preserve the Client’s Autonomy Seminar. Jan. 1997.

Ratcliff, Donald E. "Analytic Induction as a Qualitative Research Method of Analysis." Mar. 2004 .

Rathvon, Natalie. Effective School Interventions: Strategies for Enhancing Academic Achievement and Social Competence. New York: Guilford Publications, 1999.

Reed, Cynthia. “What’s Happening in Our Schools? (School Accountability).” The Clearing House 73.5 (May 2000): 291. 10 Sep. 2000 .

Regan, Martin. "Pushed, Pulled, but Definitely Moving." Accountancy (June 1992).

Reiss, Timothy J. The Meaning of Literature. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1992.

“Relationships." Keynote lecture to the International Conference on Personal Relationships, Oxford University, 1990.

"Research Methods Glossary." Project Gold (Guidance Online for those Learning at a Distance). 30 Aug. 2003 .

“Research of the Month Critical Appraisal Framework.” General Teaching Council for England. 16 Aug. 2003 .

Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. Methuen: NY, 1983.

Ritzer, George. Postmodern Social Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, 1997.

Rivlin, Robert, and Karen Gravelle. Deciphering the Senses: The Expanding World of Human Perception. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984.

Roberts, David D. “Postmodern Continuities: Difference, Dominance, and the Question of Historiographical Renewal.” History and Theory 37.3 (Oct. 1998): 388. WebLuis. .

218 Robins, Shani. “Statement of Research Interests.” Wisdom Therapy. 7 Mar. 2004 .

Robottom, I., and P. Hart. "Towards a Meta-Research Agenda in Science and Environmental Education." International Journal of Science Education 15 (1993): 591- 605.

Rodriguez, Noelie and Alan Ryave, 1990. "Telling Lies in Everyday Life: Motivational and Organizational Consequences of Sequential Preferences." Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 13, No. 3. New York: Human Sciences Press, Inc.

Rogers, Stephen, et al. "Designing Trials of Interventions to Change Professional Practice in Primary Care: Lessons from an Exploratory Study of Change Strategies." British Medical Journal 320 (2000): 1580+.

Rokeach, Milton. “Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change.” The Jossey-Bass Behavioral Science Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968.

"Roland Barthes (1915-1980)." Amazon.com. Books and Writers. Mar. 2004.

Rose, Mike. Lives on the Boundary. Chapters 1, 2, and 8. The Free Press, a Division of Macmillan, Inc. New York.

Rose, Tina, & Tyra Beaseley (1999). "Pretend Play." Presented at the 7th International Conference on Cross-Cultural Communication. August 30, 1999. Louisville, Kentucky.

Rosenau, Pauline Vaillancourt. "Anticipating a Post-Modern Policy Current?" Houston: The Univeristy of Texas – Health Science Center, printed March 2000. .

Rosenblatt, Robert A. "Working Poor, with Plenty of Company." Tallahassee Democrat [Tallahassee, Florida] 31 Mar. 1994.

Rosenhead, Jonathan. “Complexity Theory and Management Practice.” 1998. 30 Aug. 2003. .

Rotberg, Iris C. “A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.” Phi Delta Kappan. (October 2001): 170- 171.

Roth, Wolff-Michael. “Metaphors and Conversational Analysis as Tools in Reflection on Teaching Practice: Two Perspectives on Teacher-Student Interactions in Open-Inquiry Science.” Science Education. 77.4 (Jul 1993): 351-73. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003 .

Rotholz, Julie. “The Use of Metaphor in Education.” EDLP 701 School Leadership. 16 Aug. 2003 .

219 Rousseau, Denise M., and Snehal A. Tijoriwala. “What’s a Good Reason to Change? Motivated Reasoning and Social Accounts in Promoting Organizational Change.” Journal of Applied Psychology; v.84, 4, 514-515. Aug 1999. Web Luis. 20 July 2003. .

Rowan, Brian. Review of “Decentralization and School Improvement: Can we fulfill the Promise?” Contemporary Sociology 23.4 (July 1994): 569.

Rowan, Margo, and Patricia Huston. “Qualitative Research Articles: Information for authors and peer reviewers.” CMAJ•JAMC. 30 Aug. 2003 .

Rudkin, Kathy. “Applying Critical Ethnographic Methodology and Method in Accounting Research.” University of Wollongong, Australia. 7 Mar. 2004 .

