Showing papers in "Phi Delta Kappan in 1980"

Factors Associated with Success in Urban Elementary Schools

Abstract: cation has described the urban pub lic school in center-city locations as low in student achievement; lacking in parental involvement and interest; and plagued by low teacher morale and job satisfaction, high rates of teacher absenteeism, and stu dent absenteeism and vandalism. Daniel Levine, an observer and researcher who has examined these schools throughout this period, notes: Overloaded with too many students who themselves are overloaded with a multitude of individual and family problems, the public schools as tradi tionally organized and operated some times then may all but cease functioning educationally at all, becoming little more than custodial institutions in which students and teachers expect little and achieve less.1

How Much Influence Do (and Can) Educational Administrators Have on Classrooms

Abstract: In what ways do educational adminis trators influence classroom instruc tion and working relationships among teachers? Classrooms are the center arena for learning in school systems. Adminis trators, responsible for educational out comes, seek to influence classroom activi ties in a variety of ways. Superintendents (and school boards) formulate goals and district policies that transmit community expectations into classrooms. Principals observe, evaluate, and provide direct sup port and guidance to classroom teachers. Special administrators, indirectly and through the administrative hierarchy, pro vide direction and help to teachers in specialized areas: mathematics, reading, counseling, or learning disabilities. Underlying most of these administra tive activities is a core assumption that educational organizations are tightly knit and that activities of one level ? district, school, or classroom ? are linked with others. District policies are presumed to influence the activities of principals and teachers; a principal's instructional phi losophy is assumed to have an impact on how teachers teach within a specific school. As an additional assumption, the activities of various individuals within levels are also seen as connected. Hence the image of reading specialists collabo rating closely with classroom teachers, various district specialists coordinating their approaches to individual schools, and principals meeting frequently to discuss how their schools are instruction ally similar or different. The assumptions of organizational co hesion that have guided the actions of many school administrators (and educa tional researchers) may be misleading. A three-year study1 of the relationship be tween classroom instruction and organi zation and other structural features of schools and districts suggests a different view: 1. Methods of classroom instruction are virtually unaffected by organizational or administrative factors at the school or district levels. 2. The way teachers work together, as reflected by the presence or absence of teaching teams, is similarly unaffected by higher echelons. 3. The three levels of educational organizations ? district, school, and classroom ? operate independently, as do individuals within each level.2 Rather than being tightly knit and co hesive, educational organizations appear to consist of vertical and lateral *'seg ments," only loosely connected with one another. For administrators who wish to influence what happens behind the class room door, these findings raise questions about their ability to make a difference ? at least through traditional channels. For administrators working either to make classrooms more humane (individualized and fun) or more effective (basics and achievement scores); or for policy makers seeking to reform classroom instruction, the idea that the activities of various levels or participants are disconnected deserves serious attention. The purpose of this arti cle is to describe the research study, sum marize the main findings, and suggest some implications for administrative ac tion.3 The Research Study ? Thirty-four school districts in the San Francisco Bay area participated in the three-year study. The districts ranged in size ? from one to over 100 elementary schools; in wealth ? from very wealthy to very poor; and in location ? urban, suburban, and rural. Within the 34 districts, 103 elementary schools were selected randomly to partici pate in the study. The schools varied in size from those with teaching staffs of four to those with staffs of 30. Both superintendents and principals were interviewed (and completed short questionnaires) twice ? once in 1973 and again in 1975. In 18 of the elementary schools, teachers completed question naires in both 1973 and 1975. Administrators and teachers were asked to describe instructional and organiza tional patterns from their respective view points. Superintendents were asked about district organization ? including policies, roles and relationships, general instruc tional issues, the local community, and relationships between the community and the district. Principals were asked to characterize the way the school was or ganized, to describe typical instructional patterns, and to describe both the local community and school/community rela tionships. Teachers were asked to describe their classroom organization and their in structional approaches and techniques. By comparing perceptions of adminis trators and teachers from 1973 with those of 1975, it was possible to determine how district and school organization ? roles, policies, and administrative practices ? affected classroom organization and in struction over time (or vice versa).4 The study focused on two aspects of class rooms: individualized instruction and team teaching.5 The guiding theories as sumed that the two would be related, that both would be affected by organizational or administrative patterns at either the district or the school level, and that both individualized instruction and team teach

Our Changing Students and Their Impact on Colleges: Prospects for a True Learning Society.

