ERIC ED348711: When School Restructuring Meets Systemic Curriculum Reform. Brief to Policymakers.

7 Pages·1992·0.22 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 348 711
EA 024 125
AUTHOR
Newmann, Fred M.; Clune, William H.
TITLE
When School Restructuring Meets Systemic Curriculum
Reform. Brief to Policymakers.
Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools,
INSTITUTION
Madison, WI.
SPONS AGENCY
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),
Washington, DC.
PUB DATE
92
CONTRACT
R117Q00005-92
NOTE
7p.
PUB TYPE
Collected Works - Serials (022) -- Viewpoints
(Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.)
(120)
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
*Curriculum Design; *Curriculum Development;
*Curriculum Guides; *Educational Change; Elementary
Secondary Education; *School Restructuring
ABSTRACT
The relationship between two educational improvement
initiatives--school restructuring and systemic curriculum reform--is
examined in this bulletin. School restructuring tends to focus on
process in schools and curriculum reform concentrates more directly
on content and curriculum across a range of schools. The main
features, their promises and limitations, of each initiative are
discussed. A conclusion is that systemic curriculum reform can offer
restructured schools a high quality curriculum, while school
restructuring provides a process for building the teaching/learning
environment capable of supporting such a curriculum in diverse school
communities. Policy makers must reach a consensus about educational
content and the delivery of resources necessary for substantial
change. Equity is also a concern for both policy and practice because
of the promise and perils of high standards for an increasingly
diverse student population. (6 endnotes) (LMI)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
Vto policymakers
When School Restructuring Meets
Systemic Curriculum Reform
Fred M. Newmann and William H. Clune
olicymakers face a throng of proposals to improve education: chartered schools, school
choice, new systems of testing, year round schools to name a few. While the merits of
each initiative should he considered, policymakers must also assess how one reform
relates to another. Examining the connections helps to minimize inefficiencies when
separate interventions contradict one another or operate in isolation. Education policy
should he crafted to support a set of mutually beneficial reforms.
We examine here the relationship between two initiatives: school restructuring and
systemic curriculum reform. School restructuring tends to focus primarily upon processthe
roles and rules that govern how educators and students function in schools. Systemic curricu-
lum reform concentrates more directly on content and curriculum across a range of schools.1
We describe the main features of each initiative, and consider both the promise and limita-
tions systemic curriculum reform holds for school restructuring.
School Restructuring
U.S. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATION
School restructuring can include any number of departures from conventional practice that
Mc* or Educanonal Rtmearcn and imoaramant
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
fundamentally change the roles of teachers, administrators, students, and parents working
CENTER (ERIC)
0 Pus document has Imottn roprodoced as
with schools.- Some notable innovations include school-based management; team teaching
waned Iron, tne oorsOn or organization
ability
across grades or disciplines; longer class periods meeting fewer times per week; replacing
t originating it.
411 Minor chirp's My, Won made to improve
grouping with heterogeneous classes; replacing Carnegie units with outcomes-based assessment.
reproduction Quality
School restructuring differs from prior reforms in several appealing ways. It invites funda-
Penis et Khrof %anions stated in this deo,
mint do not nsicassanty represent official
mental redesign of teaching and learning to address the underlying causes, rather than the
OE RI positan or pokey
symptoms, of low quality education. It recognizes the importance of building school-wide
vision and capacity to identify and solve problems, rather than adopting one project after
another to placate separate interests within the school. It understands that for reforms to
SUMMER 1992
BRIEF NO. 3
work, school staff must be committed and that commitment arises largely through a partici-
hierarchy.
patory and collegial school organization, not a top-down
School Restructuring
1
In its search for new approaches, however, school restructuring itself raises new problems.
Teaching responsibilities broaden, calling for a host of commitments and competencies in
Systemic Curriculum Reform 2
such new roles as instructional coach, curriculum team member, entrepreneur to build new
The Promise of Systemic
decision-making. Few
programs, student advisor/confidant, and participant in organizational
Curriculum Reform
2
teachers have been formally prepared to perform well in these diverse roles.
Second, the attention to governance, collaborative professional interaction, and student
Limits of Systemic
need for social support can easily divert staff energy away from critical issues in curriculum
Curriculum Reform
2
and instruction. By involving teachers in numerous activities other than teaching a common
curriculum, school restructuring can diminish attention from important curricular issues.