Russell, Carol, and Geoff Peters. “Chaos has no plural-trying out a holistic approach to organizational learning.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science; v.15,3,235(14). May-June 1998. Web Luis. 20 July 2003. .

Salem, Philip. “Assessment, Change, and Complexity.” Management Communication Quarterly.

Salomon, Gavriel. Interaction of Media, Cognition and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1979.

Savenye, Wilhelmina, and Rhonda S. Robinson. "Qualitative Research Issues and Methods: An Introduction for Educational Technologists." Contact Wilhelmina Savenye at [email protected] or Rhonda Robinson at [email protected]. Fall 2003.

Sawicky, Max B. “Business-Run Schools: A Leap of Faith.” Education Digest, April 1997.

Schein, Edgar H. “Defining Organizational Culture.” 1987: Classics of Organization Theory. Ed. Shafritz, Jay M. and Ott, J. Steven, Chicago: The Dorsey Press, 1987. Source: Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1985), 1 - 22.

Schein, Edgar H. "Kurt Lewin's Change Theory in the Field and in the Classroom: Notes Toward a Model of Managed Learning." Society for Organizational Learning. 15 Aug. 2003 .

Schein, Edgar H. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.

Schilling, Karen Maitland, and Karl Schilling. Review of "Professors Must Respond to Calls for Accountability (the What and How of Teaching)." Chronicle of Higher Education 24 Mar. 1993: A40.

220 Scholfield, Philip. "Change and How to Manage It." Accountancy (May 1992).

"School Change Model: Basic Principles for School Reform in a Bilingual Context." Tools for Schools, April 1998. .

“School 'Cultures' Drive Results." BBC News, UK Edition. Mar. 2004 .

“School Readiness Fact Sheet.” Academic Excellence Council. Sep 1999. MyFlorida.com. 14 Aug. 2001

“School Reform.” WestEd – School Reform. 16 Aug. 2003 .

Schoon, Kenneth J. “Restructuring Science Teacher Education through Professional Development Schools: The Seamless Field Experience Model for Secondary Science Teacher Preparation.” Indiana University Northwest. 18 Jan. 2004 .

Schrag, Francis. “Is There Light at the End of This Tunnel?” Educational Researcher 21.5 (June-July 1992): 16-17. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003. .

Schutz, Alfred. On phenomenology and social relations: Selected Writings. Helmut R. Wagner, Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

Scott, Robert. "On viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic." Central States Speech Journal, 18 (1959): 9-17

Scott, Tim, Russell Mannion, Huw Davies, and Martin Marshall. “The Quantitative Measurement of Organizational Culture in Health Care: a Review of the Available Instruments.” Health Services Research; 38.3 (June 2003): 923. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Seale, C. "Quality Issues in Qualitative Inquiry." Qualitative Social Work, 1.1 (2002): 97-110.

Seeley, David S. “Carrying School Reform into the 1990s.” The Education Digest. (May 1990): 3-5.

Seelye, Katherine Q. “Gore Dangles Teacher Raises, But Attaches Conditions, Too.” New York Times 6 May 2000.

Semin, Gun R., and Kenneth J. Gergen, eds. Everyday Understanding. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990.

Senge, P. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, 1990.

221 Sergiovanni, Thomas J. The Lifeworld of Leadership: Creating Culture, Community, and Personal Meaning in Our Schools. ERIC ED 436-829. The Jossey-Bass Education Series. California, U.S. 2000.

Shafritz, Jay M., and J. Steven Ott. Classics of Organization Theory. 2nd ed. Chicago: The Dorsey Press, 1987.

Shao, Maria. "The Top 10 Reasons Why Businesses Fail." Tallahassee Democrat [Tallahassee, Florida] 23 Feb. 1994.

Sheeran, Paul, et al. “Can the theory of planned behavior explain patterns of health behavior?" WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Sheldon, Kennon M. “Standards, Accountability, and School Reform: Perils and Pitfalls.” Teachers College Record, (Fall 1998).

Shoham, Aviv. “Extending the Competitive Marketing Strategy Paradigm: the Role of Strategic Reference Points Theory.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27.4 (Fall 1999): 443. WebLuis. .

Short, Rick Jay, and Rhonda C. Talley “Rethinking Psychology and the School; Implications of Recent National Policy.” American Psychologist. 52.3 (March 1997): 234 – 40.

