CROSS-CASE CONCLUSIONS

Singularly, both of the cases presented above offer an interesting and even compelling illustration of the fate of systemic reforms as they enter the world of the traditional, comprehensive high school. However, deeper insights may be garnered from a cross-case analysis. Although on the surface the findings from the two cases seem quite disparate, there are several important points that can be drawn from looking across the two cases. While not highly generalizable, these "lessons learned" may, nevertheless, be more informative than those that rest on instances of the singularity of context and the idiosyncrasies of the local.

There are four central conclusions that I draw from looking across the two cases. The first of these concerns general issues of reform and the importance of context in change efforts for secondary schools. The second draws upon considerations of simultaneous reform efforts in schools; specifically, the essential school and vocational education reforms. The third and fourth conclusions extend the examination of essential school and vocational education reforms by focusing respectively on the continuing centrality of the academic core in secondary schools and the impact this holds for vocational education reforms.

The Difficulty of Systemic Reforms

For nearly a decade, secondary schools have been caught up in a flurry of reform and change efforts. In most cases, these reform efforts have been aimed at comprehensive, systemic changes, what Cuban (1992) calls fundamental as opposed to incremental change: "Incremental reforms are those that aim to improve the existing structures of schooling. . . . Fundamental reforms, on the other hand, are those that aim to transform and alter permanently those very same institutional structures. The premise behind fundamental reforms is that basic structures are irremediably flawed and need a complete overhaul, not renovations" (p. 228).

Clearly, the ideas embodied in the Coalition and the vocational education reforms are exemplars of reforms aimed at fundamental, whole-school change. If one point is now abundantly clear from the larger arena of literature that has examined significant school change efforts (Murphy & Hallinger, 1993; Murphy & Louis, 1994; Prestine & Stringfield, In press), it is that such fundamental change is exceptionally difficult to accomplish. Wave after wave of reforms have crashed up on the educational shores, yet secondary schools today look much the same as they did twenty or even thirty years ago (Cuban, 1990). The number and combinations of contingencies that can adversely affect reform efforts appear to expand like galaxies spinning out into the cosmos as more empirical data from school-based research accumulates (e.g., see Bradley, 1994; Mirel, 1994; Prestine, In press; Roemer, 1991; Siskin, 1994a). In addition, singular instances of one school's success have not provided the templates for nor have they proven to be readily translatable to others (Muncey & McQuillan, 1996; Prestine, 1993). Change is never easy for an organization and appears to come only with significant struggles against fairly formidable odds (Fullan, 1993). If it were not so, replicates of Central Park East would abound and Horace's School (Sizer, 1992) would not have been followed by Horace's Hope (Sizer, 1996) [emphasis added].

Any school's attempt at systemic change enters a complex and complicated workplace context with established relationships and strong belief systems (Fullan, 1991, 1993). These "durable and stable cultural values and mind-sets" (Deal, 1990, p. 8) are critical factors for any change initiative. Both of the above cases illustrate once again the importance of local context for reform initiatives (Corbett, Firestone, & Rossman, 1987; Corbett & Rossman, 1989; Metz, 1988; Timar, 1989). In the two schools, considered both individually and collectively, there were multiple interpretations and understandings of the issues faced and the means by which to address these issues. Neither school appears to have received any kind of substantive or meaningful assistance from either affiliated state or national organizations. In essence, both were largely on their own and ended up reconstructing and retooling both reforms to meet local conditions and prevailing school cultures.

Competing or Complementary Reforms?

