Previous Next Title Page Contents NCRVE Home

REFLECTIONS

Reflections on the Urban Schools Network

by Erkia Nielsen-Andrew and Damaris Moore

From 1992-97 NCRVE worked with thirty urban high schools throughout the country on reforms such as tech prep, integrated curriculum, and school-to-work. This excerpt from Lessons Learned: Five Years in the Urban Schools Network (MDS-1110) illuminates the inner world of school reform.

After five years of hard steady work as the Urban Schools Network, what have we learned about how schools transform themselves? Here are a few core ideas about what it takes to transform schoolhouses into places that bring together the worlds of academic and vocational teachers, the school and the community, and secondary and postsecondary institutions.

While school reform is traditionally associated with terms such as implementation and buy-in, the teams' experiences throughout the years tell us more about learning. Conceptualizing the challenge of reform as learning casts a very different image of the reform process--one that is cyclical and chaotic rather than linear or step by step.

Here is why: while tech prep, integrated curriculum, and school-to-work are described as a series of components (such as academy-type structures or connecting school- and work-based activities) they represent, more importantly, a set of ideas. As we learned with the network sites, it is difficult to design a vision around ideas alone. Ideas are best understood through experience or concrete example.

What does a change process based on learning rather than implementation look like in practice? Consider the introduction of block scheduling at several Network schools. First of all, schools made time for staff to study together the possibilities for block scheduling. Teachers, representing their colleagues, were sent to other schools to explore examples, ideas, and tricks of the trade. Upon returning home they were able to share their knowledge and work with other staff to think through the benefits and tradeoffs of block scheduling, and to develop a plan best suited to their school context.

Finding time in the school day to learn together was key. And schools took their time, too! In all cases, sites studied block scheduling for a full year or more before making a decision. And in one case, a site kept the focus on this single initiative well into a second year. By focusing on only one issue, faculty had time to troubleshoot as their implementation work deepened. This collective planning process was met with great enthusiasm.

A planning process organized around staff learning together is especially well-suited to complex reforms. It demonstrates the need to match the change process to the particular culture of an institution. In this case, planning led by a representative set of ambassadors fit the school best.

Our experience with the Urban Schools Network showed us that it makes more sense to learn together first, rather than plan and set firm visions with little information. Imagine the resistance had small groups of staff made decisions about block scheduling without thorough research and discussion about the tradeoffs with all who would be affected.

It Takes Teamwork

For the Urban Schools Network, teams were the "right" strategy. Teams provided a structure for the different constituents to become acquainted, forge a relationship, and get down to the business of working together. Across the Network sites, teams were and continue to be a powerful learning and change strategy.

The team's purpose can be either to lead or to tell-to create opportunity to learn together or to communicate a strong vision. For the sake of argument these two types are presented here as a dichotomy, but the truth is surely somewhere in the middle.

Schools across the Network (and quite possibly the nation) unanimously agree that to create meaningful change, strong and sustained leadership is a must. Usually strong leadership is expressed as the need for a strong principal. But according to the Network sites, team-based leadership is also vital. It just needs to be the "right" team. The power of teams and the question of team composition stems from their purpose as determined by sites.

Working as a team in the construction of such a complicated vision was a daunting task. Precisely because team members represented different constituents and interest groups, the groundwork was laid for many challenges.

A recurring difficulty common among Network schools was the battle between academic and vocational teachers. Because academic and vocational education are separated worlds on many campuses, and teachers from these worlds are collaborating for the first time, the gulf in approaches to schooling and the words and language that describe school visions became painfully clear. As one team member said, "it took all of our years with the Network just to get comfortable and understand what 'they' do."

Learning Together

The teams' experiences showed us that relying on the power of a plan created by few to help schools move forward is problematic. Due to the different roles and vantage points represented, working together is about forging common cause--not about securing buy-in to a vision defined by a few.

To focus on buy-in draws attention to our differences. Creating a vision together makes room for new ground and understanding as we invent a new school world defined by collaboration. For a vision to become shared it needs to emerge from interaction together.

Ownership of a shared vision cannot be achieved in advance of learning something new. How does a school get started in creating a shared vision around which school staffs can create ownership and commitment? How did Network schools provide opportunities for their staffs to learn together and to forge meaning?

NCRVE regional meetings and summer institutes provided ways for Network schools to learn from one another. However, implementing complex reform visions such as school-to-work requires opportunities for learning together on many levels. For example, sites needed time to learn:

Looking at the many ways schools say they needed to learn, both together and from each other, provides significant insight into the learning demands schools face in the creation of school-to-work systems. Within this context, three themes surfaced-the need for learning by creating shared experiences, the need for both pressure and support, and the need to create time for meaningful adult learning. (Please see box below)

While there is never any shortage of "good" ideas for what schools might become, our understanding of what it takes to realize these visions is less clear. We hope our collective reflections will push us a bit closer to understanding how schools change, and ultimately how this knowledge can inform the work of policymakers and educators.

Schools Creating A Shared Vision

HERE IS A SAMPLING OF SCHOOL REFORM STRATEGIES USING THE IDEA OF LEARNING TOGETHER AS A FOUNDATION FOR CHANGE.

1. SHARED EXPERIENCES

Network site staffs experienced learning together as a way to build shared knowledge. Most sites spoke about shared experience as opportunities to expand their thinking about what was possible for their schools. A popular way for staff to learn new things through experience was the teacher internship or industry site visit.

Site visits to other schools were also popular. Equally powerful was teachers visiting other classrooms in their building to gain an understanding of the content and curriculum for each others' subject matter. This strategy increased collegiality within the school and built a sense of trust and confidence.

NCRVE events were another way for sites to create shared meaning. The structure of the institutes--working as teams facilitated by an NCRVE fellow, with plenty of time for cross-team networking--proved to be a powerful combination for learning. The meetings provided the opportunity to acquire knowledge, and time to share thoughts and problems.

