DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 351 793 EA 024 485

TITLE Restructuring School Governance: The ChicagoExperience.

INSTITUTION Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools,

Madison, WI.SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),

Washington, DC.

PUB DATE 92

CONTRACT R117Q000015-92NOTE 19p.

PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) Collected Works

Serials (022)JOURNAL CIT Issues in Restructuring Schools; n3 Fall 1992

EDRS PRICE MFO1 /PCO1 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Elementary Education; Foundation Programs;*Governance; *Participative Decision Making;*Politics of Education; Program Implementation;*School Based Management; School CommunityRelationship; *School Restructuring

IDENTIFIERS *Chicago Public Schools IL

ABSTRACTThe Chicago experience in schoo' governance

restructuring is examined in this newsletter. The introduction

distinguishes between school-based management and shareddecision-making and provides an overview of Chicago's restructuredschool governance. Next, findings of a study that examined school

governance in 12 diverse Chicago elementary schools are presented.

Results suggest a need for a shift in perspective on the nature of

democratic school politics. A third article presents observations on

the implementation of reform in two Chicago public elementary schools

that serve economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. The contrasts

between the schools were significant and showed that changing the

governance structure created opportunities for local initiatives.

However, the successful use of those opportunities depended on social

resources, local leadership, and technical expertise that many

schools and neighborhoods lack. The final article is an interview

with Peter Martinez, the director of the Chicago Educational

Initiative, on the role of foundation support in innercity school

reform. He offers an optimistic persp-tive on the future of

restructured governance in Chicago schools. A list of resources is

included. (LMI)

********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

* from the original document.***********************************************************************

U.S. DERARTNIENT Of EDUCATIONNc o &km NsAiil fleesercn and tmogowment

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

inns document net been reproduced ISreceived from tne peril°. Or Organ.1 at.enortg.nettng

0 Minor amnia@ II nave been made to .morosereOrOducttOn Quality

Footled! weer or Oorn.One Stated tn tn,S 00C u

mast do not nocessarav ,emsem of boa,OESI Doctan Or oohcy

ISSUE REPORT NO. 3FALL 1992

A Closer Look at TwoSchool Communities 1

Director's Introduction 2

The Chicago Experiment 3

Interview 14

in restructuring schools

Restructuring School Governance:The Chicago Experience

A Closer Look at Two School Communities

homas and Alexander Elementary Schools share much in common. Both sit ineconomicaly disadvantaged neighborhoods and serve exclusively low-income stu-dents.' Buildings in the immediate neighborhood are dilapidated, gang violence andgraffiti are prevalent and so are drugs. Those families that can leave, do; and student

mobility is consequently high. Both schools control, however, a considerable amountof discretionary monies which are provided under a variety of local, state and federalprograms. Despite these similarities, the political practice of these two schools andprogress of school reform could not be more different.

We have been observing the implementation of reform in twelve Chicago schoolcommunities for the past two Years. We describe below the political activities occurringin two of these schools. In both cases, we focus on the three sites of power created by thelegislation -- parents and community members, principals, and the facultyand the shiftmg relations among them. We attend particularly to differences in the kinds of conversa-tions occur.-ring in these two schools and the factors that appear to contribute to this.

Thomas Elementary School:An Emergent Politics of Enhanced School Community

A Base of Social ResourcesThe Thomas School community, has always been a port of entry, first to Europeanand now to Mexicm immigrants. Although poor, the community has many viable

institutions. This is a predominantly Catholic community with mostly two parent andextended families. Women, especially first generation immigrants, stay home to care fortheir own children and those of relatives still in Mexico.

These women, many of them in their thirties and forties, are an important resourceto the school, and the school in turn supports them. They bring old world norms ofrespect for teachers and deferent e for authority, and model these behaviors for theirchildren. These attitudes enable bonds to be created that extend across differences inethnicit (only about a thud of the teachers are Hispanic), culture, and class. As oneteacher Say,

''I like the kid% .111.1 then paii.nr, ,i bit i if the moms mot us to treat then lads right and then

suppiirt u' I Iles %if/qut then 1,1,1% tiu. I hes tell their kids to listen to u%. . . the children are

sweet 1 hes re ell, \ to led, h penile, quiet little kids.-

2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

117111711461 PrIRC

CENTER ON ORGANIZATION ANT) Ill-sTRUCTURING Of SCHOOI.s

DIRECTOR'S INTRODUCTION

Since 1988.the 600

schools in

Chicago have

been operatingunder the

most extensive

effort in

restructuredschool

governance inUS history.

by i.te,1N1 Newmann

School restructuring takes many forms,and changing the structure of schoolgovernance is prominent. The two

major changes in school governance are:site-based management (SBlvt), to decen-tralize decision-making authority from thestate or district to the individual schoolsite; and shared decision-making (SDM),to expand the cast of key decision-makersbeyond principals to include teachers andparents. The use of either SRM or SDN1.however, does not necessarily entail theuse of other. A school might have consid-erable autonomy from the distriLz underSRM, but the principal might retain virtu-ally all powers of governance at the school.Or, teachers might run their school demo-c rat wally, with only minimal leadershipfrom a principal (SDM), but the schoolwaft may have virtually no control overurricultim, staffing and budget.

Why should governance changes suchas MINI or SDM improve education forstudents! There is no guarantee they will.unless combined with several other fea-tures of school restructuring, such as bettercurriculum, teaching, and assessment. Therationale for restructuring governancealong these lines is that education is morelikely to serve the needs of students if themost important issues for schools (especialkdecisions on curriculum, staffing, and bud-get I are decided by the adults who knowthose particular students the best. Whenschools must respond to extensive regula-tion by distant authorities, education ateach school suffers, because local adminis-trators, teachers, and parents who knowthe students best have little influence onwhat happens in school.

Schools that practice SRM and SDMgain "empowerment," but they too faceseveral problems. Conflict within a schoolstaff over educational goals can lead tostalemates and compromises that serve nostudents well. Teachers may not valueparents' input when they feel parents lackimportant professional knowledge. Itteachers and parents lack skills of group-work and productive discourse withindemocratic structures, governance meetingsadd to inefficiencies a,: 1 breed distrust.Even when SRM and SDM seem to pro-ceed smoothly. a school may still otter lock

quality education, if both teachers andparents at the schools are poorly informedabout effective approaches to curriculum,teaching, and assessment.

Since 1988, the 600 schools in Chicagohave been operating under the mostextensive effort in restructured schoolgovernance in US history. Mandated bythe Illinois legislature, each school is runby a local school council (LSC) of sixparents. two community representatives, 2teachers and the principal. The LSC hasauthority over the school's improvementplan, the budget, and the right to hireand fire the principal. Principals haveincreased authority over budgets, physicalplant, and personnel. A ProfessionalPersonnel Advisory Committee of teachershas advisory responsibility for curriculumand instruction.. How is restructured governance workingin Chicago? This Issue Report presentssome initial findings from research directedby .Anthony Bryk of the Center for SchoolImprovement at the University of Chicago.Bryk and colleagues have studied restruc-tured school governance in 12 elementaryschools in diverse neighborhoods through-out the city. Their work is guided by politi-cal theory, and the research article here byBrvk and assistant director Sharon Rollowsuggests the need for a shift in perspectiveon the nature of democratic school politicsitself. The cover article of this Reportdescribes the political process in two schools.

Contrasts between the schools aresignificant, and show that changing thegovernance structure creates opportuni-ties for local initiative, but the successfuluse of those opportunities depends uponsocial resources, local leadership. andtechnical expertise that many schoolsand neighborhoods lack. We include aninterview with an xecutive of a majorfoundation who- .7', an optimistic per-spectives on the future of restructuredgovernance in Chicago.

It is too early to report on the eltec is

of restructured governance one urriculuniand instruction, but informed obsers CI'agree that signific. nt unprovemenr her,will require major investment and etloitFinally, we offer a list of rsoup.es for MIthen information on the ( reform

3

RESEARCH

The Chicago Experiment:

Enhanced Democratic Plrticipation as a Lever for School Improvement

c. \zith.m.`v1,11,,1 I I R.,otc

This is a report on work-in-progress supported by the NationalCenter on School Organization and Restructuring and a grant

from the Spencer Foundation. The authors want to acknowledgethe contributions of other members of the research team in thiseffort: Barbara Schneider, Michael Bennett, Al Bertani, JenniferCox, David Jacobsen, Lisa Moultrie, Rachel Resnick, Sara Spur larkand Josie Yanguas. The authors alone, however, are responsible forany errors of fact or interpretation.