Abstract: Some educators look at predicted changes in student characteristics ? especially at demographic projections ? and see mostly threat. Others look toward new markets and new needs and see most ly opportunity. By and large, the pessi mists are in traditional colleges geared to serving a selected, residential, full-time student body of 18to 21-year-olds. As educational planners and budget officers know only too well, the number of 18to 21-year-olds in the U.S. will peak this year and then drop until 1995, when it will begin to rise again. Today's optimists about the future of higher education tend to come from open admissions, nonresidential colleges serv ing part-time and full-time students across the full spectrum of age and ability. Theoretically, open-door commuter col leges are nowhere near their growth ceil ing, and they appear to be in a strong position to tap two groups of potential college students who are underrepresented in the college-going population today. The majority of working adults are not now taking college classes, and neither are the majority of 18-year-olds from the lower socioeconomic half of the popula tion. There is a lot of talk these days about a new student clientele, commonly referred to as "new" and "nontraditional" stu dents. While these terms are bandied about without much precision, there does seem to be a general understanding that new and nontraditional students are all of those who were underrepresented in col lege student bodies around the year 1950. They consist of rising proportions of ethnic minorities, low-income students, women, low academic achievers, adult part-time students, and the handicapped. In the interest of clarity, I separate the new student clientele into two major groups, defining them not by Census Bureau descriptors such as age, sex, and race, but in terms of educational needs. In

Pedagogical Education: How About Reform?.

Abstract: Before going further, let me make clear that this article is not an apology or an alibi. Colleges of pedagogy have made significant contributions to public educa tion. Fifty years ago the average teacher, especially in small towns and rural areas, had little more than two years of college work, and many had only a high school education or less. Today the minimum re quirement for admission to teaching is a bachelor's degree, and about one-third of the nation's teachers hold a master's de gree or more. Teachers have more aca demic knowledge, better understanding of human development, more positive atti tudes toward children, and more compe tence in the procedures and techniques of teaching than teachers of any other period of our history. All of this has come about because of the elevation of pedagogy to a university study and the accumulation of research knowledge about teaching and its underlying disciplines. At the same time, demands upon teachers for more academic learning and pedagogical knowledge and skill multiply as diversity among pupils increases, as parental concern about the conduct of schools and the quality of teaching be comes more acute, as legal aspects of teaching become more complex, as every social malady is converted into an educa tional problem, as school and classroom disruptions become more severe, and as knowledge ? academic and pedagogical ? accumulates ever more rapidly. All of B. OTHANEL SMITH (University of Il linois Chapter) is professor emeritus of edu cation, University of South Florida, Tam pa. He is the author (with others) of Design for a School of Pedagogy (U.S. Govern ment Printing Office, 1980) and numerous other works related to the theme of this special section of the Kappan, which he assembled.

The Workplace: Does It Hamper Professionalization of Pedagogy?.

Abstract: sional staff members over the relevance of federal support for schools, colleges, and depart ments of education; and legis lators attempt to abandon past commitments to college-based teacher education programs. With the growing interest in competency testing for recent college graduates entering the teaching force, and with national news media giving greater and greater attention to the dif ficulties of practicing teachers, it is in the public's interest to pay close attention to Smith's recom mendations. Unfortunately, Smith's pro posal for an education organiza tion coalition to reorganize and extend the teacher education knowledge base is only a limited step. Coalitions already exist: The Associated Organization for Professional Education has been in the community for a gener ation; the National Council for David Imig

The Failure of Schools without Failure.