Network members spoke persuasively about the value of time allotted every year, in retreat fashion at institutes and regional meetings, to revisit ideas and plan, to assess progress and plan again. As one team member remarked, "there are very few times where people in schools sit down and spend eight hours on an issue." Faculty also spoke convincingly about the reenergizing nature of the institutes because they were surrounded by like-minded colleagues without the pressures and reminders of their daily work.

In short, the Urban Schools Network provided a vehicle to learn new ideas from one another; take a break from the daily grind of school to think, learn new things, and problem solve; and increase validity for their reform ideas.

2. PRESSURE AND SUPPORT

NCRVE staff played an important role in nudging schools to keep going despite the inevitable setbacks. NCRVE provided both pressure, in the form of accountability, and support, in the form of institutes and information.

NCRVE's presence was an important source of support and legitimacy to colleagues reticent to understand and embrace an evolving vision of their school. And given the usual dynamic in schools--political and vulnerable to a short-cycled swinging pendulum of reform efforts-a national organization provided a presence and face for integration, tech prep, and school-to-work, grounding these ideas in concrete evidence and national recognition.

3. CREATING TIME FOR LEARNING

Back in the daily routine of keeping school, just as important as having new experiences is making time to talk as a staff. Network members had to get creative about this core dilemma-how to find more time in the day to think, learn, and network as colleagues, while immersed in the full-time business of schooling.

One strategy was to hire a reform coordinator to help keep up the momentum of reform. With or without coordinators, schools agreed that it is important to keep the reform discussion in the forefront of people's minds. Many suggested using teacher prep periods as a way to keep the schoolwide conversation going. For example, when Bryan High School in Omaha, Nebraska, made the transition to a new block schedule, they held prep period meetings called "block parties" throughout the year to help staff address implementation challenges.

Erika Nielsen Andrew was director of the Urban Schools Network and currently serves as project director for UC Berkeley's Teaching and Learning Alliance, a joint initiative with the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative.

Damaris Moore, a member of the Dissemination Program, handles NCRVE's public information initiatives.

The Community College Agenda: Making Connections in Times of Change

by W. Norton Grubb and Debra D. Bragg

Just four decades ago, community colleges and technical institutes were much smaller, much simpler institutions. They enrolled only 17 percent of students entering higher education-and now they enroll almost half (45 percent, to be precise). Then, they concentrated on transfer to four-year colleges; now, their occupational purposes are considerably more important, and other "missions"- remedial or developmental education, community education, and workforce development among them-have complicated their purposes. The "landscape" of other workforce programs, like short-term job training and welfare-to-work programs, was almost barren; now, a confusing array of programs exist, sometimes overlapping with what community colleges do.

And with changes in traditional high school vocational education (clarified by David Stern in this issue of CenterWork), community colleges have come to dominate occupational education, conceived as preparation for the critical middle-skills occupations in the labor force. These occupations, representing about 60 percent of the workforce, are growing rapidly, and many believe that it is here that our country's efforts to be a world-class competitive power will be won or lost.

In this arena, the National Center has devoted considerable attention first to understanding the changes community colleges have been undergoing, and then to creating a "change agenda" of recommendations that community colleges can adopt, based largely on the successful experiences of their peers. This change agenda could also be described as "making connections" because many of these recommendations--reinforced by federal legislation including the 1990 Amendments to the Carl Perkins Act and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 (STWOA)--provide ways of connecting practices and programs to make community colleges more powerful institutions and vital bridges among different practices and populations.

The Center's work in this area has focused on five related areas:

1. The Economic Benefits of Community Colleges

As has been true in the past with secondary vocational education, there has been some uncertainty about the economic benefits of community colleges, and particularly about their occupational programs and credentials. In the past, these colleges have often been charged with "cooling out" individuals, by directing less academically able students into vocational programs with unclear economic benefits. However, these findings prove to rest on inadequate data and incomplete understanding of what community colleges do, and the results emerging from the Center's research are both more positive and more complex.

Based on several different national data sets, the Center's research has clarified that the economic benefits of completing Associate degrees and certificates are significant--not, of course, as large as the benefits of baccalaureate degrees that take two to four time as long, but substantial nonetheless, especially in some fields of study (business, technical fields for men, health occupations for women). Furthermore, the benefits are highest for those in occupational fields who find jobs related to their areas of study, and transfer rates to four-year colleges are now as high from occupational subjects (like business, computers, and health fields) as they are from academic subjects; therefore occupational programs are not by any means "dead end" programs.

Further, most community colleges do not attract students who might otherwise have attended four-year students; instead they draw most of their students from groups who would not otherwise have continued to postsecondary education at all. The hypothesis of "cooling out" is therefore less important than the role of colleges in enhancing educational advancement.

To be sure, the potential economic benefits of community colleges are not always realized. Many students--perhaps too many--fail to complete credentials, and for them the economic returns are generally low and uncertain; the students who enroll for a course or two do not necessarily benefit. And for occupational fields, it's important for students to find jobs related to their fields of study--and large fractions (40 to 50 percent of those with credentials, and even larger fractions of those leaving without credentials) fail to find related employment. Thus mechanisms to enhance completion and to connect colleges and their students more carefully with local labor markets are central to the success of occupational purposes.

While much of the evidence about economic benefits comes from national data, the Center has also promoted the development of data for individual colleges, using Unemployment Insurance wage records--so that individual colleges can see which of their programs are more and less effective. While it is too early for the results of such methods to be widely available, the results so far indicate that local findings are generally quite consistent with the national results: those who complete credentials fare well in the labor market, particularly in certain fields; those who fail to complete often do not benefit much; and finding related employment proves important.