It seems likely that two reforms both advocating systemic, whole-school change cannot simultaneously set the agenda for change in a given school. While speaking of reform at the district level, Firestone (1989), nonetheless, aptly noted that "participants can quickly become confused and overloaded if too many changes take place simultaneously. This may create the unusual situation of a district's being an active user of one reform while just as actively opposing another for fear that simultaneous implementation of both will overtax the system" (p. 160). From the cases examined above, it appears that in one instance this was indeed the case; while in the other, both reforms were marginalized. At Oakfield, the essential school initiative came to set the dominant pattern for school reform activities. The vocational education reforms are being incorporated, albeit slowly and with caution, under the essential school banner, due in no small measure to the smallness of the school and extent of the social cohesion among the staff. In Oakfield's case, essential school reform was simply seen as more in line with and attuned to the normative understandings and structures already in place in a traditional, comprehensive high school than the vocational education reforms. At Edgewater, self-satisfied and enjoying the warm approbation of its community, the dominant pattern of a successful, suburban comprehensive high school remained firmly in place. Both essential school and vocational education reforms were quickly encapsulated, isolated, and relegated to the backburner (Berman & McLaughlin, 1975). While both were used to attain several legitimacy/ ceremonial ends (Meyer & Rowan, 1977, 1983), neither were attended to in any serious manner.

This, again, points out the importance of local context in deciding the fate of any reform effort. As Timar and Kirp (1989) noted, the success of a change effort rests solidly on the existing "organizational features of individual schools" (p. 506) as these have the ability to shape the reforms perhaps even more than the reforms can hope to shape the schools. Yet, what also emerges from the two cases is a glimmering of extended understandings of how these two reform strategies can be reconciled. Clearly, there are substantive philosophic differences between essential school reform and vocational education reform. These differences are a bit difficult to directly assess as essential school philosophy, and the Coalition's interpretation of it has evolved and changed significantly over time. Thus, its stance toward vocational education and school-to-work issues changes depending on the given time selected and often on the Coalition representative speaking.

The first book in Sizer's trilogy, Horace's Compromise (1988), actually offers the most extensive and inclusive consideration of the role of vocational education in an essential school. Sizer clearly does not dismiss vocational education as nonessential or irrelevant for an essential school: "Anything in life can be used as the stuff of learning, or at the very least as an entry to the stuff of learning. So-called vocational education should be looked at from this point of view . . ." (p. 115) and "to the extent that these [vocational education] activities form a bridge to the central subjects, I'm for them." In fact, Sizer appears to endorse some of the core considerations of Tech Prep/School to Work reforms that call for a blending of the academic and vocational and an emphasis on applied instruction and learning experiences. As he notes,

I'm opposed to schooling that focuses narrowly on particular job training. I'm for general education, but arranged so as to attract and to hold pupils. If hands-on skill experience is a route to general intellectual prowess, that's fine with me. There is no One Best Curriculum, and there can never be, if school is to be effective. Students--inconveniently, perhaps--differ. So then, must the ways to help them learn differ, even if there are common standards for the learning that are ultimately exhibited. Common ends, then, diverse means. (p. 231)

Yet, when looking across the trilogy, the above scattered references represent the bulk of direct consideration vocational education and its concomitant concerns received. As evidenced at the school level, the aphorism, "less is more," was much more likely to capture the attention of local reformers (Prestine, 1993), and that seemed to imply a diminished role for, if not the exclusion of, vocational education and its attendant reforms in an essential school that had intellectual rigor as its key focus. While the potential areas for connections and linkages between the two reform initiatives are clearly there, it was left to individual schools to discover them and put them together. Given all the other difficulties involved in and contingencies arising from the change efforts, that this did not happen does not seem unreasonable. Neither school searched for the complementary. At Oakfield, the two reforms compete only in the sense that both were and are present in the school. However, the essential school reform clearly sets the agenda for whole-school change, leaving the vocational education reforms scrambling to find ways to connect. At Edgewater, both reforms competed weakly for attention and legitimacy within the overwhelmingly successful traditional secondary school structure, and both lost badly.

Supremacy of Academic Subjects

While there are clear fissures and cracks that separate the academic subjects (see Siskin, 1994b), the chasm between the academic and vocational education programs is of near epic proportions. In the Alliance schools, as in nearly all traditional, comprehensive high schools, academic subjects rule the day. There are several reasons for this. First, academic or "core" subjects of high schools are supported by the educational systems both above and below. Caught between the emphasis on reading, writing, and arithmetic at the elementary school and the emphasis on subject area specializations and corresponding departments in institutions of higher education, it is little wonder that high school structures and curriculum revolve around academic subject areas. These subject areas are likewise supported by powerful external groups (parents, community members, and professional organizations) who wield considerable clout and influence at the school level.