CENTER ON ORGANIZATION AND RESTRUCTURING OF SCHOOLS
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
2
tent through curriculum standards, instructional
Finally, when teachers do focus on improving
materials, assessments and staff development, but
curriculum and instruction, they often confront
would refrain from prescribing details of class-
three problems that school restructuring alone
room practice and school organization. Instead, it
cannot solve: (a) disagreement within the school
would present guidelines and resources for assess-
curriculum
on how and what to teach; (h) lack of
ment, curriculum and staff development that
materials that offer challenging academic content
individual schools could adapt. Teacher prepara-
engaging for culturally diverse and at-risk stu-
tion institutions would align their instruction to
dents; and, (c) district or state policies in curricu-
the system's.guidelines and resources.
lum, assessment, teacher preparation, or staff
development that hinder the school's efforts to
Systemic refon
The Promise of Systemic
improve curriculum and instruction.
Curriculum Reform
Whether school restructuring will contribute
promises to
improved, high quality curriculum seems to he
Teachers in restructured schools often consider
an open question. How can systemic curriculum
curriculum guides, published instructional
provide the new
reform help restructured schools to resolve
materials, and tests woefully inadequate. They
these problems!
"beef' or
crave ideas for teaching academic subjects in ways
that motivate culturally diverse students who they
Systemic Curriculum Reform
often feel have not been adequately prepared for
substantive
the current grade level or course. Although indi-
According to advocates of systemic reform.
content to replace vidual teachers may work hard to develop new
the institutions that most influence curricu-
curriculum and tests, there is usually not enough
lum and instruction in schools are colleges and
time to reach solid consensus about the best cur-
superficial
universities that prepare teachers: state agencies
riculum, or to produce materials of sufficient qual-
that license teachers; regional agencies that issue
curriculum
ity to he validated by authorities beyond the
regulations on curriculum, testing, and staff devel-
school. And they worry that the knowledge and
opment; producers of tests and instructional mate-
skills they teach will wither away for lack of rein-
coverage and
rials; and staff development organizations.' Yet
forcement in subsequent curriculum.
these organizations are not coordinated to support
Ideally, systemic curriculum reform would
tedious instruction
high quality, challenging curriculum. Suppose that
solve these problems by offering curriculum
for cur-
a state developed high quality guidelines
guides, instructional materials, and assessment
in basic skills.
riculum content K-12. Publishers' texts, geared to a
tools impressive enough to stimulate greater staff
national marker of different expectations, offer tew
consensus within schools. A longitudinal curricu-
The
resources to teach the intended material.
lum framework would permit teachers to assume
state's own university prepares novice teachers not
certain student competence at entry and count
to teach the state curriculum, but instead to pass
on reasonable continuity in subsequent studies.
courses in the academic disciplines and education
Continuous access to staff development aligned
that might even contradict the curriculum. The
with these resources would help teachers to use
new state curriculum would likewise he ignored, or
and adapt the curriculum to suit the special cir-
its aims undermined by producers of national tests.
cumstances of their student body.
The systemic solution is to find a way of aligning
R. providing such a framework, teachers
the products and services of these organizations.
would he free to think more productively about
Reform of this sort needs to he developed
critical details of pedagogy which now receive
through a state or broad regional framework, not
almost no attention. In this sense, systemic
school by school. Not only do schools lack
reform promises to provide the new "beer' or sub-
authority and influence over the institutions
stantive content to replace superficial curriculum
which shape curriculum, but individual schools
coverage and tedious instruction in basic skills.
lack the technical capacity to develop compre-
The school restructuring process could then focus
hensive programs. It is the states' constitutional
on delivering the content most effectively.
responsibility to provide all students equal access
to high quality education.4
Limits of Systemic Curriculum Reform
Systemic curriculum reform relies on resources
0
and standards beyond the school, but proponents
ther nations such as Japan or Germany have
also recognize the dangers of centralized, top-
already achieved alignment of curriculum,
down regulation. They insist that individual
testing, and teacher preparation. These countries
schools retain broad discretion over instruction.
have an ambitious common curriculum for all stu-
Systemic reform would provide substantive con-
dents in primary school; almost no standardized
3
2
testing; and a high degree of teacher commitment
circumstances? The challenge is to strike a bal-
and cooperation in preparing lessons to teach the
ance between two extremes. A highly specific and
curriculum. School restructuring in the United
prescribed curriculum dampens local ownership,
but a very general one with broad-ranging
States, however, raises at least four issues that sys-
temic reform proposals have yet to resolve: (a)
options, offers no definitive guidance.
reaching broad consensus on curriculum goals; (b)
Systemic curriculum reform concentrates
overcoming economic and political obstacles to
appropriately on curriculum, but it must also recog-
institutional alignment; (c) retaining sufficient
nize the existing skills and concerns of teachers.