2. Integrating Academic and Vocational Education

As has been true for secondary schools, community colleges have come under pressure from employers to provide certain higher-level or SCANS or generic skills including more sophisticated communications skills, problem-solving abilities, independence, and initiative. To encourage this, the 1990 Amendments provided funding for integrating academic and vocational education, and this practice has taken several distinct forms at the postsecondary level--particularly in those states that have made this a priority of their Perkins funding. Applied academics courses are common, most of them developed locally as instructors (or advisory committees) see the need to do so. Many interdisciplinary courses have been developed across the country, combining the perspectives of academic subjects like history, literature, and social sciences with occupational issues; these often look like updated forms of general education. Most promising of all, many colleges have adopted "learning communities" in which two or three (or even more) instructors coordinate their courses. These learning communities help instructors present the vocational applications of academic subjects and the academic prerequisites of occupational competencies; instructors are making connections among courses, rather than forcing students to make the links. And the benefits for creating communities of students and communities of instructors, in institutions where isolated efforts are often the rule, are substantial.

A particular form of integrating academic and occupational education has paired remedial courses with occupational subjects. Many courses designed to improve the basic reading, writing, and math competencies of entering students are taught in conventional skills-and-drills format, with the content divorced from any applications and seemingly irrelevant to the occupations these students want to enter--and dropout rates are high as a result. But where remedial/developmental education is taught in concert with occupational content, motivation is likely to be higher as students understand the purposes of language and math courses, and as they learn the skills necessary for their chosen occupations.

3. Tech Prep and Connections to High Schools

While 2+2 programs linking high school to community colleges programs have existed for some time, the 1990 Amendments gave them a substantial boost by providing funding specifically for tech-prep programs. The STWOA provided additional stimulus by requiring all school-to-work programs to include at least a year of postsecondary education. The Center has sponsored a substantial variety of research on tech prep, including various studies of exemplary programs, a national follow-up survey, and field studies in five consortia to learn how the implementation of tech prep is related to student outcomes.

This recent research on tech prep has uncovered some encouraging findings, as well as others that are unsettling. The tech prep concept is catching hold, since nearly two-thirds of the nation's high schools and most community colleges have some involvement with it. But exactly how tech prep initiatives affect teaching and learning at the classroom level is less clear. Most consortia support the notion of using tech prep as a foundation for or a strand of building school-to-work systems, and business/education partnerships and work-based learning opportunities are expanding for students participating in tech prep. These findings suggest promising trends, but several challenges lie ahead. In many cases tech prep programs have made greater changes in high schools than in community colleges, though participants sometimes say that the first students to enter community colleges will force changes there too because they are accustomed to more integrated and active forms of instruction. Many issues continue to cloud the image of tech prep. What is the fundamental structure of tech prep curriculum? How does it differ from existing vocational education programs? Who is tech prep attempting to serve? Local consortia that abide by the notion of serving the "neglected majority" may be particularly vulnerable when attention shifts to "all students" to accommodate the goals of STWOA or other educational reforms. Exactly how local consortia navigate these rough waters varies widely, producing uneven results.

4. Connections to Employers and Work-based Learning

Partly because the economic benefits of community colleges improve when students find work related to their fields of study, establishing close connections between occupational programs and local employers is an important objective. There are many potential links between colleges and programs--including advisory committees, placement offices, follow-up mechanisms (including the use of Unemployment Insurance data) to see how students do in the labor market, the workforce development activities we describe below--and Center research has clarified how each of them can improve the quality of occupational education.

The most promising of these "connecting activities" are the different forms of work-based learning, including internships, co-op programs, college-based enterprises, and less formal work opportunities. At their best--for example, in the well-developed co-op programs in the Cincinnati area described by Center research--they provide more specific job preparation than colleges can offer, complementary to school-based learning; they also enable students to explore their job preferences, permit employers to identify the most promising new hires, and (most important of all) make the employer community highly aware of community colleges in the areas. They also facilitate many different mechanisms of connecting the school-based and the work-based components, including employer participation in setting curricula and student standards, greater instructor knowledge of work placements and current work processes, and seminars allowing students to explore the connections between school and work.

Yet another promising linkage to employers is the expansion of workforce development activities, providing relatively specific forms of training for particular employers. Economic and community development represent complementary but more diffuse efforts intended to improve the well-being of the communities that colleges serve, usually carried out in innovative ways other than providing coursework. The Center's research on these activities--in conjunction with the American Association of Community Colleges, the League for Innovation in the Community College, and the National Council on Occupational Education--has clarified the magnitude and importance of these efforts, and their value for creating links with employers. But dangers abound as well, since these high-profile activities could expand to the detriment of the regular degree-granting occupational programs. The solution, in the Center's research with seven leading colleges, is again to create connections between workforce development activities and regular credential programs, recognizing that each can strengthen the other and thereby create more powerful colleges.

The STWOA has provided additional funding for school-to-work programs that encompass many of these connections, including the integration of academic and vocational education, the tech-prep ideal of linking high schools and community colleges, and the incorporation of work-based learning linked to school-based learning through connecting activities. Unfortunately, most tech prep efforts have supported high school rather than postsecondary initiatives, and the relatively trifling funds have often been spent in ways that do not enhance connections among these different elements. But the STW legislation still provides an ideal of occupational programs that community colleges can emulate.

5. Connections to Job Training, Welfare-to-Work, and Adult Education

As short-term job training, welfare-to-work, and adult education programs have expanded in the past 35 years, policymakers and administrators have wrestled with the problem of how to create more coherent "systems" out of the overlapping, fragmented, and partial offerings funded by federal and state government. In a series of publications, the Center has documented the various ways in which vocational education has coordinated with job training and welfare programs, though this research emphasizes that substantial barriers remain. In 1996, Congress almost passed legislation consolidating all of the programs, an action that would have accelerated such coordination. While such an initiative has now been abandoned at the federal level, many states are experimenting with their own forms of cooperation and consolidation, and the Center is investigating the most promising of these efforts.