Abstract: The word failure used in relation to pupil progress usually means lack of success in passing a course or gaining pro motion to the next grade. But it can also mean lack of satisfactory progress in learning. The two meanings are related, but they are not identical. The first is de termined by school policy as well as by pupil achievement in learning. The second is solely a matter of achievement. Some schools have adopted policies that virtually eliminate failure of the first kind. Elementary school pupils may be promoted from grade to grade almost automatically, regardless of achievement in learning. Secondary school students who have learned little in a course may nevertheless be given a passing grade and receive academic credit for it. Schools that carry out such policies are the "schools without failure" I refer to in the title of this article. The second kind of failure, lack of satisfactory progress in learning, has not been eliminated. Given the differences among individuals in personality, in terests, ability, and motivation, it proba bly never can be eliminated. But if teach ers do not use failure of the first kind to report failure of the second kind, they will allow pupils to fail who ought not to fail. The purpose of this article is to elaborate and defend the thesis that the well-in tended attempt to develop schools without failure has had the unintended side effect of increasing tolerance for, and the in cidence of, lack of progress in learning. How did this situation develop? It did not exist in the early decades of this cen tury. At that time failure to learn satis factorily in one grade usually led to failure to be promoted to the next grade. Deci sions to pass or fail a pupil were made near the end of the school year, and they were recorded on report cards the pupils carried home with them: "Promoted to the fifth grade" or "Required to repeat the fourth grade." Thus as the pupils escaped from school to go home for the summer vacation, the most frequent ques tion they asked of each other was, "Did you pass?" Most pupils passed. A few did not. Promotion in those days was not automatic. As a result of these policies, there were over-age pupils in nearly every grade. A few might be several years over age. These were the conspicuous "dumbbells," over sized, undervalued, frustrated, unhappy, and sometimes aggressive. Leonard Ayer s described their plight in his book, Lag gards in Our Schools.1 At about the same time, researchers began to document what teachers had long suspected. Pupils re peating a grade often learned little more the second time through than they had in the first. Nor did the teachers enjoy a sec ond year of struggle with the same prob lems that had vexed them the first year. Moreover, after the first quarter of this century, emphasis in education shifted away from things to be learned and to ward conditions for learning, from prod ucts to processes, from subjects to chil dren. The objectives of this new child centered education turned out to be con siderably more variable and diffuse, less clearly definable, less amenable to objec tive assessment, than the older subject matter objectives had been. It became more difficult to distinguish failure from success in learning, more difficult to make and to defend decisions to retain a pupil in grade. For all of these reasons, failure and re tention lost favor. They were replaced by automatic or "social" promotion. "Keep children with their age-mates" was the slogan. "Do what is best for the individu al child." But what of the other members of the class? Removal of the threat pf failure, and of the stigma associated with it, also removed an important incentive for work to avoid failure. In the early decades of the century, failing to learn made a real difference ? an obvious, important dif ference ? to pupils and to their families. Pupils worked for the social as well as for the personal rewards of learning. It is somewhat ironic that social promotion removed the only obvious, immediate social reward for achievement in learning. Humanistic educators often argue that the threat of failure, or the experience of it, are ineffective motivators. They refer to "many studies" that show that pupil efforts to learn are motivated by success, not by failure. Surely it is well known that pupils who succeed in learning are likely to pursue future learning more eagerly than pupils who have failed. From this the humanists conclude that school failures ought to be abolished. There are three reasons for questioning the soundness of this conclusion.

The Social Integration of Handicapped Children.