Background on ChicagoSchool Reform

Tn December, 1988 the Illinois statellegislature passed the ChicagoSchool Reform Act. This legislation,PA 85-1418, emerged out of a lengthypolitical process involving a coalitionof community people working in ti.n.dem with advocacy groups and thebusiness community.

Touted as "the most fundamentalrestructuring since the early part of thetwentieth century, "2 the Act has alsobeen called "radical...a triumph...historic" and "more than educationalchange... In Chicago school reform isa social movement that embraces arK:reflects the city's diversity."'

Chicago's reform, however, is notwithout its critics. Suspicion still sim-mers within the city about the "realmotivations" behind reform. Whenparent empowerment and decentral-ization were first proposed, a numberof the city's African-American leaderswere skeptical. They argued thatparents want good schools for theirchildren, but did not wish to runthem nor did they necessarily havethe expertise to do so. They fearedthat this reform was designed to fail inorder to achieve the real aim of somepoliticians and business people: The

replacement of the Chicago PublicSchool (CPS) system with a privateeducational market. It seemed hardlycoincidental that radical decentraliza-tion swept over the school system justas African-Americans had assumedleadership of the central administra-tion and teachers' union.

Chicago's reform is also underscrutiny on the national scene wherecritics frequently describe it as anti-professionala perspective not with-out some justification, since it stripstenure away from principals andgrants teachers only an advisory role.Don Moore, an author of the Act anddirector of one of the city's schooladvocacy groups, had specificallyargued that "the power of urbanschool professionals must he curtailedbecause professional judgment hasrepeatedly been used as an excuse forpractices that are harmful to children."Others see the reform as simply a replayof the 1960's community empower-ment movement, which promotedsimilar improvements, but failed toproduce broad systemic change ineducational opportunities.'

On balance, PA 85-1418 involvesa more sophisticated conception ofschool reform than most of its clinkacknowledge. Prior to reform, the

4

highly centralized bureaucracy tendedto squelch local initiative, to impairprincipals', machers', and parents'efforts at improvement, and to dimin-ish their sense of agency. In response,PA 85-1418 sought to replace tradi-tional bureaucratic control of schoolswith a complex system of decision-making by local school. The vertical"problem-solution path," where localschool officials looked up into thesystem for guidance, shifted horizon-tally causing greater engagement ofschool professionals with their localcommunities.6

More specifically, the Act promotesthree distinct sites of power in schoolcommunities, each of which nowholds potential for initiating a seriouschallenge to the status quo. First, theAct created opportunities for parentsand community members to exerciseinitiative by giving parent-dominatedLocal School Councils (LSCs) specificpowers "to hire and fire" the schoolprincipal, and to approve the budgetand School Improvement Plan.Second, principals received morepower over their budgets, physicalplant and personnel, and were encour-aged to use these resources to solvelocal problems. Whereas in the pastprincipals were expected to followorders passed down through the Fys-

tem, the job now demands a respon-siveness to local clients. Third, theAct gave teachers a voice in principalselection and retention by providingtwo faculty seats on the LSC, andadvisory responsibility over schoolcurriculum and instruction in theProfessional Personnel AdvisoryCommittee (PPAC1 Chicago reform.thus, sought to encourage greaterengagement, not only by parentsand community meriers, but alsoby principals and teachers.

3

Computer skills start in kindergarten

In addition to reorienting the politi-cal environment of schools towardgreater local participation and respon-sibility, the reform legislation has sever-al other major provisions. It mandatedthat state compensatory educationfunds flow directly to Chicago's schoolsproportional to their low incomemembership. This assured that schoolswith high percentages of disadvantagedstudents would receive a substantialinfusion of funds to support new initia-tives. Previously, these funds were usedby the District as general aid.

The Act also established greatercontrol by the local school over itspersonnel and building. Where teach-ers previously had been assigned h\the Board of Education, principals cannow recruit and choose raw stiff. Toexpedite the removal of Incompetentteachers, the remediation process wasshortened from 1 year to 45 days.(Only after an unsuccessful remedia-tion process can an incompetentteacher he removed from the class-room.) Principals also have a voice inhiring raid evaluating new janitorialand tood service personnel by virtue ofthe Act, and they now have their ownbuilding keys. (Prior to reform, primppals held keys at the discretion of theschool engineer.) Taken together,these new budget, personnel, and

4

plant provisions were intended toassure that schools have adequateresources and authority to advancetheir initiatives.

Balancing the emphasis on localempowerment are legislative provi-sions that sought to pull schoolstoward educational improvement.These consisted of explicit educationalgoals for children, e.g. 5C"0 of thestudents in each school will be atnational norms by 19q4; and anextended set of school objectives, e.g.enhanced teacher professionalism,multicultural curriculum, and greaterparent involvement. The Act alsomandated strategic planning designedto make local school decision-makingmore rational. Schools are required todevelop three year improvement planswhich must he evaluated and updatedannually to assure progress -coward localgoals and legislatively mandated goals.The Chicago school system is requiredto report annually on each school'sprogress. If progress is insufficient, aschool is subject to a variety of increas-ingly severe sanctions that may culmi-nate in termination of the principal'scontract, removal of the LSC, andplacing the school under the receiver-ship of the Board of Education.

In general terms, the legislationattacked the failures of the Chicagoschool system from two different direc-tions. At the grassroots level, it soughtto encourage expanded democraticparticipation by giving school commu-nities some real authority and resourcesto solve problems loc:ally. To guidethese developments toward valuedends, the legislation added specificgoals and objectives, and an accountability and strategic planning process.The aim was to create an overallenvironment in the CPS that wouldpromote local change.

Moving beyond the formal legisla,tive provisions, PA 85-1418 has also

precipitated a substantial expansion of

institutional activity kkused onimproving education. ( )ver the Iasitour years, numerous associationsamong the city's business and prates.sional leaders have emerged to provide

technical and financial assistance toand advocate for individual schools.Education has been a sustained focusof activity among civic groups andcommunity-based organizations(CBOs). The local philanthropiccommunity has committed substantialnew funds. Individual faculty membersfrom colleges and universities in themetropolitan area are active inChicago's schools, and several newresearch, development, and profession-al education centers have emerged. Inthe past, many of these individuals andinstitutions felt discouraged by theirencounters with a seemingly disinter-ested school bureaucracy.

Four years into reform, it is clearthat the CPS system is in the midst ofa major organizational restructuring.The central bure.:Jcracy has beensubstanually weakened, replaced bythe greatly expanded democraticactivity both in individual schoolcommunities and citywide. Neitherthe Board, nor the c -astral office, norany other single entity is controllingthis change process; rather, power isbroadly diffused and extensive conver-sations about school improvement aresustained throughout the city.Moreover, the content of this conver-sation is evolving and these changesare influencing policy. Two years agoattention focused almost exclusivelyon the formation and training ofLSCs. Now conversations have shiftedto the kinds of additional resourcesand institutional supports needed bylocal schools to affect substantivechanges in classrooms and instruction.

At present, it is too early to deter-mine whether this legislation willculminate in enhanced student learn-ing.' It is clear, however, that ChicagoSchool Reform has catalyzed enter-prise in many individual school com-munities and throughout the city.Whatever the longer term outcomes,there a7e important lessons here aboutettorts to decentralize authority, toenhance the capacities of parents andcommunities to look out for their owninterests, and to engage professionalsto work toward community goals.

Traditional Views ofSchool Politics

he vast majority of past studiesi of educational politics have taken

their lead from Peterson who focusedon the pluralist bargaining thatoccurred among interest groups onChicago's school board.' Thisresearch, and other related studies atthe federal and state level, otters arather cynical and unflatteringpicture of educattonal politics as a"jungle" where individuals and groupscompete to advance their particularinterests. Marginal changes may heaffected, but the basic structure of thesystem, and especially the power rela-tions within it, remain unchallenged.