Shultz, Richard H., and Roy Godson. Dezinformatsia: Active Measures in Soviet Strategy. McLean, VA: Pergamon-Brassey’s International Defense Publishers, 1984.

Siehl, Caren, and Joanne Martin. “The Role of Symbolic Management: How Can Managers Effectively Transmit Organizational Culture?” Classics of Organization Theory. Ed. Shafritz, Jay M. and Ott, J. Steven. Chicago: The Dorsey Press, 1987.

Singleton-Green, Brian. "If It Matters, Measure It!" Accountancy (May 1993).

Sjoberg, Gideon, and Roger Nett. A Methodology for Social Research. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.

Skocpol, Theda, and John L. Campbell. American Society and Politics: Institutional, Historical, and Theoretical Perspectives. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.

"Sloppy Reasoning, Misused Data.” Phi Delta Kappan. (Dec 1993): 283.

“Slow Going: The Beginning of Change in Petersburg Elementary.” Archived Information (School Based Reform-Lessons from a National Study). 1995. 16 Aug. 2003. .

Smagorinsky, Peter. “The Social Construction of Data: Methodological Problems of Investigating Learning in the Zone of Proximal Development.” Review of Educational

222 Research 65.3 (Fall 1995): 191-212. WebLuis. 10 Mar. 2003. .

Smelser, Niel J. Essays in Sociological Explanation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- Hall, 1968.

Smith, K.K., and D.N. Berg. Paradoxes of Group Life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987.

Smith, Ruth C., and Paige K. Turner. “A Social Constructionist Reconfiguration of Metaphor Analysis: An Application of 'SCMA' to Organizational Socialization Theorizing.” Communication Monographs 62.2 (Jun 1995): 152-181. WebLuis. 10 Mar. 2003. .

Smolka, Ana Luiza B. “Social practice and social change: activity theory in perspective.” Human Development 44.6 (Nov-Dec 2001): 362. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

“Social Analysis.” The World Bank Group. 16 Aug. 2003 .

“Social Research Methods.” Research and Policy in Development. 16 Aug. 2003 .

“Social-Cognitive Theory Mediators of Behavior Change in the National Institute of Mental Health Multisite HIV Prevention Trial.” Health Psychology 20.5 (Sep 2001): 369. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Sockett, Hugh T. Review of “Teachers for the 21st Century: Redefining Professionalism.” NASSP Bulletin 80.580 (May 1996): 22-29.

Somers, Mark John, and Keith Bird. "Managing the Transition Phase of Mergers." Journal of Managerial Psychology.

Spariosu, Mihai, ed. Mimesis in Contemporary Theory, Volume 1, The Literary and Philosophical Debate. Philadelphia: John Benjamin’s Publishing Co., 1984.

Sperling, Melanie. “Metaphors We Teach By.” Conference on College Composition and Communication. California, U.S.: Mar 1991. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003 .

Spill, Rick. “An Introduction to the Use of Skill Standards and Certifications in WIA Programs.” ERIC Microfiche. Jan. 25, 2002. WebLuis. 11 March 2003. .

Spillane, James P. Standards Deviation: How Schools Misunderstand Education Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.

223 Spitz, David. “Political Theory and Social Change.” Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. New York: Atherton Press, 1967.

Spradely, J. Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1980.

Sproull, Lee, and Kiesler, Sara. "Making Connections: Computers Can Enhance Employee Commitment—At a Cost." Employment Relations Today (Spring, 1991).

St. Clair, Robert N. "Social Metaphors in American Culture." The Asian American Bicultural Experience. Ed. J. Koo and R. St Clair. Rossyln, VI: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education, 1985.

St. Clair, Robert N. "The Contexts of Language." The Social and Psychological Contexts of Language. Ed. R. St. Clair and H. Giles. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1980.

Stacey, Judith. “Good Riddance to ‘The Family’: A Response to David Popenoe.” Journal of Marriage and the Family.

Stanage, S.M. Adult Education and Phenomenological Tesearch: New Directions for Theory, Practice, and Tesearch. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger, 1987.

Stanford, Barbara. Charting School Change: Improving the Odds for Successful School Reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 1998.