Abstract: One of the major reasons for main streaming handicapped children into regular classrooms is to increase their contact with nonhandicapped children and decrease their isolation. The contact, we are told, will give handicapped chil dren a better chance to live successfully in the mainstream. However, studies of mainstreaming have found problems in the social integration of handicapped chil dren into regular classrooms.1 As a group, handicapped children are not chosen as friends as often as other children in the class. Even though they are physically in the mainstream, they often continue to be socially isolated. The educational system has placed handicapped children in the mainstream and hoped they would swim, or at least tread water. What can we do to promote their acceptance by the non handicapped? Of course not all mainstreamed handi capped children are socially isolated. Some fit right in. For example, Richard Iano and his colleagues found that al though many mainstreamed educable mentally retarded (EMR) students were not chosen as friends, some of them were more popular than some of the nonhandi capped students.2 Roger Elser's finding on the social acceptance of deaf children by nonhandicapped peers was similar: The degree of acceptance was based on in dividual characteristics, not just on the handicap.3 Certainly some handicaps are greater barriers to friendship than others. A child with severe emotional and physi cal handicaps is more likely to be friend less than a child who has only a slight physical handicap. But even in extreme cases, handicapping limitations are just one factor in social acceptance and the development of friendship. For most handicapped children, enter ing a regular class promotes minimal and unplanned social contact with nonhandi capped children. Teachers have no train ing in promoting friendship in their classes

A Study of Schooling: Adult Experiences in Schools.

Abstract: North Carolina). . . ." Harry Golden, The Nation, 22 December 1969, p. 697. See also David Nevin and Robert E. Bills, The Schools That Fear Built (Wash ington, D.C.: Acropolis Books, 1976). 9. William Lloyd Turner, "Reasons for Enrollment in Religious Schools: A Case Study of Three Recently Established Fundamentalist Schools in Kentucky and Wisconsin" (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wis consin, Madison, 1979). 10. It should be noted that these data are based on a response rate of 50% from Kentucky schools and 35% from Wisconsin schools. This underscores the difficul ty of collecting such data, and the reluctance of these schools to reveal any information about their educa tional programs. 11. Frank S. Mead, Handbook of Denominations in the United States, 6th ed. (Nashville, Tenn.: Ab ingdon Press, 1975), p. 32. 12. Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers, stated his belief that a loss of as little as 5%-7% of students of these schools would severely "cripple" public schools by depriving them of their best-motivated students and parents. Education Daily, 17 January 1979, p. 1.

The Need for Education/Training Programs in Industry.

Abstract: In an earlier day, industrialists tended to regard training programs as an ex pensive burden. The return from them was not realized until several years later; thus management had difficulty in justify ing the initial investment. Today the pic ture has changed. Training programs in industry are regarded as safe and profit able. Norman Willard, in "Hard Nose Training,'' advises management to "ac cept the training role as a business func tion. The job is to increase corporation earnings through cost-effective train ing/'i Rosemary Springborn writes, "Most of American industry has learned that in vestment in technical and skills training is as important as plant investment. And the reason is clear. It does little good to invest in computers, numerically controlled machines, tools, or other sophisticated de vices unless a skilled work force is avail able to operate and maintain them."2 In fact, in certain situations an industry may wind up with expensive losses if untrained employees try to operate sophisticated, high-priced equipment. Before looking further into the need for education/training programs in in dustry, let me define two terms that are frequently interchanged in this field: "education'' and "training." The litera ture suggests that "education" is gener ally applied to the development of infor mation, concepts, and intellectual abili ties, whereas "training" suggests skills ac quisition through repetition in perform ance. Although many education programs in industry are called training programs, such a broad range exists that both "edu cation" and "training" are accomplished, depending upon the type of program and its content. Louis Branscomb and Paul Gilmore differentiate the terms further when they write:

The Influence of Federal and State Governments on Teacher Education.

