Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 483–510 | Cite as

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

  • Jal Mehta
  • Sarah Fine
Article
First Online:

Abstract

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

Keywords

Education reform Pedagogy Design Infrastructure Coherence Purposes Practices Values 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Austin, J., Schwartz, R., & Suesse, J. (2004). Long beach unified school district (A): Change that leads to improvement (1992–2002). (PEL-006). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: D. McKay.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  4. Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  5. Bryk, A., et al. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bulkley, K., et al. (Eds.). (2010). Between public and private: Politics, governance and the new portfolio models for urban reform. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  7. Childress, S., et al. (2009). Leading for equity. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  8. City, E., Elmore, R., Fiarman, S., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2011). Towards an empirically grounded theory of action for improving the quality of mathematics teaching at scale. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(1), 6–33.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, D. K. (1989). Teaching practice: Plus que ca change. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educational change: Perspectives on research and practice (pp. 27–84). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, D. K. (2011). Teaching and its predicaments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, D. K., & Bhatta, M. (2012). The importance of infrastructure development to high-quality literacy instruction. The Future of Children, 22(2), 117–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, D. K., & Moffitt, S. L. (2009). The ordeal of equality: Did federal regulation fix the schools?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, D. K., et al. (2014). Improvement by design: The promise of better schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Correnti, R., & Rowan, B. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three comprehensive school reform programs. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 298–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in american classrooms, 1890–1990. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  18. Daft, R. (2010). Organization theory and design (10th ed.). Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  19. DuFour, R. (2007). Professional learning communities: A bandwagon, an idea worth considering, or our best hope for high levels of learning? Middle School Journal, 39(1), 4–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15.Google Scholar
  21. Elmore, R. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elmore, R. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  23. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fuhrman, S. (Ed.). (1993). Designing coherent educational policy: Improving the system. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  25. Fung, A. (2004). Empowered participation: Reinventing urban democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  27. Glazer, J. 2005. Educational professionalism: The development of a practice-centered frame and its application to America’s choice school design. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  28. Haycock, K., & Hornbeck, D. W. (1995). Making schools work for children in poverty. In J. F. Jennings (Ed.), National issues in education: Elementary and secondary education act. Washington, DC: Phi Delta Kappa International.Google Scholar
  29. Hill, P. (2013). Strife and progress: Portfolio strategies for managing urban schools. Washington: Brookings.Google Scholar
  30. Hill, H., & Herlihy, C. (2011). Prioritizing teacher quality in a new system of teacher evaluation. American Enterprise Institute: Education Outlook.Google Scholar
  31. Honig, M., & Hatch, T. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson, S. M., et al. (2015). Achieving coherence in district improvement: Managing the relationship between districts and schools. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Boston: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  34. Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation.Google Scholar
  35. Leithwood, K., et al. (2002). Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levinson, M. (2012). No Citizen left behind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Louis, K. (2006). Changing the culture of schools: Professional communities, organizational learning and trust. http://pdfs.scarecroweducation.com/SC/TJS/SCTJSLSep2006.pdf.
  39. Mahoney, J. (1999). Nominal, ordinal, and narrative appraisal in macrocausal analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 104(4), 1154–1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Manna, P., & McGuinn, P. (2013). Educational governance for the twenty-first century: Overcoming structural barriers to reform. Washington, D.C.: Brookings.Google Scholar
  41. Marzano, R., & Kendall, J. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  42. Mehta, J. (2013a). The allure of order: High hopes, dashed expectations and the troubled quest to remake American schooling. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Mehta, J. (2013b). From bureaucracy to profession: Remaking the educational sector for the 21st century. Harvard Educational Review, 83(3), 463–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mehta, J., & Fine, S. (2012). Teaching differently … learning deeply. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mehta, J., & Fine, S. (in progress). In search of deeper learning: inside the effort to remake the American high school (book manuscript). Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Mehta, J., & Fine, S. (forthcoming). The why, what, where, and how of deeper learning in American secondary schools. Students at the Center, Deeper Learning Research Series. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.Google Scholar
  47. Meier, D. (2002). In schools we trust: Creating communities of learning in an era of testing and standardization. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  48. Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pellegrino, J., et al. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  51. Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best run companies. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  52. Peurach, D. (2011). Seeing complexity in public education: Problems, possibilities, and success for all. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 426–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roberts, J. (2012). Instructional Rounds in action. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  56. Rosenberg, S. (2012). Organizing for quality in education: Individualistic and systemic approaches to teacher quality. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  57. Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.Google Scholar
  58. Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as Qualitative research. New York: Teacher’s College Press.Google Scholar
  59. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  60. Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace’s compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  61. Sizer, T. R. (2004). The red pencil: Convictions from experience in education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Smith, M. S., & O’Day, J. A. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the politics of education association (pp. 233–267). New York: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  63. Spillane, J. P., Parise, L. M., & Sherer, J. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 586–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Supovitz, J. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building and sustaining school improvement. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  65. Tucker, M. (2011). Standing on the shoulders of giants: An American agenda for education reform. http://www.ncee.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Standing-on-the-Shoulders-of-Giants-An-American-Agenda-for-Education-Reform.pdf.
  66. Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  67. Weiss, R. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  68. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard Graduate School of EducationCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options