More recently, in a study of theinteractions between principals andteachers, Ball describes the strugglewithin British secondary schools overscarce resourcesfaculty promotions,plum teaching assignments, andinstructional materials.' Headmastersin these schools deliberately allocatedresources to maintain a semblance ofharmony and protect the status quo.

We too have observed interestpolitics in individual Chicago schoolcommunities. The School ReformAct opened school doors to theirneighborhoods. Not surprisingl,pressing community issues often findparallel expression within theschool. In one of our field site com-munities, for example, gentrificat totis occurring. The LSC is factional -ized between the interests of developers and the affluent residents the%are bringing into the neighborhood,and the older CBOs who advocatefor the low-income families beingforced out. Allocation of discre-tionary monies in this school hasbecome an arena for political con-test. While low-income communitygroups want to encourage a greaterinvolvement of poor parent andcommunity members by hiring someof these individuals as tutors, theschool staff along with sonic of thenewer community residents prefer touse these funds to create additionalteaching positions.

Such activities are consistent withaccounts of the earlier school decen-tralization in New York, where thebasic elements of "big city" politicsfights over contracts and jobswaslargely transferred from the citywideBoard of Education to district-levelhoards. Although the context shifted,the basic nature of political activitydid not.

Unlike New York, the fundamen-tal governance unit in Chicago is theindividual school, not a district-levelboard. As a result, the distancebetween the site of political activityand its consequences are radicallyreduced. Individual accountabilityfor political activity is now moresharply drawn.

The introduction of parentsand community members into localschool politics also appears to havechanged the nature of this activity,it least in some schools. As Ballnotes. most educational decision -making is dominated by professionalsand involves a deliberate attempt todepoliticise local problems. Publichot es about common affairs areiewed as technical issues requiring

esrerts and other managers to solve.This protessionalization of the publicrealm displaces more fundamentaldiscussions among citizens abouttheir schools including the "opportu-nity to debate the definition of theschool. "''' In contrast, in those( :Imago schools where parents areat. t ively involved, we have seen LS('members press a more personal per-spective about what "our school":fast do to meet the needs of "ourchildren."

A Politics of EnablingSchool Communities 11

The full breadth of the politicalactivity occurring in Chicago's

schools is not adequately captured bya conception of school politics vd-itc.hred. es ;,1.1 activities to a competitionamong Individuals and groups overscarce resources. In expanding on thispluralist bargaining framework, we

have turned to writings aboutrenewed democratic institutions.' 2These authors maintain that arenewed democratic politics, rootedin sustained local participation, is thenecessary antidote to unre.;ponsivesocietal institutions. They remind usof the importance of public discussionabout common affairs, of the educa-tional opportunities inherent in suchconversations, and how over the longterm, this activity can help institu-tions become more self-guided.Chicago's efforts at local empower-ment hold potential for enablingschool communities to create analternative vision of education fortheir children.

This concept of school politicsencourages us to attend to the natureof political discourse in school corn-tnunities. Who is involved, whatconcepts appear salient and how arethey being advanced? Do parents andcommunity members bring forth newinterests that challenge existing ones!Now that individual principals andteachers are freer to express viewsdistinct from the central office, whatissues do they introduce? Of key con-cern is whether the definition of theschoolits mission, goals, and under-standings about 'how things get donearound here'is subject to challenge.

The spirit of the reform legislationand the broader discussions aboutschooling that are occurring across thecity play an important role in thisregard. This rhetoric challenges eachschool community to create an institu-tion that is sensitive to the needs of itsspecific population, one where "allchildren" will succeed and no childwill fail. If taken seriously at a localschool, these ideas can act as a powerfulcounterforce to a politics of privateinterests. In such a school, the effortsof the LSC parent seeking to improveeducational opportunities for his or herown child can evolve into advancingthe welfare of all children. Similarly,efforts by teachers to improve theirwork conditions can press for are-examination of school operationsto better serve students' needs.

5

Bake sale at theParent Center

Places where suchactivity is c7curring aremarked by sustaineddebate over the key ideasthat vie for moral authorityand their role in specificschool improvement plans.To be sure, individualsdisagree and conflicts canbe intense. But thesedebates are about mattersof broad concern, ratherthan narrow personalgains, and different per-spective can often betransformed into commoninterests. This is quite dif-ferent from pluralist bar-gaining, which at its bestproduces a compromise among fixedinterests, and at its worst creates win-ners and losers. In contrast, when apolitics of enabling school communi-ties is successfully engaged, the base ofshared understandings grows, positivesentiments and trust among partici-pants rise, and the capacity of theschool community to tackle even Ian:er problems expands. Over time, adetailed scrutiny of existing organiza-tional practices becomes likely.

On balance, the road to an effectivelocal politics is neither easy nor assuredand it is not without its own distinctiveproblems. Parochialism, intolerancetoward strangers, and maintaining anopenness to t, :w ideas are potentialpitfalls of localism. Moreover, manyChicago school communities sufferfrom high student and family mobility,a history of hostility between parentsand school professionals, and a neigh-borhood context plagued by poverty,violence, and an overriding concernfor personal safety and survival. Whencombined with a cynical view thatpolitics means "taking care of yourown," these are not favorable condi-tions for the development of a politicsof enabling school communities.Ironically, while broad participationexpands the social resources in a school

6

I

community, the emergence and growthof such participation depends on thesevery same resources.

These concerns notwithstanding,the idea of school communities assites of strong democratic practiceremains appealing. This seems espe-cially so when we acknowledge thatthe aim of political activityschoolimprovementis not a quick fix.Rather, school change necessitatesthe development of trusting personalrelationships among parents, teachers,and principal, and requires that theserelationships be sustained if schoolstaff are to take risks, work together,and stay committed for the long haul.That is, this systemic change processdemands a strong democratic practice.

A important Role forNonnative Understandings

At the core of strong democraticpractice is sustained conversa-

tion. Chicago's school reform substan-tially expanded the scope of thisactivity in individual schools. Manybasic school practices (e.g. shouldstudents march between classroom inorderly lines or he required to wearuniforms?) which were simply takenfor granted in the past or decided byadministrative fiat are now subject to

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

debate among parents, communitymembers, teachers and the principal.Each participant brings to thesediscussions his or her own personalviews, or normative understandingsabout what is "good," "proper," and"right" for their school. Differ:Tit nor-mative ideas built up out of past fami-ly, school, and work experiences arenow transported into these delibera-tions and can become source:, of con-flict among these now responsible fortheir school. These disagreements canbe particularly sharp in some schoolsbecause of the highly varied back-grounds among the partKipants.

Included here are assumptionsabout: What is a good school (e.g. aplace that has the programs andresources of a suburban school versusone that may need to be structureddifferently to meet the needs ot part lc -ular students and families); about whatchildren should learn (e.g. spec-4tknowledge and skills to be acquiredversus a view tit sty Liu, I VC

learners); about how children andparents should be treated, and him., inturn, children and parents should treatteachers. In addition, since politics isthe lever for schoill t hinge inChicago, understandings about thenature and purposes it civic and poln-

7

ical participation, also come Into play.Although rooted in personal back-

ground and experience, normativeunderstandings are not static. Ratherthey can he reshaped through socialinteraction in setting, where daterentexpectations and ideas prevail. TheLSC holds potential as a context forsuch human development, to L silt 1-vine the skills of citizenship, enrichtheir personal competence. Here,parents, teachers, and print [pal Lanlearn about each other, ind m theourse of work the insist do together,

forge a t. ()Mint in interest. Throughsuch 'mem ions, bask understand-ings about roles, authority anddomains of prat tic e L.an be recast andthe institution itselt renormed.

Ulm:trek, it such activity is main-tained for a perli of I a moreunitary form of politics ina emerge.when matte's of unportank L. are regu-larly discussed, and Li intik t is lessthreatening because there are avenuesfor resolution when it ,h es occur. t'The institution benefits from asubstanttal social resource formedout of both a set of principles held incommon and the t rust Mil tale -to -facerelationships built up within the smallconfines of a single school Lonmiunitx

The Interaction ulth"I echnicul Knowledgeand Experti.sc

Currently, Chicago is awash with"Christmas tree" schools where

large amounts of discretionary moneyhave combined with private gifts toadd new programs and more equipment,a bit like hanging dazzling ornamentson a tree. Unfortunately, the tree itselfand its basic needs have gone unat-tended.* Awareness of this problem,however, is growing across the cityand a new wisdom is emerging thatthe core of schoolingteachers'knowledge and classroom practicesmust he substantially improved.