Abstract: Within our lifetimes, power and influence in teacher education seem to have shifted from deans and presidents of colleges of education and local superintendents of schools to state and federal education officials. We pre sume that this movement in education has paralleled and is related to a general growth and reliance on government for the provision of human services. Because this shift has occurred, and because we believe that leadership is an attribute of power and influence, we are convinced that state and federal officials, whether ready or not, are in a key position to assume leadership for change or improve ment in teacher education. Our purpose in this article is to discuss some of the effects of this shift, 1) re minding the reader of the context and the processes involved in making education laws operational, 2) reviewing three cur rent federal programs, 3) describing what is happening in one state, and 4) express ing some of our concerns about govern mental regulation and bureaucratic be havior. The adage that "the more things change, the more they stay the same" can be applied to the pattern and content of preservice teacher education programs during the past 50 years. One can compare current college of education bulletins with the E.S. Evenden survey conducted dur ing 1928-31 and show that the patterns of preparing teachers haven't changed much during this period. Except in a few in novative institutions, most prospective elementary teachers today still recapitu late the special methods programs of the normal school; secondary teacher candi dates continue to be exposed to a pattern found in universities circa 1930.1 Changes have occurred in teacher edu cation, but mostly in the way subjects or disciplines have been organized for in structional purposes, in the way courses are taught within professional programs, and in the attention and resources pro vided to inservice education. We contend, therefore, that most of the significant change in teacher educa tion in the past 50 years has been in the context in which it occurs, and that change in this context is largely a result of the increased power and influence of state and federal governments on public educa tion. The justifications (motives) for in creasing governmental authority (political influence) over education have varied: equalization of educational opportunity through the equalization of funding, na tional defense, civil rights, economic in centives for the construction industry, nu trition and health, improved use of tech nology, citizen participation, employment of the poor, research and development. From our perspective, it seems that the social legislation of the Thirties and the war and reconstruction of the Forties led the American people in the Fifties and Sixties into a posture of "looking up": of expecting more help from government, of assuming that problems could be rem edied by providing money and investing in theoretical solutions, by legislating reform. In retrospect, it seems that the federal strategy in the late Fifties and early Sixties was to by-pass state education agencies and the central staffs of school districts because these people were viewed as part of the problem. For example, the National Defense Education Act called for curriculum reform. Young, bright arts and sciences graduates were hired by the U.S. Office of Education (USOE). They looked to a few prestigious universities and their scholars for help in redesigning the science, mathematics, and foreign lan guage curricula. Both the new USOE people and their university counterparts looked with some disdain on the experi ence and knowledge of practicing teach ers and supervisors. Large development grants were approved and were admin istered by these whiz kids. Programs were started and money flowed before projects had been adequately planned; more often than not, projects were imposed on teachers and schools without their par ticipation. In retrospect, we believe that the prevailing harvest of distrust of higher education and of colleges of education can be attributed in part to the seeds sown by directors of federal projects offering money to university professors and empty promises to schoolpeople during the early Sixties. Studies of the failure of the reforms attempted in the late Sixties and early Seventies have appeared in the literature. They reveal the need for broad-based in volvement of state and local leaders in school improvement efforts and a need for clearer policy and more consistent leadership at both the federal and state levels. But if federal and state leadership seems inconsistent and ineffective, one should remember the numerous factors affecting the potential for that leadership. Typically, new education legislation de signed to clarify or change policy, or to correct some realized deficiency, is passed only after extensive debate. The funds necessary to implement the new policy await the passage of an appropriations bill. The appropriations bill, with legisla tive and budget decisions made at the 11th hour, is invariably the result of political compromises. Assuming that new legislation has been passed and signed into law by the chief ex ecutive officer and that funds are avail able, regulations and rules must be written and promulgated before funds can flow. The new law is typically assigned to a pro gram administrator in the agency who 1) requests the agency's legal section to inter pret the intent and the letter of the law by analyzing legal precedents as well as the discussion and debate that occurred prior to the law's passage, 2) holds a series of public hearings on the proposed rules and regulations so that affected parties can suggest modifications, and 3) sends the re vised regulations back to counsel to be certain that as written they conform to legal precedents and intent, and that they protect the agency from possible litiga WILLIAM H. DRUMMOND (North Cen tral Florida Chapter) is professor in residence, State Department of Education, Florida. THEODORE E. ANDREWS (State University of New York/Albany Chapter) teaches at the State University of New York at Albany and is a director of Andrews-Bryant, Inc., a Wash ington-based consulting firm.

Sport in the Educational Milieu: Unanswered Questions and Untested Assumptions.