Stedman, Lawrence C. “The Condition of Education: Why School Reformers Are On the Right Track.” Phi Delta Kappan. (Nov. 1993): 215-25.

Stern, Gustaf. Meaning and Change of Meaning. Indiana University Press, 1964.

Stewart, David. Exploring Phenomenology: A Guide to the Field and Its Literature. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1990.

Stjernholm Strategic Innovation. "Management Metaphors – The Beginning of 'Non- Linear' Leadership." 16 Aug. 2003 .

"Stories of Experience and Narrative Inquiry." Educational Researcher 19.5 (1990): 2-14.

Strauss, Anselm. Continual Permutations of Action. New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1993.

Strauss, Anselm. Negotiations: Varieties, Contexts, Processes, and Social Order. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1978.

“Stress Mastery versus Stress Management.” Chapter 4 Summary. 26 Feb. 2004 .

224 Striplin, Jenny Castruita. “ERIC Review: An Examination of Non-Liberal-Arts Course.” Community College Review 28.1 (Summer 2000): 67-78. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003. .

Summers, Anita A. Review of "Decentralization and School Improvement: Can we fulfill the Promise?" Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (Summer 1994): 608.

Sutton, Clive. “Figuring Out a Scientific Understanding.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching (Dec 1993): 1215-27. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003 .

Sutton, James. “An Open Briefing for President Bush.” Phi Delta Kappan, (October 2001): 112-18.

Svinicki, Marilla D. and Nancy M. Dixon. "The Kolb Model Modified for Classroom Activities. College Teaching. Vol. 35, No. 4.

Swinson, Chris. "Victorian Values Are No Longer Applicable." Accountancy (May 1993).

Szell, Gyorgy. "Participation, Workers' Control and Self-Management." Current Sociology. 36.3 (Winter 1988).

Sztajn, Paola. “A Matter of Metaphors: Education as a Handmade Process.” Educational Leadership. 50.3 (Nov 1992).16 Aug. 2003 .

Tachney, Suzanne. “If We Build It, Will They Come? (Instilling Accountability Into the Educational System).” Educational Leadership (March 1999).

Taft, R. Ethnographic Research Methods. 1988.

Tanner, Daniel. “A Nation ‘Truly’ at Risk.” Phi Delta Kappan. (Dec. 1993): 288-97.

Tashakkori, Abbas. “Educational Research Methodology.” Florida International University. 16 Aug.2003 .

Taylor, Lee. “Internationalizing Rural Sociology: Training-Practice-Recruitment.” Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1970. WebLuis. 24 Feb. 2003 .

Taylor, Steven, and Robert Bogdan. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1998.

Teachers College—Columbia University—Autumn 1998 HUDF4029 – Sociology of Schools. 16 Aug. 2003 http://www.columbia.edu/~gjn6/socshlc1.html.

“Technology and Stress in the Work Place." ERIC. (February 2004).

“Technology Refusal and the Organizational Culture of Schools", 2.0. 16 Aug. 2003 .

225 TenHouten, Warren, and Charles Kaplan. Science and Its Mirror Image. New York: Harper and Row, 1973.

“The Catalog of School Reform Models." 16 Aug. 2003 .

The Clearing House May-June 1992: P322.

"'The Edge of Chaos,' Where Structure Meets Adaptability." American Management Association. 20 July 2003 .

“The Fight/Flight Response to Stress.” Response to Stress. 26 Feb. 2004 .

The Forgotten Half. William T. Grant Foundation Commission on Work, Family and Citizenship, 1988.

“The Role of Metaphors.” Metaphors. 16 Aug.2003 .

“The Role of Principals in School Reform.” Archived Information (School Based Reform-Lessons from a National Study). 1995. 16 Aug. 2003. .

“The Use of Metaphor in Education.” 16 Aug. 2003 .

Thomas, R. Conducting Educational Research: A Comparative View. Westport, CO: Bergin and Harvey, 1998.

Thompson, Scott. "The Authentic Standards Movement and Its Evil Twin." Phi Delta Kappan (Jan. 2001): 358-66.

Thornburg, Linda. "What’s Wrong with Workforce 2000?" HRM Magazine (August, 1991).

Thumlert, Kurt. "Hypertextuality and Sociocultural Contexts for Education." WWU 1997. Mar. 2004.