This development, however, pointsto a major unresolved issue: How cantechnical expertise he drawn intoenhanced local politics? Schools arerelatively complex entities whereefficiency is highly valued. Past experi-ences with most educational innova-tions leaves us less than sanguineabout how well most schools farewhen developing their own strategicplans. While some may do fine ontheir own, many need to engage sus-tained outside assistance if the endresult of the participation in schoolsis improving student learning.

How these new relationships are tobe forged remains unclear. Instructionalguidance in the form of top-downmandates from the central office wererarely effective in the past and seemhighly inappropriate now. Similarly,the experiences of the last three year,where schools have had increased free-dom to purchase their own goods andservice:- are not very encouraging(although some individual sch(x)Is arenotable exceptions). 14 In short, nei-ther the command authority of a schoolbureaucracy nor the contractual rela-tionship of the marketplace seems par-ticularly well-suited for this purpose.

Interestingly, the new literature onenhanced democratic participation islargely silent on the question of howlocal political practice might engageeffectively with outside expertise. Inour view, new cooperative relationshipsbetween local schools and outsideassistance appear necessary. Neitherthe external expert as supervisor noras service provider will suffice. Rather,these individuals must becomeengaged in some fashion as partici-pant-stakeholders in the politicalpractice of a school community. Thelessons gleaned here from Chicago'sexperiences should he of broad Interestas they touch on larger, enduring con-cerns about the proper role of techni-cal expertise in a democratic society

Especially popular are computer systems that are now sold directly to schools and promise to helpchildren on the low,[ Test of Basic Skills. but deliver computerized drill sheets that directly mimic thetests. In fact. under decentralization, local schools have become a new market for an expanding net-

work of entrepreneurs

8

Opportunities for ConnnunityEducation

Finally, by expanding participationas it does, and enlarging the terrain

of school politics, Chicago SchoolReform serves a broader communityeducation function. These opportuni-ties may he particularly important inurban contexts where many parentsand community members are under-educated and disenfranchised, andwhere school professionals have alsohad few occasions in the past to exer-cise initiative. Through participationin LSCs and other school-based activi-ties, individuals can develop publicskills of citizenship, leadership andpolitical discourse that are essential toa democratic life. This idea resonateswith recent calls for renewal of ourdemocratic institutions such asLindblom's discussion of a need for amore self-guided society, Barber's con-siderations of the features of a strongdemocracy, Bowles and Gintis's analy-sis of the link between adult learningand political practice, and Evan andBoyte's notion of the educative func-tion of "free spaces."

The emergence of "truly disadvan-taged" urban communities in recenttimes, however, raises new questionsabout their ability to engage and sus-tain the kind of participation envi-sioned here, and to use the opportuni-ties it affords for broader communityeducation.'' To date, muca of theresearch on citizen participation hasfocused on middle class and largelyhomogeneous communities. f0 Whilethere is a literature on low incomeneighborhoods, it is largely concernedwith Great Society programs at a timewhen resources were relatively ample(or at least expanding) and the com-munities themselves were more advan-taged relative to today's conditions IThe Chicago experiment holdspromise of new knowledge about howdemocratic participation can be revi-talised in our major urban centers.

7

ReferencesI chice,p, School Ref, mn Puhh, At 141.,

(19:191 Springfield. IL t neneral Asseitiblsthe State of Illinois

2 Moore. D.R. (1090) \ e and kilo', t. niChicago. In Wit Cline & I 1- \\ tin (1 is 1Ounce and wire,') m Amel WI2 The practice ift choh.c.tChOtIl restructuring (pp 151-1' is1Philadelphia The Falmet Press

Kat:. M.. Fem. . & I t 19.iiMarch 7). reformoutside iLetrer to the .,

Tnhune

4 See note 2 abost. p 1'1+

5 Rogers, 1 1 & Chung N 1 1 i 1 'is tt ItLiingstor Street ',lofted I h'..to action NeN\ bark N, ss 111,1,

Press

CI. Hess, G.A. (1991) nom,Clucago srle. Newburs Park. t A t orw u,Press

0.(...;onnell. M. (1991. spring) st.11,s,1Chicago style: f low III:ells Itv,iTiredchange public piths,. 1 A spot al issue ,4 I h,

Neightxrrhckid Timis. 1( linago I cm, I I.

Neighlsorli,xidS.(.; (1991 1 .m.I in 4,

BM School r, form ui t It liol 11-11, I

Pared Chikago t ins rain. 111,

7. Some evident e is altead% .111.11, ,

cane pnwisions of the legislatt.nt 1 h,molt to allo,..irt:,t.itt:,,,inperis a. 'it ton,l,directly to individual hools ha, had a mil,

stantial equali:ing duet t res.,tm.e les els

W:thin (111(.10, sell, hils and his isr,i1,1e,1s. 'me ,)t the most disaJi antaved st h, m ii)the system with substantial de, ret ',mantesoutLes to rOet.1111, t"tt t

less, (i A 11Q021 N,ho.1 icstrin luring(.6-ae" ,t5le A mdtt as reikrrt

inkaco Panel on Publt, S.h,xil Firm c.)In the other hand. the pt,s1.0,11 to stft.IIII

hie the te1110%.11 of urn 111p:1 01i ICAL hers isworking .11 .111 ost., Bennett ..A L . et .11

t I ')921 t kinme tem. mu -1 he pont quis tie,sus tit, t. sic ag,. t onsonium on t

'tool Rese.tish

1,,t, is, ti 1 I I S dm, ac

,INig t hit. AV, I III% etslt d I 1111. hies.

') it, nu, I.. .1

t , 1.41,114. iii, 4 k PI

\.1-s% '1;

1 ' Bill 11..s, 1 207

I it, ...111 I soh Inc1 1n ois of tih,t.1 Mitt.. 1S,Intts shawl,

Balboa rteSellted At the A mem anion 1:eseari. h As. k tat ion animal meet

San bianus,..o. 1992 ..ind also uorl. iiiph4.11.ess on a doktoral thesis at the Unm er.,tt%

of ( 1 )erart Merit of Lim al ion

12 barber, 11.B 119841 Sri-1mdeiva:,u,sRIME lfau.rrs ik/Iltk 11,n a not ace )'clef

ni ersti% of l alaornia Press

R Nladsen. It . SuJln,m. \X' NI-u di< r. A . to rirvon, 1 1991f Thee...ti In..1:1\ Nets stork Knopf

Roe, les, S., & Gull's. H. (1987). f)em,,,.-rde. andLapirairsot Property, communas and the L.,ntra,dcciui tic of modem so-tal though,. Ncv, YorkBasic Boks

Es. ans. & Bovte. H.C. (1986). Free spacesThe sources of democratic change m AmericaChicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kat:. M.B. (1987). Reconstructing Amencan edu-cation. Cambridge. NIA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Lindblom. C.E. (1990). Inquiry and change.Nest Haven, CT: Yale Universu, Pres,

Mansbridge. J.J. (1980). Beyond adversarsdemocracy New York: Basic Books.

I; see Mnshridge note 12 above14 see for example, Bennett note 7 above. for

naormation ob, nit rm.:Irak' eft, qts NI set koutside expertise whether from the centralaline, other con avenues. andtor outsidethe Las.

(19S7) The rrul. dmaduantagedThe inner ca.. the underclass. and public policy( -Imago Univendn of Chicago Press.

in !see for example, Malen, B.. & Ogawa,(198)1). Protessional-patron influence onsite based governance councils: A confOund-mg case study. Educational Ealuatum andPolicy Analysts. 10(4). 251-270; also seeMansbridge, note 12 ;kw,:

17 Peters, in, P.E. (1981) Ctrs limns Chicago:msersay of Chicago Press.

Pis en. F.F & Cloward. R.A (1071) Regulatingthe poor The functions of public welfareNev. fork. Vintage Books.