In general, the Center's research has clarified (as have several other summaries) how ineffective most short-term job training and adult education programs are: their economic benefits are small and short-lived, and even the most carefully designed experimental efforts fail to get their clients out of poverty or off welfare. One approach, therefore, is to link these short-term efforts with each other to create "ladders" of opportunities, enabling welfare recipients and job trainees to progress into community college programs where the programs are more substantial, often better taught, and lead to larger and more enduring employment benefits. In this vision, community colleges become the critical point of connection between the "second chance" programs of job training and adult education, on the one hand, and the "first chance" programs of the educational system. The Center's research continues to search for exemplars of such efforts, in order to show policymakers and administrators the advantages of more substantial education and training as solutions to the problems of poverty, unemployment, and welfare.

Of course, the reform agenda established by the Center is substantial. It is all too easy to point out the familiar barriers to making these connections--the restrictions in federal policy, the limited conceptions in some community colleges that continue to think of themselves as transfer institutions only, the disciplinary barriers to collaboration, the inattention to teaching in many "educational" institutions, the gulf between employers and educators in this country. But the Center's work has consistently sought to provide examples where these connections have worked, where they have overcome the familiar barriers. In the process the Center's work has provided an image of the community college as learning community , a name that suggests its coherence rather than fragmentation, its focus on educational outcomes rather than enrollments for their own sake, and on creating connections and creating communities across the many divisions in postsecondary education and training.

W. Norton Grubb is the director of the NCRVE site at the University of California, Berkeley.

Debra D. Bragg is the director of the NCRVE site at the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana

Taking Responsibility for Academic Achievement: A New Standard for Vocational Education

by Gary Hoachlander

Integrating academic and vocational education- when the National Center for Vocational Education (NCRVE) first came to Berkeley in 1986, this objective was central to our mission, and much of NCRVE's work during the past eleven years has been devoted to advancing this idea. We have not, of course, been alone in this campaign. Integration has figured prominently in the Perkins Act, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, and the current reauthorization legislation. It has also been high on the agenda of a growing number of schools and school districts, especially those implementing career academies, career majors, student projects, and other innovations that demand significant curriculum changes.

Without meaning to diminish in any way the important progress that has been made on the integration front, it is fair to say that a great deal remains to be accomplished. As I visit high schools around the country, I am struck by how little integration actually exists, in either vocational or academic classes. In most community colleges, there seems to be even less. Perhaps I have simply missed a lot of the more innovative places, but if not, why after more than ten years of so much emphasis on this theme has there not been more headway? Let me offer a possible explanation.

First, integration that is rigorous, authentic, and sustained is very hard to do-much harder than most of us who have advocated integration ever imagined. To be effective, an integration activity must in the first instance be designed to accomplish an important, well defined educational objective. Integration is not an end in itself, so unless it addresses an academic or vocational objective that is deemed important at a particular stage in the curriculum, integration is inappropriate no matter how engaging the activity may be. Moreover, unless integration accomplishes this objective more effectively--that is, more students master the specified educational standard, they learn it more quickly, they retain it longer, or they can apply it in more diverse ways--than they would through the conventional academic or vocational approach, the integrated strategy is probably a waste of time. Alas, there are remarkably few practical guidelines for teachers about when to choose integration in lieu of other teaching strategies.

In addition, effectively integrating academic and vocational curriculum depends on much more than simply identifying work-related applications of academic knowledge and skill, no matter how advanced. Presenting students with an algebra problem requiring the application of Olm's law is not necessarily any more engaging than the mindless puzzle of determining the meeting point of two trains, one starting from New York at 40 miles per hour and the other from Los Angeles at 60. It is a superior problem only if the world of electronics, the context for the problem, holds genuine interest for the student and, ideally, the teacher as well. However, what interests one student may well bore another. Sorting out what fascinates whom in a class of 20 students (let alone four or more classes each day) and then defining bona fide applications of academics in a variety of different areas can easily overwhelm the most dedicated teacher.

And finally, even if we succeed in keeping integration sharply focused on clear, well specified educational objectives and in defining a legitimate application that really excites a student, doing this day after day, week after week in a fashion that builds systematically on previous activities is challenging, to say the least. Constructing rich, complex, cumulative integrated curriculum that develops simultaneously mastery of an academic discipline and its application in a coherently defined domain of the work world demands time, expertise, and resources that are beyond the reach of most teachers. While there are some organizations working hard to supply teachers with well designed integrated curriculum--for example, the efforts of the Center for Occupational Research and Development (CORD) or the New Standards Project--the stock of sound, tested materials is still quite limited.

And so, accomplishing noteworthy integration is difficult, and if we are really serious about achieving more of it, we are going to have to pay a lot more attention to curriculum development, alternative strategies for organizing and delivering instruction, and teacher preparation and ongoing professional education. NCRVE has had much to say on these issues, and these concerns will continue high on the Center's agenda for some time. But there is, I think, a second and perhaps more basic problem that must be addressed.

Most vocational educators remain ambivalent about integration that requires significant attention to academics. Almost everyone agrees in principle that a more rigorous vocational curriculum is desirable. But old habits die hard, and a great many vocational educators continue to believe that if their students lack, say, the math skills needed for success in their vocational classes, then addressing this problem is the responsibility of math teachers. It is a rare masonry class, for example, that consciously and systematically teaches the measurement, fractions, ratios, proportions, and simple algebra that are all part of working with bricks and mortar. It is not that masonry instructors deny the importance of these math skills. Quite the contrary, but they do not usually view the masonry class as the place to teach math. Also, of course, they themselves have not been taught how to teach the mathematics of their profession. Consequently, integration, if it occurs at all, happens mostly on the margins.