Tiedt, Iris McClellan. "Responding to the Call of Stories: Learning from Literary ‘Case studies.’" Phi Delta Kappan, 73.10 (June, 1992): 802.

Tifft, Susan. “Our student-back guarantee: high schools are starting to offer warranties on their graduates.” Time 137.6 (Feb 11, 1991): 74(1). 10 Sep. 2000 .

Timar, Thomas. “The Politics of School Restructuring.” Education Digest (May 1999): 7.

226 Tirozzi, Gerald N., and Uro, Gabriela. “Education Reform in the United States - National Policy in Support of Local Efforts for School Improvement.” American Psychologist. 52.3 (Mar. 1997): 241-49.

Tirrozzi, Gerald N. “Educational Reform in the United States: National Policy In Support of Local Efforts for School Improvement.” The American Psychologist (March 1997).

Tite, Rosonna. “Qualitative Research Approaches: Artifact/document analysis, organizing & interpreting data, establishing the credibility of the study.” Research Designs & Methods in Education. 16 Aug. 2003

Toffler, Alvin. Power Shift. Bantam Books: New York. 1990.

Tonnies, Ferdinand. "From Community to Society: Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft." Social Change. New York: Basic Books, 1964.

“Too Much, Too Quickly: Attempts to Change Edgemont Junior High.” Archived Information (School Based Reform-Lessons from a National Study. 1995. 16 Aug. 2003. .

Torraco, Richard J. “Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) Conference Proceedings.” Atlanta, GA: Mar. 1997. WebLuis. .

Townly, Barbara. “The Role of Competing Rationalities in Institutional Change.” Academy of Management Journal 45.1 (Feb. 2002): 163(17) WebLuis. 20 July 2003. .

Tracey, William R. Designing Training and Development Systems, Revised Edition, 1- 22. New York: American Management Association, 1984.

Tracey, William R. "Leadership Skills." American Management Association (AMACOM). Preface and pages 1-34.

Tracy, Sarah J. “Altered Practice, Altered Stories, Altered Lives: Three Considerations for Translating Organizational Communication Scholarship into Practice.” Management Communication Quarterly. 16.1 (Aug 2002): 85-91. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

“Transformative approaches to social organization project – notes and commentaries.” Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential. 7 Mar. 2004 .

“Transitions in nursing.” Aspen Publishers. Oct. 2003 .

Traub, James. Better By Design? A Consumers Guide to School Wide Reform. ERIC ED 437-423. District of Columbia, U.S. 12/1999.

227 Treffman, Stephen A. The Development of Training In Organizations. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1978.

Tribus, Myron. “Will our educational system be the solution or the problem?.” Total Quality Management; S745. July 1999. Web Luis. 20 July 2003. .

Trilling, Lionel. Beyond Culture: Essays On Literature and Learning. New York: The Viking Press, 1965.

Tripp, Steven. “Metaphor and Instruction.” ERIC ED323953. Iowa, U.S.: Feb 1990. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003 .

Trubowitz, Sidney. “Predictable Problems in Achieving Large-Scale Change.” Phi Delta Kappan. (Oct 2000): 166-8.

Trujillo, Nick. “Organizational Communication as Cultural Performance: Some Managerial Considerations.” Southern Speech Communication Journal 50.3 (Spring 1985): 201-24. WebLuis. 10 Mar. 2003 .

Tucker, Robert W., Walt J., McCoy, and Linda C. Evans. "Can Questionnaires Objectively Assess Organizational Culture?" Journal of Managerial Psychology.

Turner, Jonathan, H. Social Theory Today. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987.

Turner, Jonathan H. The Structure of Sociological Theory. Chicago: The Dorsey Press, 1986.

Turner, Stephen. “Social Theory, Practices and Cognitive Science.” Lecture. Forum on “Social Theory ‘After’ Postmodernism: The Next Step?” Florida State University, Department of Sociology. Wakulla Springs, Florida. 20 – 22 Feb. 1998.

Tymieniechka, Anna-Teresa, ed. Allegory Revisited: Ideals of Mankind. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994.

Tymieniechka, Anna-Teresa, ed. The Existential Coordinates of the Human Condition, Poetic—Epic—Tragic: The Literary Genre. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1984.

Uerling, Donald F., and Larry L. Dlugosh. "Charter Schools: An Avenue to Quality Education." Paper presented at the 7th Annual National Conference on Creating the Quality School. Arlington, VA, 26-28Mar., 1998.