Pressman, 11.. & Wildayskt . A (197;1Implementatum Berkeley: Universal. ofCalifornia Press

conunued from page I

Another teacher stresses the tactthat at Thomas teachers"don't yell . . . the kids don't need that.

they're not even used to it because Idon't think they get yelled at home . .

and so the place doesn't seem so dictato-

rial and loud. I hate the chaos of those

other schools .'Perhaps most indicative of the

social ties that exist at Thomas is thefact that parents and teachers talkeasily together about what is best for"our children."

A Challenge to the Status QuoThere is, however, an obstacle ti,Thomas making progress on what

is hest for -our children." li is .1 shutrural cleavage that exists between thebilingual transition program and themoniihngual English one. tint 11division appears twit. al in I I Isr.tilli.schools, although lit t le attention isgenerally paid to it

tl

"At Thomas parents and

teachers talk together

easily about what is best

for 'our children.'

At Thomas the split is the legacy ofprevious administrators who created"two schools in one" with separate bud-gets, programs and materials, faculties,students and families. Different normshave developed across the two programs

as well. Many parents want their chil-dren to stay in the bilingual programbecause there are fewer discipline prob-lems, and students are more respectfulof adults and less susceptible to gangs.

English dominant students denigratethe "other" children by calling them"brazers" and "molados." As one teacher

told us, this cleavage used it, he "the bigsilence of the schoiil.. . under the oldprincipal we didn't talk alssot IibeLause it would tear us a Nit

Facilitative leadership:The principal

Mr. Sanchez assumed the princi-palship two years prior to

reform, and at his first faculty meetinghe spoke of his dreams:"I want this to be a real bilingual school,where all of you ore bilingual so that you

can talk with all of the students. . .aschool where there's no split between theprograms, and so children and teacherscan't look down on each other. A school

where everyone speaks Spanish andEnglish. A school for this community."

The faculty was alarmed by theirprincipal's first words. One teachersaid:

"111 the regular program we were allthreatened at first... 'Wouldn't you he'It sounded like we were going to get fired.

)ver timeand healed wound,the same goals didn't sound like a threatWell. then too Mr. Sanchez has toneddown a lot. ..1-fe'rl neter make statemoils like that again liut the void

hasn't changed. It's a vision. Ithink, of an integrated school...

Over the last several yearsMr. Sanchez has used the pow-ers of the principalship to chal-lenge the pre-existing "defini-tion of the school." He hasopened communications withhis parents and faculty about hisvision of an integrated school.The teacher quoted above hasbegun Spanish lessons, as havemany of her colleagues in the"regular" program. Four yearslater the split between the twoprograms at Thomas is no longerthe "big silence." It is nowbecoming deeply contested anddebated ground.

Community educa-tion was also on theprincipal's agendawhen he arrived atThomas. He has soughtto integrate parentsand families into thelife of the school and isconvinced that theirparticipation willenhance their lives andtheir children's, andimprove the school.Before the first LSCelections, Mr. Sanchezencouraged parentsand community resi-dents to run for theLSC and vote.(Citizenship was not a requirementfor voting in the LSC elections.)"I stood in front of all the Sunday massesand said, "This is reform... Why don'tyou exercise your rights' "... That's whenI said, "You're talking to a person willingto commit himself for the cause...And Iwas ready. I was not only ready for thisto happen successfully. It's a matter thatwe have to excel and we have to do it.We have to get all these things done."

Although the principal is middleclass and well educated, he respect,"his people" and understands "theirstruggle." "Sometimes", he told us. "Ifeel like I'm hack in my own count tANot working as a principal but maybe

Top: Eighth grade computer classBottom: Dance rehersal in the gym

before midnight. But it is a tremen-dous opportunity, nonetheless. Youknow, so many principals com-plain that they don't have the timeto educate their parents: 'it's notmy job' they say. But then theyturn around and put even moretime into controlling their councils.I see this as the opportunity of ourreform, to educate my parents. Iam tired, but we should all hedoing this."

He steered his Counciltoward outside sources of assis-

'ill2P15*, tance regarding his contractevaluation and encouraged them

to engage a broad, par-

p

in front of a congregation. You know... a liberation theology priest."

During the first year of reform Mr.Sanchez and the Council spent longnights and weekends working togetherto read and prepare budgets, anddevelop the first SIP and a needsassessment. While he has somedetractors among both parents andteachers who accuse him of conferringtoo much with this "elite" electedgroup, he argues that working withthe LSC is one opportunity to educatehis community:"Working with my Council and my par-ents .ves . .It has taken up a lot of m.tune That first year I never got home

BEST COPY MILANI0

ticipatory process.Interviewed the morn-ing after he received a(near) unanimous votefor retention, Mr.Sanchez talked abouthis pride for the job hisschool community haddone:"It was a wonderfulexperience for me. I pre-pared for my interviewand it was a time for meto reflect. I thought aboutall that I had done and ofcourse how much morethere is to do. But I wasproud of my parents.

The process that they went through.think they learned a lot from it and Ihope that they are proud too."

Enhanced Participationamong Parents andCommunity Membetsi he LSC is not the only avenue

that has been paved at Thomasfor parent involvement. Thomasparents participate in Protect CANAL.a federally funded, multi-year programthat lac dual es shared &Liston-makingin select rac tally isolated scholAs andalso adds significantly to their discre-tionary budgets. ;-,everal of the tea( herson the CANAL core planning team

9

encouraged parents, other than thosewho sit on the LSC, to join theirteam. Additional parents wererecruited to the ESEA and BilingualAdvisory Committees. Last yearparents worked with a group of vol-unteer teachers and the principal tostart a parent education center. Thereare already GED, citizenship andcomputer classes, and plans areunderway for additional classes thatparents have requested. Most impor-tantly, the center is a place whereparents congregate. There is coffeeand a phone, and parents encourageteachers and office staff to drop inwhen they have time.

Taken together, these variouscommittees and the parent centerhave engaged a substantial groupof parents beyond the LSC in theschool. Moreover, a core group ofteachers share their principals'sentiment that developing citizenshipand leadership skills for parents willenhance their children's educationand support their work.

The Emergence of Teacher'sCollective Voice

The faculty's efforts to engage par-ents, while not unprecedented, is

unusual. Noteworthy too, are currentjoint efforts of bilingual and monolin-gual English teachers to write restruc-turing proposals, develop strategicplans, and engage consultants to workwith them. As one of the teachersfrom the "regular" program reported:"We've been writing restructuring pro-posals all summer, me and Jan and Alicefrom bilingual. We've had to think aboutwhat comprehensive restructuring reall.means. We're saving we want a chanceto really look at our programs and ourteaching and think seriously about winour kids aren't learning like they should

Teacher professionalism is emerg-ing at Thomas, catalyzed by a coregroup of faculty that is thoughtful andtalented. Their efforts are generallysupported by their principal.Typically, the most pro-active teachersand Mr. Sanchez consult with eachother. When they have common goals

10

At Alexander, although

encouragement and

training were available,

the many impediments

to sustain community

participation caused the

process to he superficial.

and strategies, he grants them inde-pendence and wide latitude to maketheir own decisions. By his ownadmission, however, he does nothesitate to squelch projects he findswithout educational merit. Thisbehavior leaves him open to chargesfrom various teacherssimilar tothose leveled at him by some parentsthat he favors an elite group.

Their efforts seem also to heholstered by on-going support fromProject CANAL. Teachers in urbanschools, just like parents in urbancommunities, need assistance toengage in democratic practice becausethe centralized control mechanisms ofthe past have afforded them fewopportunities to develop democraticskills. CANAL seems to have giventhese teachers a shot in the arm.

Even with all of this activity,Thomas teachers still struggle to fig-ure out "why our kids aren't learninglike they should." They have formedrelationships with a number of outsideorganizations, many of them university.based, to bring pedagogical expertiseinto the school. To date these activi-ties remain segmented by subjectmatter, grade level and teacher.Gradually, the faculty is beginning torecognize that these disparate individ-ual efforts are unlikely to cumulate inenhanced student learning. A moresystematic approach that scrutinizesand strengthens core school activate,appears needed. Thus, teachers'current involvement in writing com-prehensive restructuring proposalsrepresents an important departurefrom past practice.

This proposal writing is significantfor another reason as well. By engag-ing teachers from the bilingual andmonolingual English programs, itcreates opportunity for dialogue acrossthe two groups and this m,1 begin tobridge the "great divide."