It is time to change this. As a profession, as part of curriculum philosophy and objectives, as a matter of public policy, it is time to state forcefully and unequivocally that vocational education has responsibility and will be held accountable for contributing significantly to students' academic achievement. This does not mean that a vocational class should become a substitute for an academic class; rather it becomes a more carefully coordinated complement. In the example above, the masonry student still takes the expected academic math courses, but the subset of mathematics that is embedded in masonry becomes an explicit part of the masonry curriculum. That math is taught in both courses, with each reinforcing the other.

Vocational educators will argue that adding academic content of this magnitude to the vocational curriculum will require them to eliminate vocational content they are presently teaching. Perhaps so. However, if students have a better grasp of academics, they may be able to master the vocational material more quickly, producing a significant productivity gain in vocational classes. In any academics ensuring that more students master an increasingly challenging foundation of math, science, English, and social studies is the priority. Vocational educators should make it theirs.

Adopting this new standard is not simply a matter of survival for vocational education, although it may very well be that. Rather realizing the larger educational goal--significantly raising the academic achievement of all students--may depend critically on vocational education making academics its primary charge. For we know that for the majority of students in high school, and even for a very large number of students in postsecondary institutions, the way we have traditionally taught academics has not worked very well. How ironic, then, if the key to major progress in school reform turned out to be vocational education dedicated to aacademic achievement.

Gary Hoachlander is the site director at NCRVE's MPR Associates, Inc. site.

Administrative Leadership: Capturing an Elusive Concept

by Curtis R. Finch

Ten years ago, recognizing that little research on administrative leadership in vocational education had been completed in the past, staff at the NCRVE Virginia Tech and University of Minnesota sites prepared a long term plan and embarked on what turned out to be a 10 year effort. This article focuses on our long term exploration of administrative leadership. Even though a brief view of our work is included here, more detailed information may be found in numerous individual reports (via NCRVE's on-line publications catalog) and in a recent article on this topic (Finch, 1998).

What implications can be drawn for such a long term focus on administrative leadership? Presented are selected comments for each of four related areas.

Concepts and Characteristics

A conceptualized leadership model and attributes that were developed provides a meaningful framework for leadership research, development, and program development. Validity of the model and attributes is supported by research results. In three studies, a strong relationship was noted between each of the model's 37 attributes and the leadership performance of vocational administrators. In another study, it was confirmed that vocational instructors actually use the criteria included in the framework as they assess leadership performance. [The NCRVE studies mentioned in this article are listed under the Reference Section. Readers may obtain copies of these studies through the Materials Distribution Sevice (see the New Products article in this CenterWork).] Additional studies support (1) the value that communication can add to administrative leadership, (2) the positive contributions leadership can make to economic development, (3) benefits that may be gained by using transformational leadership, and (4) that female vocational administrators are judged to be more effective than their male counterparts. These findings contribute directly to the knowledge base for vocational education leadership. However, equally important is the impact this information can have on the creation and operation of more meaningful leadership preparation and development programs.

Assessment

Development of the Leader Attribute Inventory (LAI) and Leader Effectiveness Index (LEI) make it possible for vocational education professionals to assess their own leader attributes at specific points in time and determine changes in their leader attributes over time. Self-assessment is a useful starting point for developing as a leader. By completing the LAI, a person can identify which attributes need to be improved and which appear to be satisfactory. Then, scores on the LAI may used to create an individualized leadership development plan. Through the use of LAI rating-by-observer forms, LAI scores can aid in identifying how subordinates or peers view a person's leadership. Comparing self scores with an average of others' scores may point to differences in perception. Comparing scores with persons comprising the LAI norm helps determine what an individual's standing is in relation to that group. Knowledge of one's place in the norm group can help motivate improving performance and/or result in satisfaction with current performance. Scores on the LEI can, likewise, be used for professional development purposes. However, when both LEI and LAI scores are available, the individual can more easily identify which specific attributes should be improved in order to be more effective as a leader.

Resources and Services

Case studies, an organizational simulation, and a comprehensive leadership development program that have been prepared offer a wealth of content and strategies that can be used in a variety of leadership education settings. Whereas the case studies may be easily integrated into existing leadership and administration courses and workshops, the simulation requires a longer time period for its use. This is a logistical shortcoming, but the inconvenience is more than offset by what simulation participants learn as they assume the roles of administrators and operate a two-year college. The comprehensive leadership program for underrepresented groups in vocational education may be adopted or adapted to meet most leadership development needs. It can be of great value to anyone who designs and conducts leadership development programs for aspiring and practicing vocational education administrators.

On-the-Job Experiences

The fact that exemplary vocational administrators can learn to lead through on-the-job experiences should come as no surprise. However, with a good understanding of which on-the-job experiences are most helpful and which leadership qualities can be developed on-the-job, persons who prepare leaders are in a much better position to select experiences for aspiring leaders that are most beneficial. In the past, on-the-job experiences have been largely ignored as opportunities for leadership development. With information now available about the potential on-the-job experiences have to improve leadership qualities, both aspiring and practicing vocational administrators can be offered on-the-job experiences that build on their more formal leadership education in new and more powerful ways.

References

Finch, C. R. (1992). Breakers: An organizational simulation for vocational education professionals (MDS-278). Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California.

Finch, C. R. (1998). Administrative leadership for workforce education: What research says. Workforce Education Forum, 25(1), 53-69.

Finch, C. R., & Faulkner, S. L. (1990). The occupational education administrator's role in developing a competent workforce: case studies of success. Journal of Studies in Technical Careers, 12(4), 341-351.