United States. Department of Education. A Review of the Implementation of Blue Print 2000: A Mid-Year Review, 1993-1994. Oct. Report No. 94-08. Washington: GPO, 1994.

United States. Department of Education. Blue Print 2000 Detailed Background Report on Five Districts and Twenty-Two Schools Evaluated. Oct. Report No. 94-09. Washington: GPO, 1994.

228 United States. Department of Education. National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. A Report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, Washington: GPO, April 1983.

United States. Department of Education. Supplementary Report on the Implementation and Impact of Blue Print 2000 In Five Districts and Nineteen Schools Evaluated. April Report No. 95-54. Washington: GPO, 1996.

United States. Department of Education. Technical Report of the Implementation of a System of School Improvement Accountability (Blue Print 2000) by Five Selected School Districts. February Report No. 12246. Washington: GPO, 1994.

United States. Department of Labor. Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS). America's Choice. Washington: GPO, 1991.

Uretsky, Mike. "Will High Technology Lower Labor Costs?" (Spring, 1991) Employment Relations Today. [v28 n3 p92-96. Mar. 11, 2003].

“U.S. Department of Education holds national conference on reinventing high schools.” American School & University 72.10 (Jun 2000): 14. 10 Sep. 2000 .

Valent, Paul. “Introduction to Survival Strategies.” Trauma Information Pages. 26 Feb. 2004 .

Valente, Michael E. Chicago School Reform and Product Model. Illinois, U.S. 4/1999.

Vallas, Steven Peter. "The Concept of Skill." Work and Occupations. 17.4 (November, 1990): 379-398.

Van Wart, Montgomery, N. Joseph Cayer, and Steve Cook. Handbook of Training and Development for the Public Sector. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1993.

VanCaspel, Venita. Money Dynamics for the 1990s. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988.

VanDeWeghe, Rick, and Louann Reid. “Reading the Classroom as Text: A Heuristic for Classroom Inquiry.” English Education. 32.2 (Jan 2000): 127-40. WebLuis. 10 Mar. 2003 .

Verdenius, Willem J., "Mimesis: Plato’s Doctrine of Artistic Imitation and Its Meaning to Us." Philosophia Antiqua: A Series of Monographs on Ancient Philosophy. Ed. W.J. Verdenius and J.H. Waszink. Leiden, Holland: E.J. Brill, 1949.

VideoLearning Systems, Inc. A LearnCom Group Company. "Leadershift: Five Lessons for Leaders in the 21st Century." Abstract. 29 Mar. 2004 .

229 Villena-Mata, Darling G. “’Fight, Flight, or Freeze’ Reactions, Ongoing Stress and Health.” Brookside Center for Counseling and Hypnotherapy. 26 Feb. 2004 .

Vince, R., and M. Broussine. “Paradox, Defense and Attachment: Accessing and Working with Emotions and Relations Underlying Organizational Change.” Organization Studies 17 (1996): 1-21.

Vince, Russ. "The Politics of Imagined Stability: A Psychodynamic Understanding of Change at Hyder Place." Human Relations 55.10 (Oct. 2002): 1189.

Vital Speeches. 59.15 (May 15 1993): 466. 10 Sep. 2000 .

“Vocational Education and Training—The European Research Field. Background Report. Volume I. First Edition.” European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training. 1998. WebLuis. .

“Vocational Education and Training—The European Research Field. Background Report. Volume II. First Edition.” European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training. 1998. WebLuis. .

Wagner, Tony. “Leadership for Learning: An Action Theory of School Change.” Phi Delta Kappan 82.5 (Jan. 2001): 378. WebLuis. 20 July 2003. .

Wajcman, Judy. “Addressing technological change: the challenge to social theory.” Current Sociology 50.3 (May 2002): 347-63. WebLuis. 20 July 2003. .

Waldersee, Robert. “Becoming a Learning Organization.” Journal of Management Development. 16.1 (1997): 262-73. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Waldrop, Judith. "You'll Know It's the 21st Century When..." American Demographics. Ithaca, NY: Dow Jones and Co., December, 1990.

Walker, Pete. “Codependency, Trauma, and the Fawn Response.” Eastbay Therapist. 26 Feb. 2004 .