Most important, at least for the schools in this study, academic subjects also remain the clear barometer by which schools are adjudged successful or not. Whether the school is contending with the IGAP batteries, ACT, SAT, or graduation requirements for college admission, it is the traditional subject area concentrations that are the determining factor. As Firestone (1989) noted, it has indeed become a "management truism that `you get what you measure'" (p. 160). Clearly, all the schools understood this as a fact of their existence. Each of the schools also clearly recognized that both district and state accountability contexts demand that these areas receive primary consideration. Thus, as Hargreaves (1994) contended, "the historical and political strength of academic subjects as sources of personal identity, career aspiration, and public accountability means that most secondary schools continue to operate as micropolitical worlds, with conflict and competition between their departments being an endemic feature of their existence" (p. 236).

The Trouble with Vocational Education Reforms

More troubling, perhaps, is the conclusion that, in most traditional, comprehensive high schools, vocational education reforms are not likely to fare well. There are varied reasons for this. First, the vocational education program from which these reforms spring has always enjoyed at best a peripheral, marginal status in traditional secondary schools (Little, 1993; Little & Threatt, 1991). Always subject to an "elective" status outside of the mainstream program and, thus, vulnerable to the ebb and flow of student interest and numbers, vocational education programs rarely achieve the stability of or parity with the core academic program. As mentioned previously, all current school accountability measures in Illinois are clearly aimed at the traditional core academic areas. This has had the effect of conferring a de facto second-class citizenship on vocational education that is pervasive. While not openly acknowledged, it is clearly reflected in both schools and among all the faculty. It seems unreasonable to expect schools to consider vocational education as a full contributor toward the intellectual development of children when state educational agencies clearly do not.

Directly related to this second-class citizenship of vocational education is the fact that the changes envisioned in the vocational education reforms call for the active involvement and participation of academic area teachers. At least from the data gathered here, it appears that most academic teachers at present are not convinced that this is appropriate for them and see little reason to become actively involved. In part, this may be explained by the phenomenon of the "balkanization," as Hargreaves (1994) has put it, of secondary schools, especially along the stark lines of the vocational versus academic. Academic teachers may well suspect that such involvement will only lead to further demands on their time, with few if any benefits to them, and even possibly a diminution of their professional prestige and status.

Not only do academic teachers see neither their status nor expertise as being acknowledged through such involvement, there is also a widespread and fundamental lack of understanding of the reforms. Part of this is due to sheer ignorance of the content of these reforms. While the name, Tech Prep, may be at least recognizable to a majority of the staff and administration, what it calls for or entails is a mystery to most. Directly related to this, the technical language/vocabulary used by the vocational education reforms serves to further marginalize them. Terms like Tech Prep, STW, SCANS, Education to Careers--all bandied about by vocational education folk and tech prep coordinators--do not resonate well with academic teachers or most school administrators. The terminology forms an impenetrable haze for most academic teachers, who tend to see these issues only in terms of vocational education concerns and, thus, not directly related to "their" separate concerns. If vocational education reforms are to succeed, then academic teachers must be able to see the clear relevance and benefits of these reforms for them. Teachers understand that the cost of change is steep and clear in terms of time, effort, and difficulties involved. The benefits must likewise be clear and relevant for those being asked to change. Otherwise, there appears to be little reason for them to invest in such efforts. At present, they remain unconvinced.

This also implies that if vocational education reforms are to succeed, they must be able to link and connect with other larger reforms in secondary schools. As evidenced in the above cases, this will not be easy. Yet, it seems most likely that vocational education reforms will be more successful when they connect to larger, more encompassing secondary reforms. Essential school reform still holds that possibility for linkage. However, individual schools are unlikely to be able to negotiate and refine such understandings and connections by themselves, at least without great difficulty. Larger agencies at both the state and national level will likely have to assist schools in this articulation. Conversation at this level may be a prerequisite to substantive action at the individual school level.