autonomy for schools and teachers :0 cultivate
Most teachers are not prepared for the new con-
professional commitment to systemic curriculum;
tent or pedagogy contemplated by systemic
Policymakers
and (d) offering staff development broad enough
reform. For example, "teaching for understanding"
to improve the existing skills of teachers and
in mathematics requires both a new way of think-
must develop
address legitimate concerns beyond curriculum.
ing about math and a new, more participatory
Systemic policy in other liations is supported
kind of teaching.6 At the same time, teachers raise
consensus
by strong cultural and insi i utional consensus
lots of questions related to curriculum implemen-
over curriculum content. But in the United
tation. How can the curriculum be taught to a
around an
States, longstanding disagreement over curricu-
heterogeneous group? How can I get students to
lum goals will probably continue. Reaching agree-
talk constructively with one another about the
inspiring vision
ment will be complicated by persisting conflict
curriculum? How can I keep all students up to date
between traditional and progressive
of
when at least 20% are absent each day? How can
of educational
education.' For example, traditionalists empha-
we get all members of our teaching team to buy in
size the need for exposure to broad surveys of
to the plan? How do I respond to parents who
content and
knowledge and basic skills, while progressives
think the curriculum is either too regimented or
stress in-depth understanding and critical think-
too permissive? Where will I find time to respond
deliver the
ing of a smaller set of topics.
thoughtfully to each student's writing? To imple-
The second problem is how actually to achieve
ment high quality curriculum teachers need help
resources
alignment at a state, regional, or national level.
with these and other issues arising out of the new
The product rs of curriculum guidelines, instruc-
roles they assume in restructured schools. Systemic
necessary for
tional materials, tests, teacher education, and staff
reform thus confronts a twin challenge in staff
development include a variety of public and pri-
development: providing training commensurate
substantial
vate organizations operating under different
with the difficulty of the new material and simul-
authority structures and incentive systems
taneously translating it to the broader needs of
change.
Theoretically, a central state organization could
teachers in specific contexts.
conceptualize, produce, and deliver all the
Conclusion
required goods and services. Or the state could
conceivably create powerful economic incentives
curriculum reform has the potential to
systemic
for existing organizations to align their work more
offer restructured schools a high quality cur-
closely to a state framework. One problem of
riculum, while school restructuring offers a pro-
depending upon the state for alignment is that
cess for building the teaching/learning environ-
democratic, interest-group politics often produce
ments capable of supporting such a curriculum in
trade-offs, compromises, and incoherent policy.
diverse school communities. To reach this poten-
Coordinating the work of diverse, traditionally
tial, policymakers must develop consensus around
autonomous organizations, will ultimately depend
an in'piring vision of educational content and
on building sustained, serious commitment to a
deliver the resources necessary for substantial
more challenging curriculum for all children.
change. School restructurers must focus on cur-
Alignment thus depends upon broad consensus.
riculum and confront problems with implement-
How to arrive at consensus on and alignment
ing a new, challenging vision of teaching and
toward appropriate, high quality curriculum stan-
learning. Equity is an important common concern
dards is another matter. Potential dangers of inad-
for both policy and practice because of the
equate or even harmful systemic standards raise
promise and perils of high standards for an
the dilemma of centralized. top-down, versus
increasingly diverse population of students.
decentralized, bottom-up reform. How will stales
give specific guidance but at the same time permit
local schools and individual teachers enough dis-
cretion and.autonomy to respond to their unique
4
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Endnotes
S., & O'Day, J. (1991). Educational equality: 1966 and now.
In D. Verstegen (Ed.), Spheres of
justice in American schools:
1. See Clune, W. H. (1990). Educational governance and
1990 Yearbook of the American Educational Finanace
student achievement. In W. H. Clune & J. F. Witte (Eds.),
(pp. 53-100). New York: Harper & Row; and
Association
and
The
control in American education:
Choice
Vol.
2.
practice
Smith, M. S., & O'Day, J. (1991). Equality in education:
(pp. 391-
of choice, decentralization and school restructuring
Progress, problems and possibilities (RB-07-6/91). New
423). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Consortium for Policy
2. See Murphy, J. (1991).
Restructuring schools: Capturing and
Research in Education.
phenomena. New York: Teachers College Press;
assessing the
5. See Newmann, F. M. (in press). Beyond common sense in
and Newmann, F. M. (1991, Fall). What is a restructured
educational restructuring: The issues of content and linkage.
school? A framework to clarify means and ends.
in
Issues
Educational Researcher.