In sum, an activism and a hopeful-ness exist at Thomas. Considerableresources from within thesystem and local universities havebeen assembled. A substant 1.11 groupof parents and community members,along with a growing cote of talentedteachers, are regularly engaged in

school improve,aent activities. Athoughtful and committed principalprovides leadership, is educativetoward his parents, and facilitativetoward his teachers. Most importantlyfor the emergence of democratic poli-tics, a vital but contested discourseproceeds about the definition of theThomas School, and whether itwill become a true "bilingual school"which is responsive to "all ourchildren and our community."

Alexander ElementarySchool:A Place Reform Left Behind

A Lack of Social ResourcesThirty years ago Alexander'sschool community had neighbor-

hood and family resources much likeThomas does now. Today, in con-trast, this is a "truly disadvantaged"neighborhood with a preponderanceof female-headed households, anabsence of middle class and male rolenmdels, a loss of population and com-munity institutions, and a diminutionof political activity. Most importantly,this community lacks the extendednetworks which support families inthe nearby Hispanic community.Without such networks, the conse-quences of poverty, drugs and violenceappear much more devastating here,especially to the "young moms" whostruggle on their own to keep theirchildren sate and to survive.

The current situation contrasts withthe not-so-distant past when mother.

11

r.-

in this neighborhood andothers just like itweregenerally older, somewhatmore advantaged, and lesshesitant to talk to teachers.Fathers and grandparentswere also sometimesinvolved. Today, educatorsin the school know thatthere are not many men tocall upon: "there's boys andold men and the old folk areafraid to come out of theirhouses. Everything inbetween is in jail or dead

Only a small group ofmothers participate regu-larly in school activities.The efforts of thesewomen are deeply appreci-ated by the school staff,but like the teachers, theycomplain of being "burntout." The principal andsome teachers are con-cerned about the Isolationof the school from its com-munity, and also theisolation of people in thecommunity from eachother. They are alsoconcerned that studentstoday lack some role modelsthey used to have: middle-class working people, olderpeople, and men.

Currently, the maingroup with potential tobecome a viable presenceis the "young moms," andalthough the LSC chairtalks about her efforts to"corral" some of them toget involved, she knows itwill not be easy. One reason is safety.The school wants no responsibilityfor people being out after dark, whichforces meetings to he scheduled duringthe school day. Consequently, thoseparents who worksome who arethe most interested and have themost to contributecan neverattend meetings. A problem for vetanother group of parents is embar-rassment: The reluctance of some

w(

z

undereducated parents converse withteachers. Finally, in some cases, alatent hostility keeps parents awac;some young ith nos have !woo, ememories of their own st h,kiluig. andbelieve that teachers regard thetawith disdain. The LS( : chair asks.then answers her own question aboutwhat "kind of role models these momsare for their kids when they feel sohateful and hated.' I. can't be good

BEST COY ORME 12

Top: Indicidualred readinginstructionBoman: clan,

I )isabling PrincipalLeadership

Being a principal in atruly disadvantaged

school community is dun-cul' Mrs. Green has. to dodouble dim. with parents aswell as teachers. to overcometheir isolation, host das . tear.lack of confidence. andskills. Mrs. Green has tackledthis challenge by becomingthe school's "mother." Shehas been in the school "sinceforever" (she came toAlexander as a 22 year-oldteacher 1, and "she knowseveryone and everythingShe has accepted the burdenof nurturnmg this cluk.1community. Indeed, parentsand children often view herand the school as a satehaven, which compared tothe neighborhood, it is. MrsGreen admits, at times, sheis an "overprotective motherreluctant to let any of herchildren grow." She recog-nizes that some of the parents'and teachers' dependencemight be because she does to,much for them.

Mrs. Green's maternalstyle has also taken a personaltoll. Since the advent ofreform, she has "never beenso exhausted," and she findsherself "snapping out" in a

way that disturbs her and offends thevery people she so wishes will succeed

She describes with regret:"I called two teachers in frr a confereeregarding the performance of their sot.Ients on the IOWA tests I remembei

siving, ashamed of you lott onddhave staved at home and the student,could have staved at home to get theseresults This Is ndiculous You werecoming every day and they were Comm:

every day, for whet!' That's terrible.mean I was so angry to get those scores,that it caught me at a had moment. Ilater apologized."

Mrs. Green wants reform to suc-ceed in her school. She wants to seeher parents and their children createa better life for themselves. She wantsher faculty to become more profes-sional, too, not only so children willlearn more, but "so that they feel

better about themselves." She worriesabout the distance her school commu-nity must travel to achieve her vision.

Limited Parent andCoirnunity Involvement

T he LSC at Alexander contains a_ core of hard working and well-

intentioned women between the agesof twenty-five and thirty. The chairhas often said she is proud that thereis no fighting on her Council or intheir school, as in some other neigh-boring sc'ac)ols. Unfortunately, thereis little conversation either.

When PA 85.1418 first passed, itseemed the Act might make a differ-ence. Everyone was curious about thenew law, and there was a flurry ofactivity. Initially the LSC acted muchlike its counterpart at Thomas. TheCouncil told the principal they want-ed to skip the evaluation and Justwrite a contract. There the compari-son ends. At Thomas the LS( : wasencouraged to take the pro,. t.ss ofevaluation senousl% and did At.Alexander, I I;1.t.1011$111

and training tack as ,111.114, IVL.111`4' iIt

the many Impediments to sustained

I:

Recess

participation inthis community,the process wassuperficial.There was mini-mal involve-ment, minimaldiscussion, andminimal learn-ing as a result.

By the sec-ond year of reform, excitement haddissipated. Monthly LSC meetingswere called, but rarely was there aquorum, and there was never an audi-ence. Only in the spring, when a sys-tem-wide financial crunch threatenedthe school with closure did the LSCget moving again. The school stavedopen (because the Board of Educationwas pressured by community activistscity-wide not to close any schools atthat time). but the experience failedto unite the school community. TheLSC chair felt oerheltned, tired,and dtscourageu when only fifty par-ents showed up for a "SaveAlexander Rally" she organized. Mrs.Green expressed her frustration bycalling parents "the most apathetichunch" she had ter seen. Once thecrisis passed, the principal and theLSC chair called meetings to discusshow the school might distinguishitself enough to avoid future closinglists. The meetings went c.,:-,.tended.

A Wary and UncertainFaculty.

The problems of the LSC aremirrored in the experiences of

Alexander's Professional PersonnelAdvisory Committee (PPAC) and larg-er faculty as it too grapples with localschool governance. Sixteen candidatescompeted for the first PPAC election,because as noted earlier, everyone was.curious. Teachers were confused, ho -ver, about the PPAC's identity andpurpose. Mans thought it was the"Protessional Problems Committee"tor the union. Others understood that

the PPAC was to offer advice on issuesof curriculum and instruction, butthey were unclear if it independentof the principal. Some members saidthey could not discuss pedagogy with-out the principal; others insisted theycould never develop an independentvoice if she joined them. (This confu-sion among the teachers at Alexanderas to the PPAC's role and also the par-ticipation of the principal was repeat.ed throughout the city during the firstyear of reform.)

This issue absorbed the PPAC'sattention most of the school year. Itwas a controversy from which theynever recovered. The principaldropped out when appraised of thediscussion surrounding her participa-tionso did the contingent thatwanted her involved. The chairabdicated next, and another teachervolunteered to replace her since "noone else wanted it." When no candi-dates signed up for an election, thechair asked a few faculty friends tovolunteer as a personal favor. Thenew PPAC met once in the fall of1992, but has not met since.

In addition to their inability toorganize a PPAC, as a whole, thefaculty shows little interest in :Ilea.own growth as professionals.Alexander teachers (like a majorityof faculties across the city) approved aclosed campus several years ago, andmost the teachers keep the same shorthours (8:30 am to 2:30 pm) studentsdo. This means that a few teachersare called upon to do everything, asituation that parallels the LSC.