Finch, C. R., Faulkner, S. L., & Gregson, J. A. (1992-1993). The occupational education administrator's role as a renewal and change agent. Occupational Education Forum, 21(1), 48-63.

Finch, C. R., Gregson, J. A., & Faulkner, S. L. (1991a). Leadership behaviors of successful vocational education administrators (MDS-097). Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California.

Finch, C. R., Gregson, J. A., & Faulkner, S. L. (1992). The role of communication in administrative leadership. Journal of Epsilon Pi Tau, 18(2), 2-9.

Finch, C. R., Gregson, J. A., & Reneau, C. E. (1992). Vocational education leadership development resources: Selection and application (MDS-188). Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California.

Finch, C. R., Reneau, C. E., Faulkner, S. L., Gregson, J. A., Hernandez-Gantes, V., & Linkous, G. (1992). Case studies for vocational education administration: Leadership in action (MDS-279). Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California.

Lambrecht, J. J., Hopkins, C. R., Finch, C. R., & Moss, J. R. Jr. (1997). Importance of on-the-job experiences in developing leadership capabilities (MDS-814). Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California.

Moss, J., Jr., Finch, C., & Johansen, B-C. (1991). What makes a vocational administrator an effective leader? Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 29(1), 1-15.

Moss, J., Jr., & Jensrud, Q. (Fall, 1995). Gender, leadership and vocational education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 33(1), 6-23.

Moss, J., Jr., & Jensrud, Q. (1996a). Leader Attributes Inventory: Directions for administering, scoring, and preparing individualized feedback reports (MDS-1049). Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California.

Moss, J., Jr., & Jensrud, Q. (1996b). Leader Effectiveness Index: Directions for administering, scoring, and preparing individualized feedback reports (MDS-1050). Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California.

Moss, J., & Johansen, B-C. (1991). Conceptualizing leadership and assessing leader attributes (MDS-187). Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California.

Moss, J., Jr., Lambrecht, J. J., Finch, C. R., & Jensrud, Q. (1994a). Leader Effectiveness Index manual (MDS-815). Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California.

Moss, J., Jr., Lambrecht, J. J., Finch, C. R., & Jensrud, Q. (1994b). Leader Attributes Inventory manual (MDS-730). Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California.

Moss, J., Jr., & Liang, T. (1990). Leadership, leadership development, and the National Center for Research in Vocational Education (MDS-041). Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California.

Moss, J., Jr., Schwartz, S., & Jensrud, Q. (1994). Preparing leaders for the future: A development program for underrepresented groups in vocational education (MDS-736). Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California.

Curtis Finch has been the NCRVE Site Director at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University since 1988. He is a professor in Virginia Tech's Vocational and Technical Education Program and can be reached at 540-231-8175, or via email at crfinch@vt.edu.

NCRVE Impact--The University of Wisconsin Story

by Allen Phelps

The UW-Madison site joined the NCRVE Consortium in 1993 as one of the land-grant university partners. NCRVE's research and dissemination efforts undertaken at Madison have focused on a broad range of topics in education and work, focused on three major areas-curriculum and learning, teacher education, and economic development.

Curriculum and Learning

The voices of diversity: The students of vocational education 1993-96 was a project that provided a wealth of information on the nature and scope of students' experiences in programs featuring principles underlying education reform in vocational education. Based on the perspectives of over 100 students enrolled in secondary and postsecondary programs located in a variety of contrasting settings located across the nation, the project contributed to our understanding of: (a) how students from different backgrounds experienced programs featuring education-and-work reform principles, (b) the nature and quality of schooling experiences that were making a difference in preparing students for further education and/or work, and (c) key considerations for developing high quality integrated activities connecting academic and vocational education, and school- and work-based learning. Project findings were widely disseminated in various forums including the annual meetings of several national organizations. The interest in the field was great and the Journal of Vocational Education Research (JVER) requested the collaboration of NCRVE staff for guest-editing a special issue focusing on students' experiences in career-oriented programs. Highlights of project findings were also disseminated nationally through a brief report published by the School-to-Work Newsletter . These dissemination efforts have been recognized in the field as evidenced by awards for an outstanding JVER article and an outstanding presentation at AVA.

Project findings have been produced in a set of six briefs to highlight various themes that emerged in the analysis of the data. Voices of Diversity in Programs Linking Education and Work briefs (MDS-931a-f, also available on the NCRVE web site at http://ncrve.berkeley.edu/MDS-931/) cover the following topics: (a) project information describing design and implementation details of the study, (b) considerations for establishing a school climate conducive to high quality learning, (c) indicators of quality for designing student activities connecting academic and vocational education and school-and work-based learning, (d) issues on equity and access highlighting perspectives of female and male students, and (e) insights on the impact of activities underlying education reform principles on students' career development. Numerous requests for information have been received by project staff, primarily from practitioners interested in improving their programs. The body of knowledge generated by this project contributed to our understanding of what constitutes authentic schooling experiences based on the students' perspectives in different school settings, and has served as the basis for substantiating demonstration projects involving integration of academic and vocational education.

The NCRVE project Linking the NCTM standards to school-to-work reform focused on how mathematics was integrated in career-oriented programs guided by principles of high quality curriculum and instruction. Through a national survey of secondary and postsecondary programs nominated for their promising curriculum and instructional practices, four sites provided the basis for in-depth case studies. Findings from these case studies have contributed to our understanding of: (a) key considerations for reviewing school structures to develop programs emphasizing rigorous integration of academic and vocational-technical education, (b) critical insights to review mathematics programs and emphasize connections to relevant applications in occupational contexts, and (c) opportunities and problems for using the NCTM standards to guide curriculum, instruction, and learning activities supporting the integration of mathematics and vocational education.

