Bringing values back in: How purposes shape practices in coherent school designs

Journal of Educational Change - Tập 16 - Trang 483-510 - 2015
Jal Mehta1, Sarah Fine1
1Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, USA

Tóm tắt

Perhaps the most daunting challenge in building good educational systems is generating quality practice consistently across classrooms. Recent work has suggested that one way to address this dilemma is by building an educational infrastructure that would guide the work of practitioners. This article seeks to build upon and complicate this work on infrastructure by examining why two very different schools are able to achieve consistency of practice where many other schools do not. Findings suggest that infrastructure is not self-enacting and needs to be coupled to school level design in ways that are coherent and mutually reinforcing if infrastructure is going to lead to consistency of outcomes. At the same time, we find that the schools differ substantially in their visions of knowledge, learning, and teaching (purposes), which in turn imply very different kinds of organizational structures (practices). In conclusion, we suggest that the notion of infrastructure is plural rather than singular, and that different designs are appropriate for different pedagogical visions and social contexts.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Austin, J., Schwartz, R., & Suesse, J. (2004). Long beach unified school district (A): Change that leads to improvement (1992–2002). (PEL-006). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Childress, S., et al. (2009). Leading for equity. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

Cohen, D. K. (1989). Teaching practice: Plus que ca change. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 27–84). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in american classrooms, 1890–1990. New York: Teachers College Press.

Daft, R. (2010). Organization theory and design (10th ed.). Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Glazer, J. 2005. Educational professionalism: The development of a practice-centered frame and its application to America’s choice school design. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.

Hill, H., & Herlihy, C. (2011). Prioritizing teacher quality in a new system of teacher evaluation. American Enterprise Institute: Education Outlook.

Johnson, S. M., et al. (2015). Achieving coherence in district improvement: Managing the relationship between districts and schools. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.

Levinson, M. (2012). No Citizen left behind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Manna, P., & McGuinn, P. (2013). Educational governance for the twenty-first century: Overcoming structural barriers to reform. Washington, D.C.: Brookings.

Mehta, J., & Fine, S. (in progress). In search of deeper learning: inside the effort to remake the American high school (book manuscript). Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Mehta, J., & Fine, S. (forthcoming). The why, what, where, and how of deeper learning in American secondary schools. Students at the Center, Deeper Learning Research Series. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.

Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.

Spillane, J. P., Parise, L. M., & Sherer, J. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 586–620.

Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap. New York: Basic Books.