Some teachers at Alexander, likesome parents on the LSC, are caring,hard working, and deeply concernedabout the students. They would liketo serve them better and over theyears they have individually enrolledin countless courses, and boughtdozens of programs. But nothingseems to bring achievement up.Some of these teachers persist intheir efforts, while others have gottendemoralized and one by one they havegiven up. These teachers blame the

13

.tudents and the young moms for lowachievement, and insist that they"have tried everything." This portionof the veteran faculty is "riding outtheir time" until retirement. Ms.Green complains that their lack ofmotivation to examine their ownpractice is the most serious obstacleto school improvement:

They are convinced in their minds thatthey are fantastic teachers. . . And theyhave had successes through the years, butthings have changed. Getting them tounderstand that and to change is, themost difficult kind of thing. Take ourprimary teachers. . . 1 have some teach-

ers here who have not gone back toschool since they got, and this is thehonest to goodness truth, since they gottheir diploma in 1959. Now reading alonehas changed, the whole philosophy has- -'

changed in the last five or ten years andthey're still doing things like then. This isa poor neighborhood, the social familystructures have changed a great deal anti

for many of our teachers, they are teach-ing to the students that we had in 1963and we don't have that kind of student

anymore."It is instructive to note that a

majority of the teachers at Alexanderwent to Chicago schools as students.Most were then credentialed inChicago, and have subsequently spenttheir entire careers at Alexander, or aschool just like it. These teachers arehard pressed to imagine alternatives.This poses a significant obstacle toreform as the heart of this legislationis the opportunity, in each localschool community, to create alterna-tives. When we asked the assistantprincipal to describe for us "a goodschool" he said, "off the top of myhead, that's hard for me to say...1haven't graduated to that way ofthinking yet."

In sum, Alexander's situation istroubled. The malaise, isolation, andalienation that pervades the neigh-borhood is mirrored in the school.Teachers have few external resourcesto support their work and they oftenappear uninterested in change. Someparents work hard for the school, but

their numbers are few. The principalis a tragic-hero who tries to care forall of themstudents, parents andteachershut whose maternal leader-ship ironically stifles initiative anddisables others' capacity to grow. Atfirst visit, Thomas appears as a peacefulisland amidst a truly disadvantagedcommunity. But that peace is securedat a price: Little of significance is everdiscussed; activity is rarely organizedor sustained. The status quo seemsinsurmountable.

Concluding Comments

We deliberately chose to describeAlexander and Thomas

because they represent some of thebest and worst of what we are observ-ing. Such contrasts help to sharpenunderstanding of key factors influenc-ing the implementation of Chicago'sschool reform. While still relativelyearly in our research, three observa-tions already stand out. First, althoughboth schools serve disadvantagedstudents, the differences in neighbor-hood contexts have important effects.The social resources present in theThomas community greatly facilitateinitial efforts at school reform; in con-trast, the absence of these resources atAlexander make the task considerablymore difficult. Thus, as noted earlier,while democratic localism can enablea school community, there is a "Catch22." The emergence of such a politicsappears to require a base of socialresources on which to build.

Second, these contrasting caseshighlight the importance of schoolleadership in promoting change. Rigidbureaucracy and autocratic actioncharacterize organizational life inurban school systems. The transitionfrom this to more democratic forms ofgovernance make special demands onschool leadership. Although not with-out his detractors, Mr. Sanchez atThomas appears successful in enahlinepartic.N,ion among parents, commu-nity and faculty. His facilitative orien-tation, combined with a moral visionof Thomas as a "bilingual school serv-

1 4

ing this community," plays a criticalrole. Alexander, in contrast, lackssuch leadership.

Finally, both cases illumine thestill unsettled role for external exper-tise in school improvement. TheCANAL training in group processand communication appears to havehelped the Thomas faculty initiate adialogue that spans their "greatdivide." Although some classroominnovations are being initiated withoutside assistance, these develop-ments fall short of the comprehensiverestructuring that many believe isnecessary to improve student learning.The lack of sustained, comprehensiveexternal support for these ef` irts is asignificant weakness, not only atThomas but generally across theentire school system. This need iseven more obvious at Alexanderwhere school and community condi-tions pose larger prohlems. By natureof the traditional organization ofschools, the work of adults is highlysegmented. The existing mechanismsto support improvement efforts areequally so. It schools are to engagechange which is truly systemic, morecomprehensive support and new insti-tutional arrangements for providing itwill he needed. 4

',hermit ti Ruiiou

Each school has been given a pseudonym;details about the schools and communities havebeen masked to preserve their anoninits. In allother respects, these cases are specific to twoChicago sites.

Photographs do not represent school:, dis-cussed in this Issue Report. Special thanks twoChicago Schools for permission to photographtheir parents, staff and children: Maria Sauced,'Scholastic Academy, Karen Morris. Principal;and Richard E. Byrd Community Academs.Janis Todd. Principal.

The discussion of 'Thomas is developed inpart from a paper by Maria losetma 'farina,titled "Cultural Politics in Two Chicago Latin .Elementary Schools," Center t,,r SchoolImprovement. Universits of Chicago, 10').:

Discussion of the Alexande: sch,i01 eommunits draws from two case smiles The first is at,unohlished masters thesis l's Lisa MoultonUniversity of Chicago, Department ofEducation "The School Room, Lett BehindThe second was written tot the school siteprogram of the Center for School Improvementby Sharon Rollow and Hal eiershenson

INTERVIEW

Support from a Foundation:

Peter Martinez

14

Aft

I

I

f '

Long dedicated to education, the MacArthurFoundation has become one of the most influential

actors in Chicago school reform. MacArthur currentlyfunds more than 20 separate initiatives relating to sixareas of school restructuring: 1) Restructuring the school

(working to enhance student learning); 2) Parentinvolvement (encouraging more informed decision-making, boosting classroom volunteering, and promotingparents as mentors at home); 3) Coordination of social

services (trying to organize private and public agencies atthe community level); 4) Improving services in centraladministration (studying ways to improve the efficiency,management and finances of newly decentralizedoffices); 5) Adult literacy (encouraging all citizens to heeducated); 6) Research documentation and dissemina-tion (funding research through groups like theConsortium on School Reform Research).

Can foundationprograms

make a differencein the success ofschool reform in aninner city? PeterMartinez believesthey can. Martine:directs the ChicagoEducational

Initiative, MacArthur's long-term pledge toschool reform, a $40 million commitmentover 10 years. With 35 years experiencenationally as an organizer for communitygroups and an advocate for Latino causes,Martinez works to link community and cor-porate groups to facilitate restructuring ofschools and classroom.:.

W'e are approaching reform from the per-

spective of systematic change. We are looking

for key leverage points. fOT the public and pri-vate stakeholders needed and committed to rnak

mg than*. happen. and I() Oka changestrategies are needed Then we define a role finprivate sector limiting that helps leverage pubha

funding to make tho,e changes happenThe whole rssue :if restructuring is at the

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

center of what has to be done to improve studentlearning. That involves organizational changeand instructional change at the local schoollevel, focusing on things like interactive learn-ing, critical thinking, peer learning, teachersworking in groups, a ream approach workinginside of a school.

A concrete example of that funding isthe $1.2 million grant MacArthur awardedto the Chicago Teachers Union to set upthe Quest Center.

It is basically a restructuring resource cen-ter, which was funded after long months ofdialogue in which we became convinced of avery genuine effort of the teachers' union totake a leadership role in changing the profes-sion. They identified some very talented peoplewithin their ranks who understood restructur-ing a..d had built up relationships with the lead-ing scholars in the field: the Anne Lieherrnans.the Ted Sizers, the Elmores, and so on

We at MacArthur, wanted to see a pm-gram agenda outlined that clearly indicated theunion was going for dramatic whole schoolretimn. It turns out that their own thinkingwas moving in that direction. They felt that ifteachers took the initiative and the union was

15

a. m.

11111t:A.11.,

t

behind them, change would be faster andmore dramatic.

The union set up a governancehoard representing all stakeholders inreform: teaching and administrativeprofessionals and business, communi-ty, and reform groups; and an advisoryboard of experts who could he avail-able for consultation to the project.

This is proving to be successful,although the Quest Center has only been

operating since January. A 2-day restrut

turing conference in March brought inpeople from all over the country, with allthe prototypes people typically point to as

restructuring models. The union anti(pated that 250 teachers would sign up;

they had 500 They could only accomm,.

date 350! Those teachers came on aSaturday on their own time with no pay

and they paid a regtstration fee.The conference led to a couple of

different educational experiences totteachers: a program of universitycourses and a restructuring conferenceheld over spring break. Each of theselearning opportunities drew about twohundred teachers.