Project findings have reached a wide audience including researchers, policy makers, and practitioners through presentations at the annual and regional meetings of many organizations. Highlights of project findings were also reported on the official bulletin of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)--the nation's largest teacher organization--and has been the source of numerous requests for information on the integration of mathematics and vocational-technical education. Through this project, a relationship was established with NCTM and staff has further collaborated in related projects. This project provided the basis to substantiate our understanding of a working framework for integration of mathematics and vocational education curricula. Key findings have served as the foundations supporting outreach efforts conducted by the Center on Education and Work. These outreach efforts have consisted of workshops focusing on integration and targeting interdisciplinary teams of instructors.

Teacher Education

Over the past three years, the NCRVE Teacher Education Initiative has centered on identifying, documenting, and disseminating best practices in inservice professional development programs focused on making education and work reforms effective in high schools and two-year institutions. Following a national nomination process, five innovative programs were identified and profiled, which featured approaches that included placing academic and vocational teachers in workplaces to develop new instructional approaches and summer institutes that involve math, science and environmental technology instructors at the high school and community college levels in curriculum writing linked to national academic standards. The five case studies served as the basis for a series of four research briefs that provided a rationale for teacher learning in the workplace and community while summarizing the key design principles and effective inservice and preservice practices for teacher internship programs, professional development schools, and effective staff development programs. The case studies and briefs are available on the world wide web at http://www.cew.wisc.edu/cew/ncrve/tlwc.htm.

The case studies and research briefs were featured at a National Seminar on Teacher Learning in the Workplace and Community in Madison in October 1997. More than 225 professional development specialists and teacher educators from across the nation engaged NCRVE researchers and others involved in advancing the quality of teachers' professional development related to new vocational education practices and models. The findings and model programs identified by the project are being used to frame state-level and university-based discussions about the redesign of pre-service teacher education in both academic and vocational teacher preparation. Important links between the impact of teacher's workplace learning and changes in instructional practice are being explored in the current project.

Economic Development

Through the project entitled, Fostering economic development through business incubation: A challenging role for postsecondary education , NCRVE established a close relationship with the National Business Incubation Association (MBIA). A national survey and case studies of clients and managers associated with business incubators including incubators sponsored by two-year colleges in rural, suburban, and urban settings provided valuable insights on the potential role of two-year colleges to boost community development. These findings were widely disseminated through presentations at annual meetings of the National Business Incubation Association, American Educational Research Association, American Vocational Association, and at the Great Lakes Conference. Target audiences included two-year college officials, faculty interested in entrepreneurial development; and representatives from business, industry, and the community committed to promoting economic development through education and training. Because of the potential applications of findings in a wide variety of settings, interest was also demonstrated by the international community and presentations were conducted in Merida (Mexico) and Jyvaskyla (Finland).

Project findings were also posted on the internet and have received great reviews by practitioners and business people interested in strengthening community development through the business incubation concept. A number of individual requests for information have also indicated an appreciation for project findings. Presently, an article describing findings from the national survey of business incubators and the potential applications in international settings is being considered for publication by the Educational Research Institute of the Jyvaskyla University, Finland. A potential contribution for a book focusing on the role of postsecondary education is currently under consideration by NCRVE (Debra Bragg, Ed).

In Support of the NCRVE Investment at UW-Madison

Collectively, NCRVE projects at Wisconsin have advanced our understanding of key considerations for designing and implementing high quality integrated curriculum and instructional practices featuring education-and-work reform principles at both the secondary and postsecondary level. Project findings have been widely disseminated, have served as a basis for current outreach efforts, and have assisted in building the capacity of the Center on Education and Work for providing useful technical assistance to local schools, community colleges, state agencies, business and labor organizations, and other universities. For example, recently the Center launched the 21-month Education and Work Leadership Program which will enable eight local teams of educators to design and implement action research and development projects that will advance the quality of school-to-work and career development practices in their communities. Several faculty members and academic staff members who have participated in various NCRVE funded projects will serve as lead instructors and team mentors/coaches as these teams pursue the complex challenges of implementing educational reforms that are enriched with education-work-family linkages and supports.

The array of NCRVE projects have engaged several Wisconsin faculty members in research that has, in turn, influenced teacher and administrator preparation programs, and have also offered valuable opportunities for graduate students to become involved directly in the vocational education research enterprise. In support of the NCRVE investment at UW-Madison, the Dean of the Graduate School has funded one to two fellowships annually for minority students engaged in advanced study in Education. Over the past six years, these fellowships have been awarded to six doctoral students in Educational Administration, Educational Psychology, Continuing and Vocational Education, and Counseling Psychology. These students, as well as ten other research assistants, have contributed directly to the production of new knowledge and insight about a wide range of issues and developments in education and work. These students have served as co-authors on several research reports, articles, and conference papers, including articles and conference papers that received awards from the American Vocational Education Research Association. As these graduate students assume leadership and research careers in the field of education, the expertise they acquired relative to work-related education systems will provide important, long term benefits for the field.

Allen Phelps is the site director at NCRVE's University of Wisconsin site.

My Eyes Have Seen: On Building Infrastructure, Knowledge and Community

by Peter Seidman

I have been in the knowledge diffusion and use (KDU) game for twenty years, half of that as the Director of NCRVE's Dissemination Program. In reflecting about these two decades of work, my views on building infrastructure, knowledge, and community around educational KDU have increasingly been strengthened through my practice in the field.

Infrastructure

As I have stated in CenterWork columns in the past, I have watched as the public sector used its bully pulpit and other resources to build a KDU infrastructure in education, and I have watched as the public sector has dismantled this infrastructure only to (apparently) decide that it again needed it: From the National Institute of Education and National Diffusion Network (NDN) salad days to the premature death of an RFP for a National R&D center on KDU, the demise of NDN and other federally funded KDU networks; to the "rumored" apparent present wish of the federal government to build the Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers into a national educational KDU network.