Abstract: For years the initiation and continua tion of both physical education and interscholastic sport programs within the school system have been based on un tested assumptions and value-laden be liefs. Among them: Participation contrib utes to ? is perhaps essential to ? the mental and social development of children and adolescents (usually males). The rhetoric suggests that involvement in physical activity teaches or results in the acquisition of desirable personality traits, values, attitudes, social skills, and moral fiber. It is argued that these qualities might not be learned elsewhere (e.g., the regular classroom), and once learned in the sport milieu are transferred to other social areas (e.g., the workplace). The few attempts to provide empirical evidence in support of these assumptions have been equivocal. Chris Stevenson suggests that participation in sport and physical educa tion classes may have no greater positive outcome than participation in any other adult-supervised extracurricular activity, competitive or noncompetitive.1 JuSt as there may be positive outcomes of participation in sport, there may also be dysfunctional outcomes such as learn ing to cheat or to bend the rules; and ex cessive emphasis on athletics often re duces time for other academic pursuits. There is little empirical evidence, however, to support either the encomiums or the criticisms. Moreover, few if any claims have been made that sport en hances the socialization process for females. Why shouldn't females have the same potential for learning via sport, if it occurs, and why should the outcome be any different? Finally, since much early socialization takes place within the elementary school, we need evidence of the degree and type of social learning in sport at this stage. Since most of the sporting opportunities for ele mentary school children are provided by volunteer agencies in the community (e.g., Little League, Pop Warner football), the positive and negative consequences of these programs should be analyzed. Since the early 1900s the relationship between involvement in interscholastic or intercollegiate sport and academic per formance has been an area of interest for educators. Whereas early in the century the findings suggested that nonathletes perform slightly better in schoolwork than athletes,2 more recently the evidence sug gests that athletes have higher grade-point averages than nonathletes.3 Some authors have interpreted this finding as indicating that athletes are "brighter" students4 and that participation in sport "causes" better academic performance, but empirical evi dence is lacking to support the argument. Furthermore, there is little data to prove or disprove the existence of the many intervening variables that have been advanced to account for this relationship. The major limitation of studies in this area, other than their primarily descriptive approach, is that most of them have been cross-sectional rather than longitudinal; and therefore the long-term effects of par ticipation have been ignored.5 Moreover, the degree or intensity of involvement in a sport has not been considered, nor has the impact on academic performance of ceas ing to participate. Finally, little attention has been paid to these relationships for fe male athletes or for children participating in nonschool sport programs during the elementary school years. It appears that at the high school level, and to some extent at the college level, athletes obtain higher grades, on the average, than nonathletes. However, we don't know why, nor do we understand the influence on academic performance of other extracurricular activities within and outside the school, such as music, art, drama, and part-time jobs. It may be that the relationship between sport participa tion and academic achievement can be ex plained by initial dissimilarity between athletes arid nonathletes. Or it may be that sport is no more effective as a facilitating mechanism than nonsport extracurricular activities such as music or art. Moreover, there may be an "enhancement" effect wherein disadvantaged youths gain more from participation than others do.

Teacher Salaries: Past, Present, Future.

Abstract: 1. Follow-up on chronic truants and other attendance problems 2. Orientation for transfer students 3. Remedial reading instruction for students reading above the fifth-grade level 4. Campus supervision, including monitoring of smokers, strangers, and class cutters 5. Efforts to counteract increased gang activity 6. Individual college and vocational counseling 7. Crisis counseling 8. Provision of well-balanced student activities programs, including dramatics, music, and clubs 9. Special programs for disaffected students and potential dropouts 10. Special programs for gifted stu dents Sometimes positive results can spring out of adversity. The present situation at San Jose High is an opportunity for the community to reaffirm its belief in public education and its commitment to future generations. If the cutbacks and resulting reductions in services cause people to ap preciate their school more, if a true al liance between educators and citizens emerges, and if the needs of inner-city students receive the attention they require and deserve, perhaps the painful process of San Jose High's slow death will have been worth it. Time will tell. D