Restructuring Schools. No. 1, Madison, WI: Center on
Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
6. See Cohen, D. K. (1990). Revolution in one classroom:
The case of Mrs. Oublier.
Educational Evaluation and Policy,
3. See Smith, M. S., & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school
Analysis, 12(3), 311-329.
reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The
politics of
curriculum
of
and testing: The 1990 Yearbook of the Politics
(pp. 233-267). Philadelphia: Falmer
Education Association
Credits
Press; and Smith, M. S., O'Day, J., & Cohen, D. K. (1990).
Fred M. Newmann,
Professor of Curriculum
and Instruction
at the
National curriculum American style: Can it be done? What
University
of Wisconsin-Madison. is Director of the Center on
might it look like? American
14(4), 10-17, 40-47.
Educator.
and Restructuring of Schools. Witham H. Clune. Voss-
Organization
4. See Clune, W. H. (in press). New answers to six hard ques-
at the University of Wisconsin Law School,
Bascom Professor of
1.41V
tions from Rodriguez: Ending the separation of school finance
is Director of Wisconsin Research Group of the
Consortium for
Policy
and educational policy by bridging the gap between wrong
Education and
the Wisconsin Center
also Co-Director of
Research in
and remedy. Connecticut Law
1-42; Smith, M.
Review, 24(3),
for Educational Polio.
Brief No. 3
Summer 1992
r
When School Restructuring Meets
SysteMic Curriculum Reform
CENTER ON ORGANIZATION AND
Nonprotit Omani:anon
RESTRUCTURING OF SCHOOLS
USPosmee
School of Education
PAID
Wisconsin Center for Education Research
Nladr.on. \Vim:06:qt)
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Permit Ni). 1622
'
1025 W. Johnson Street
Madison, WI 53706
205
**********************3-DIGIT
Iraildhc,rst
SERVS. GRP.
Ted
ARC PROF
,s
DIVISION
SYSTEMb
pruned on ro.%, led paper
INFORMATION
DR
1301 PICCARD
5
0$350-430 S
ROCKVILLE MD
CENTER
MISSION
The Center
on Organization
and
Restructuring
of Schools
how
will study
organizational
features of
be changed
schools
can
to increase
the
and social
intellectual
competence of
students. The
five-year
program of
research
focuses on
restructuring
in four
areas: the
experi-
ences of students
in school, the
sional life
profes-
of teachers;
the
governance,
management and
leadership of
and the
schools;
coordination
of
community
resources to better
serve educationally
disadvantaged
students.
Through
syntheses of
previous
research.
analyses of
existing data,
and
new empirical
studies of
education
reform, the
Center will
focus
on six criti-
cal issues
for
elementary,
middle and
high
schools: How
can schooling
nurture
authentic
forms of
student
How
achievement?
can schooling
enhance
educational
equity? How
can decentralization
local
and
empowerment be
constructively
developed?
How
can schools
be
formed
trans-
into
communities of
How
learning?
can change
be approached
through
thoughtful
dialogue and
than
support rather
coercion and
regulation?
How
the focus
can
on student
outcomes be
to serve these
shaped
five
principles?
CENTER
PUBLICATIONS
In the fall and
spring of each
year, the
Center
publishes
an issue
report which
offers in-depth
analysis of
critical
school
issues in
restructuring,
distributed
free to all
persons on the
mailing list.
In addition,
three "briefs"
targeted
to special
will be
audiences
offered yearly.
Our 1992
phy, currently
bibliogra-
available, will
each
be updated
year and is
distributed
free on
request. Occasional
papers reporting
results of
Center
research will
be available
at cost. To
be placed
on the mailing
and receive
list
Issues in
Restructuring
please
Schools,
contact Karen
Prager,
Dissemination
Coordinator,
Center
on
Organizati-m and
Restructuring
of
Schools,
University of
Wisconsin,
W. Johnson
1025
Street.
Madison, WI
53706.
Telephone:
(608)
263-7575.
BEST
COPY
AVAILABLE
a
Brief to policvmakers is prepared by Karen
Prager at the Center on Organization and
Restructuring or Schools, University of
Wisconsin-Madison This publication is
supported by the U S Department of
Education, Office of Educational Research
and Improvement (Grant No
RI17Q00005-92), and by the Wisconsin
Center for Education Research, School of
Education, University of Wisconsin-
Madison The opinions expressed herein are
those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the supporting agencies
This publication is free upon request
Director: Fred M Newmann
Associate Director: Gary Wehlage
Dissemination Coordinator: Karen Prager
Administrative Assistant: Diane Randall
Graphic Designer: Rhonda Dix
7
BEST COPY AVAILABLE