My perception of the need to rejuvenate the public sector human services KDU infrastructure is shared by Thomas Backer (1998): "Ever since the beginning of the Reagan Administration, the infrastructure for dissemination has been neglected. . . . This has severely limited the effectiveness of dissemination strategies" (pp. 145-146). Backer (quoting Schorr, 1997, p. 370) continues: "There has been a widespread reluctance to aggressively assemble, analyze, and disseminate what is, in fact, known" (p. 146).

The rejuvenation of a public human services KDU system is inherently entwined with politics because elected governments control the resources for public sector entities such as NCRVE. One intractable issue in cajoling these resources out of other allocations into KDU systems (re)building and maintenance is that KDU is not terribly sexy. Basically, public sector KDU systems exist to broadly diffuse proven ideas in order to improve the common good. Such activity is not particularly appealing to an official required to periodically run for reelection based on the self-interests of his or her constituency.

At the same time, in the process of even giving consideration to allocating finite resources into KDU, these governments rightly ask for evidence that a KDU system delivers on its purposes. Does it?

KDU Knowledge

Do KDU systems deliver on their purposes? This question is difficult to answer given how little we know about playing the KDU game. Two eminent students of KDU clearly articulate the present state of KDU knowledge.

There has been a widespread reluctance to aggressively assemble, analyze, and disseminate what is, in fact, known. . . . Most wasteful of all has been the absence of well-funded, concerted attempts to learn systematically from current experience and to disseminate that learning to those responsible for community-change initiatives, to those who make relevant policy in the private and public sector, and to the general public. (Schorr, 1997, p. 370)

LaFollette (1998) outlines some of the black holes in the present state of KDU knowledge:

We know relatively little about the activity we're so concerned with. To what extent is popular science driven by the audience's needs for information. . . . Research has tended to concentrate on individuals--What about how organizations . . . use scientific information? And what factors influence success in the `competition for public attention'? . . . What motivates the selection, acquisition, and assimilation of scientific information by nonscientists?. . . How do our discussions . . . connect to what is known (or not known) in communication studies generally? (p. 12)

In reflecting on my practical working knowledge in KDU, I know that I know what I am doing--as do Schorr and LaFollette. Yet, minimally, corroboration and validation are clearly needed for the KDU field to have credibility. I believe the KDU field suffers this knowledge deficit for the same reason the KDU infrastructure is neglected--R&D into knowledge diffusion and use processes is not attention grabbing, since it carries little political currency, and, therefore, in turn, receives little monetary currency.

Community

The KDU field has used as one of its pivotal metaphors and guides the concept of two communities--knowledge producer and knowledge user--between which is a gap in need of bridging. In my experience as teacher and professional KDU manager, I have seen this separation as one which (in Woolley's words) "the scientific community [has] happily reinforced" (Woolley, 1998, p. 53). These days are coming to an end as a populist trend is in the ascendancy--whether because a public insists it has a right to know and participate in the creation as well as diffusion and use of knowledge affecting its well being and common purposes; or whether because of an ever-increasing awareness on the part of both communities of the validity of the public's indigenous knowledge and the accompanying critical consciousness carried by the public--a validity increasingly recognized as at parity with the knowledge and consciousness exhibited by the science/research community.

Participatory models of creating, diffusing, and using knowledge are on the rise. Recent examples of this trend are Woolley's detailing of the populist trend in scientific knowledge creation and KDU (1998), by Schmandt's design and use of a "civic science" approach to traditionally non-participatory development activities (1998), by the existence and growth of community-based research (Sclove, Scammell, and Holland, 1998), and by a new report from the U.S. Department of Education (Paulu, 1998) concerning new leadership roles for teachers.

Conclusion: Enthusiastically Awaiting the Surge

At present, we KDU types involved in administering, editing, information gathering, and brokering arguably are keeping the KDU field alive (W. J. Paisley, personal email communication, January 17, 1998). We appear to be acting as place-holders, waiting for the time when those with control over the resources will once again become interested in the diffusion and use of the knowledge they allocate resources to create. At that point, support to seriously study the KDU process, as well as support to (re)build and maintain infrastructure will be forthcoming, as will an influx of professionals into the field.

What will change the status of the KDU field from one of low political currency with scarce resources assigned to it, to one of enough import that elected governments will choose to allocate sufficient resources to it? My choice is the trend toward a more populist, participatory brand of creating, diffusing, and using knowledge.

As with any surge, this trend toward a more populist system will not wait. I assume folks like me will be increasing hearing--justifiably--from folks like you advocating a place at the table from the beginning to the end of the knowledge creation-to-use process. To paraphrase, "The creation, diffusion and use of knowledge is too important to leave solely in the hands of professionals." So be it. I, for one, certainly hope so.

Peter F. Seidman is the Director of the NCRVE Dissemination Program.

References

Backer, T. E. (1998). Dissemination in a time of great change. Science Communication, 20, 142-147.

LaFollette, M. C. (1998). The transforming political landscape for science communication: Challenges for the future. Science Communication, 20, 5-13.

Paulu, N. (Ed.). (1998, April). Teachers leading the way: Voices from the National Teacher Forum. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. [On-line]. Available at http://www.ed.gov/pubs/TeachersLead/

Schorr, L. B. (1997). Common purpose: Strengthening families and neighborhoods to rebuild America. New York: Doubleday.

Sclove, R. E., Scammell, M. L., & Holland, B. (1998, July). Community-based research in the United States: An introductory reconnaissance, including twelve organizational case studies and comparison with the Dutch Science Shops and the mainstream American research system. Amherst: The Loka Institute.

Schmandt, J. (1998). Civic science. Science Communication, 20, 62-69.

Woolley, M. (1998). Populism and scientific decision making. Science Communication, 20, 52-55.

Previous Next Title Page Contents NCRVE Home