That says a number of things to me.(hie, that the union has the kind of rela-tionships with teachers that all them to

develop support of this size. And I thinkthat they will be in a position to increaseattendance at these conferences to over1,000. The second thing is that there aremany teachers out there who are reallycurious about restructuring, are willing tospend the nme, and don't have to he paid.

Martinez explained thatMa( Arthur hinds only those mina-t iyes Much attempt to change theway the system itself does things. Get

the system to do its ;oh well the first time

around So if somebody, for example,comes in with a great drop-out prevention

program we're not going to fund it. We

think that the hest drop-out frrogram is a

1004(114TM school, and teachers trained

to do their doh the way in which a has

proven to he effective

The ( :his ago Sulu lid Reform Acwill generate significant piisit lyechange, in his opinion. The Act treedup $230 million worth of Chapt,r Onemoney for schools to disperse on ,idiscretionary basis. Thanks to these

Gym class in the parking lot

funds, most schools have a substantialamount left over for innovative reformeven after mainline budget costs.Martinez says this discretionary moneyshould he sufficient to stimulate signif-icant school change. But it is currentlynot always used efficiently.

That money ought to he aimed atpaying experts to plan the restructuring of

their school. In most cases is not beingspent that way. It's being spent for com-

puters and reading instruction. it's' ng

spent to improve an old system, to sineup an old car, rather than come in with a

new mode of transportation.As Martinez sees it, reform is headed

in the right direction: Toward instruc-tional change and enhanced studentachievement. But it isn't happeningfast enough.

People in research and policy develop-ment have got to have a greater sense ofurgency. They can't take forever to dotheir research and their policy develop-

ment. The education profession itselfhas got to have a greater sense of urgencyabout reforming itself than it has, orclearly the voucher advocates are goingto gain increasingly more beachhead.

The other part of it is that I think thereis too much sensitivity focused on the

adults (teachers and principals) in this

system and their comfort level withchange. This sensitivity for adults, causespeople to lose sight of the thousand of kids

lives in the ghettos and barrios of the ciry

are going down the sewer every single day .

Researchers say it takes 35 years forresearch to turn into practice. Otherssay it takes 10 years to change a schoolWell, you can change schools in three

years. You can't mandate change we'retold, you can't make people do things.

Well, you can do a lot to entice people tomake change and to lead people to makechange, and to stir their imagination andthen challenge them to do something thatis going to he substantive and real in ashort period of time. You can turn anorganization around in three years andcan solidify the change in Jive. And there

is plenty of documentation to prone that. 4

16 BEST COPY AVAILABLE_

15

1

For Further Reading:On Chicago School Reform

Bennett, A.L., et al. (1992). Charting reform:The principals' perspective. Chicago:Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Easton, J.Q., Bryk, A.S., Discoll, M.E.,Kotsakis, JG., Sebring, P.A., & van derPloeg, A.J. (1990). Charting Reform: Theteachers' turn. Chicago: Consortium onChicago School Research.

Hess, G.A. (1991). School reform Chicagostyle. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

O'Connell, M. (1991, Spring). Schoolreform Chicago style: How citizens organizedto change public policy. (A special issue titThe Neighborhood Works.) Chicago: Centerfor Neighborhood Technology.

On 0%! Politics of Education andEnhanced Democratic PoliticsBall, Si. (1987). The micro-politics of theschool: Towards a theory of school organization.New York: Methuen.

Barber, BR. (1984). Strong democracy:Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley,CA: University of California Press.

Blase, J. J. (1991). The politics of life inschools: Power, conflict and cooperation.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Issue Report No. 3

Boyte, H. C. (1981). The- backyard revolutionUnderstanding the new citizen movement.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Cibulka, J.G., Reed, R.J., & Wong, K.K.(1992). The politics of urban education in theUnited States: The 1991 Yearbook of thePolitics of Education Association. Washington,DC: Falmer Press.

Fantini, M., Gittell, M.. & Magat, R. (1970).Community control and the urban school. NewYork: Praeger Publishers.

Manshridge, J.J. (1980). Beyond adversarydemocracy. Chicago: University of ChicagPress.

For more information onChicago School Reform,please contact:CatalystLinda Lenz, Editor332 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 500Chicago, IL 60604-4 302312/427.4830 [FAX: 312/427-61301

Center for School ImprovementSharon Rollow, Assistant DirectorDepartment of EducationUniversity of Chicago5835 S. Kimbark StreetChicago, IL 60637312/702-0663 [FAX: 312/702-20101

Chicago Panel on Public School Policyand FinanceJohn Easton, Director of Research220 S. State SveetChicago, IL 60604312/939.2202 [FAX: 312/939-25641

Chicago Teachers Union Quest CenterDeborah Walsh, Directo,:222 Merchandise Man Plaza. Suite 400Chicago, IL 60654312/329-9100 [FAX: 112/129-62001

Chicago Urban LeagueOwen LaRouche, DirectorDepartment of Education4510 S. Michigan AvenueChicago, IL 60653312/285-5800 [FAX: 312/285-7772]

Consortium on Chicago School ResearchHeather Palmer, Director of Operations andCommunications5835 S. Kiinhark StreetChicago, IL 60637312/702.8047 [FAX: 312/702-20101

Designs for ChangeDon Moore, Executive Director220 S. State Street, Suite 1900Chicago, IL 60604312/922-0317 [FAX: 312/922-69931

Latino InstituteSylvia Puente, Director of Research228 S. Wabash, 6th FloorChicago, 11 60604312/663.3603 [FAX: 312/786-17021

Fall 1992

RESTRUCTURING SCHOOL GOVERNANCE: THE CHICAGO EXPER1NCE

CENTER ON ORGANIZATION ANDRESTRUCTURING OF SCHOOLSSchool of EducationWisconsin Center for Education ResearchUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison1025 W. Johnson StreetMadison, WI 53706

.:11111R1H- ( -11 11:t-J fqc-10o-t ..,

FILU1;f,1

INFORMATIOOL1 Q1S1OF

PICCA W:'ROCKVILLE MD 20050-430

17

Nonprofit OrganizationUS Postage

PAIDMadison, Wisconsin

Permit No. 1622

,tintd ft, a led

,' a

til I

.... S. P

....0-1

- k `. c -r .i

)

r

X s44

r `11'

Issues in Restructuring Schools

is prepared by Karen Prager and published

twice a year at the Center on Organization

and Restructuring of Schools (Grant No.

R117Q000015-92), supported by the U.S.

Department of Education, Office of Educa-

tional Research and Improvement, 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 available free on request.

Director: Fred M. Newmann

Associate Director: Gary Wehlage

Dissemination Coordinator: Karen Prager

Administrative Assistant: Diane Randall

Graphic Designer: Rhonda Dix

18

AIM

a

so

r o

-PA

CENTER MISSIONThe Center on Organization andRestructuring ot Schools will study

how organizational features ot schools can be

changed to increase the intellectual and social

competence ot students. The ttve-year pro-

gram of research focuses on restructuring in

four areas: the experiences of students in

school, the protessional life of teachers; the

governance, management and leadership ot

schools; and the coordination of communin

resources to better serve educationally dis-

advantaged students.Through syntheses of previous research,

analyses of existing data, and new empirical

studies of education reform, the Center will

focus on six critical issues for elementary, mid-

dle and high schools: How can schooling nur-

ture authentic forms of student achievement.'

How can schooling enhance educationalequity? How can decentralization and local

empowerment be constructively developed?

How can schools he transformed into commu-

nities of learning? How can change be

approached through thoughtful dialogue and

support rather than coercion and regulation?

How can the focus on student outcomes be

shaped to serve these five principles?

CENTER PUBLICATIONSIn the fall and spring of each year, theCenter publishes a newsletter, Issues in

Restructuring Schools, which offers analyses of

substantive issues. In addition, three "briefs"

targeted to special audiences will be offered

yearly, and our 1992 Bibliography, currently

available, will be updated each year

Occasional papers will be available at cost To

be placed on the mailing list, please contact

Karen Prager, Dissemination Coordinator,

Center on Organization and Restructuring otSchools, University of Wisconsin, 1025 W.

Johnson Street, Madison, WI 53706

Telephone: (608) 263-7575

19

_