Ward, Kathryn. Women Workers and Global Restructuring. Introduction and Overview. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University ILR Press.

Warminski, Andrzej. Readings In Interpretation: Holderlin, Hegel, Heidegger. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987.

230 Warrick, D.D. “Applying OD to the Public Sector.” Public Personnel Management. 5.3 (May-Jun 76): 186-190. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Watkins, Karen E. “Learning by Changing: Action Science and Virtual Organization Development.” Adult Learning. 11.3 (Spring 2000): 20. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Watson, Karilee Kay. “An Analysis of Selected Variables of Organizational Structure and Their Relationship to the Rate of Adoption of School Reorganization in Iowa School Districts.” Canadian School Trustees’ Association Congress on Education. Iowa, U.S.: Jun 1978. WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Webb, Alison. "Contentment and the Computer System." Accountancy (Apr. 1993).

Weber, James M. "Selected Contemporary Work Force Reports: A Synthesis and Critique." Information Series No. 354. Center On Education and Training for Employment, College of Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Weidner, Virginia, and Carolyn D. Herrington. “Holmes et al., v. Bush et al. Initial Court Decision.” Florida State University: Learning Systems Institute, October 2000.

Weinsheimer, Joel. Imitation. London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984.

Welker, Robert. “Expertise and the Teacher as Expert: Rethinking a Questionable Metaphor.” American Educational Research Journal28.1 (Spring 1991): 19-35. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003 .

Wells, Amy Stuart. “Charter School Reform in California: Does it Meet Expectations?” Phi Delta Kappan. (December 1998): 305 – 12

Wertheimer, Richard, and Mario Zinga. "Attending to the Noise: Applying Chaos Theory to School Reform." ERIC ED408707. Pennsylvania, U.S.: 03/1997.

Westaby, James D. “Identifying specific factors underlying attitudes toward change: using multiple methods to compare expectancy-value theory to reasons theory.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32.5 (May 2002): 1083. WebLuis. 20 July 2003. .

"School Reform." WestEd. 16 Aug. 2003 on 8/16/03.

“Where Are We Headed? 1990-2010." Tallahassee Democrat [Tallahassee, Florida] 7 Sep. 1989.

White, Lawrence H., ed. Democratic Editorials: Essays in Jacksonian Political Economy by William Leggett. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Press, 1984.

231 Whiting, Rick. "Behavior Change For Supply Chains – Companies Turn To Complexity Theory To Improve Business Processes." Information Week, (April 2, 2001): 56.

Whyte, William Foote. Social Theory for Action: How Individuals and Organizations Learn Change. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1991.

Whyte, William Foote. Twelfth Impression 1969. Street Corner Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1955.

Wike, Lori. "Photographs and Signatures: Absence, Presence, and Temporality in Barthes and Derrida." Invisible Culture: An Electronic Journal for Visual Studies, @ 2000. .

Wilkin, Peter. “Chomsky and Foucault on Human Nature and Politics: An Essential Difference?” Social Theory and Practice 25.2 (Summer 1999): 177. WebLuis. .

Wilkins, Alan L. Developing Corporate Character. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1989.

Williams, C.J.F. What Is Truth? New York: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

Williams, Timothy P. “We Need Education Reform, Not School Reform.” Plano Star- Courier. 4 June 1995.

Willower, Donald J. "Micropolitics and the Sociology of School Organizations." Education and Urban Society. 23.4 (August 1991): 442-454.

Winegardner, Karen E. "The Case Study Method of Scholarly Research". The Graduate School of America. Fall 2003 .

Winn, Joan. “Kacey Fine Furniture: Human Resource Management in the Face of Change.” Entreprenuership. 25.2 (Winter 2000): 95. WebLuis.20 Jul 2003 .

Wise, Lois R. Labor Market Policies and Employment Patterns in the United States. San Francisco: Westview Press.

Wlodkowski, Raymond J. Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass Publishers, 1985.

Wollin, Andrew. “Punchuated Equilibrium: Reconciling Theory of Revolutionary and Incremental Change.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science; v.16, 4, 359. July 1999. Web Luis. 20 July 2003. .

232 Wood, Stephen. The Transformation of Work? Skill, Flexibility, and the Labour Process. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1981.

"Work Force Education Reform." Vocational Education Journal. (October 1992).

Writing Guide. "Introduction to Generalizability and Transferability"; "Transferability: Considerations"; "Transferability: Example"; "Transferability: Potential Limitations"; "Generalizability and Transferability: Synthesis"; "Generalizability and Transferability: Controversy, Worth, and Function"; "Generalizability and Transferability: A Comparison"; "Applications to Research Methods"; "Applications of Transferability and Generalizability"; "The Qualitative Versus Quantitative Debate"; "Key Terms"; "Overview: Generalizability and Transferability"; "Generalizability and Transferability: Interrelationships." Writing@CSU: Colorado State University. 30 Aug. 2003 http://writing.colostate.edu/references/research/gentrans/com2c2.cfm.

Written Communication. 17.1 (Jan 2000): 27-52. WebLuis. 24 Feb. 2003 .

Wynne, Gerald. [Information about rhetoric. University of Tennessee]. Contact Wynne at [email protected]. Jan. 2004 Rhetoric information from http://web.utk.edu/~gwynne/classical.html.

Yaqub, Aladdin M. The Liar Speaks the Truth: A Defense of the Revision Theory of Truth. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Yeaman, Andrew R.J. “Empirical Fact or Social Fact?” Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Iowa, U.S.: Feb 1990. WebLuis. 11 Mar. 2003 .

Yero, Judith Lloyd. “Metaphors in Education.” Teacher’s Mind Resources. 16 Aug. 2003 .

Yin, R. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. United Kingdom: Sage Publications, 1988.

Yolles, Maurice, and Kaijun Guo. “Paradigmatic metamorphosis and Organization Development (Research Paper).” System Research and Behavioral Science 20.2 (March- April 2003): 177. WebLuis. 20 July 2003. .

Young, H. Peyton. “Individual Learning and Social Rationality.” European Economic Review. 42.3 (May 1998): 651(13). WebLuis. 20 July 2003 .

Zahra, Shaker A., et al. “Corporate Entrepreneurship, Knowledge, and Competence Development.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 23.3 (Spring 1999): 169. WebLuis. .

Zeidler, Dana L. “Visions: Teacher’s Perception of Reform Goals in Science Education.” Science Educator 7.1 (Spring 1998): 38-46. WebLuis. .

233 Ziebarth, Todd. The Changing Landscape of Education Governance. Colorado, U.S. 1/1999.

Zimmerman, Andrew B. "The Internet: Do You Have a Strategy?" Telecommunications Nov. 1995.

Ziyal, Leyla “Measuring for Hope (or Test System).” Journal of Managerial Psychology 6.2 (1991): 1-4.

Zmuda, Allison. “A Contract for the High School Classroom: Performance Standards Can Foster Trust, Communication, and Accountability In Classroom, Leading To Better Teaching and Learning.” Educational Leadership (Mar. 1999).

Zollers, Nancy J., and Arun K. Ramanathan. “For-Profit Charter Schools and Students with Disabilities: The Sordid Side of the Business of Schooling.” Phi Delta Kappan. (December 1998): 297 – 304.

Zuboff, Shoshana. In the Age of the Smart Machine. Boulder, CO: Perseus Books, 1989.

234 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

A proponent of lifelong learning, Nolia Brandt has a Master's degree in Social Work, a Master's degree in creative writing, and with this dissertation completed, a Ph.D. in Education. Brandt's work over the past thirty-five years has taken her between the public and private sectors: information technology, human services, medical social work, education, advocacy and community development, criminal justice, business and entrepreneurship, and public policy related to program development, funding, service delivery, performance and accountability.

Brandt spent a number of years as a school social worker. She has been a field instructor for university students in instructional design, criminal justice, social work, sociology, and business/entrepreneurship; has pursued her interest in education by volunteering in local schools and community service organizations; has written and lobbied for changes in public policy; and has integrated the importance of teaching and learning into each organization and business with which she has been affiliated. Before it was part of the organizational literature, Brandt helped build a "learning organization" that has been strong in its information technology field for almost 20 years.

Brandt specializes in process analysis and subtext. She has built a national reputation on taking complex and difficult social and business problems, analyzing, deconstructing, and organizing them into a series of new insights, and helping governments around the country get beyond old thought patterns and ways of operation. She has done extensive research on organizations and on how workplaces, families, individuals, and communities create their realities. Brandt creates environments for change, having been a successful change agent for thirty-five years.

235