OAKFIELD CASE STUDY

• Findings
• Conclusions
• Summary

Findings

Context

Located 25 miles northwest of the mid-sized, largely working class city of Gotham, the Oakfield Consolidated Unit School District encompasses nearly 70 square miles of predominantly rich agricultural land in central Illinois. Geographically, the district's expanse resembles nothing so much as a miniature state of Tennessee rotated slightly south and pointing directly toward Gotham. All the district's school buildings are located in the small community of Oakfield (population under 1,000), which itself is located in the far western one-third of the district. The vast majority of the district's students ride buses to school with some spending more than one hour en route each way.

The district's populace is almost evenly split between newer residents and those who are considered "old Oakfield." The newer residents tend to live in more newly developed areas of the district that are closer in proximity to Gotham. Most of these residents moved from Gotham to garner the benefits of a more rural setting but retain close ties to the city through employment. On the other hand, the "old Oakfield" residents have deep ties to the small community and the small town/agrarian-based way of life it represents and are able to trace back to several generations of family farming operations or connections to the few local businesses. While a majority of the "old Oakfield" residents now commute to jobs elsewhere, they retain an unshakable allegiance to the community. Mostly because of this latter group, Oakfield has consistently resisted any attempts at school consolidation with neighboring and more prosperous districts. As one respondent characterized it, Oakfield is "a small town struggling to maintain an identity. It's been willing to tax itself to support a school that offers kids all the things they need rather than consolidating and losing the identity of the school. So the community is very cohesive. Last year, out of 52 graduates, we gave 38 scholarships with locally generated funds."
A certain placidity, rectitude, and insularity seems to imbue the community, and the school as its focal institution.

Oakfield Junior/Senior High School (grades 7-12) is housed in a single building and serves a total of approximately 350 students. Although the building is several decades old, it is well-maintained although not renovated. There is almost a feeling of stepping back 30 years in time as one enters the building. Trophies from band and choral music competitions as well as athletics line the walls of the single hallway that traverses the length of the school, from the junior high "wing" to the senior high area. Posters announce pep rallies, school dances, and FFA meetings. A large gymnasium with impressive bleacher seating capacity is decorated with banners from the athletic conference area schools. The classrooms fit a traditional secondary school mode--student desks in rows facing the front of rooms. Both home economics and shop rooms have usable but outdated equipment.

Thirty-five staff members teach in the building although not all are full-time. The junior high school claims its own academic area teachers but shares with the high school the art, music, physical education, agriculture, business, and home economics teachers. The teaching staff can be described as stable and tenured, above the state's median of 14.4 at 17.3 years of experience. Like the student body it serves, the teaching staff is all white.

According to Oakfield CUSD's 1996 School Report Card, approximately 20% of Oakfield students are considered low income, and there are no limited English proficiency students. The attendance rate reported is 93.7%, dropout rate is 1.4%, and average class size is 15.4. Approximately one-third of the students are in a college-prep curriculum and take one of two foreign language classes and/or mathematics through calculus; and, according to the 1996 Technology Committee Report, another one-fourth identify themselves as Tech Prep students and have selected either an agriculture, business, or home economics strand. In recent years, the business strand has become the largest in terms of student numbers, followed by agriculture and home economics.

Essential School Programs and Oakfield

A member of the Alliance since 1989, Oakfield's essential school restructuring efforts can likely best be described as erratic. Like other member schools, it has faced many external contingencies largely outside the control of anyone. Over a seven-year period of time, Oakfield has seen four superintendents and five principals come and go. In 1991-1992, the district was confronted with a referendum based on an obscure section of the Illinois School Code that would allow a simple majority of the votes cast to dissolve the school district. Teachers, uncertain as to whether or not they would have jobs or whether there would even be a school, lost interest in anything other than discussing the various possible scenarios. The ballot eventually failed, but emotions ran high as the issue pitted "old Oakfield" residents who wished to retain the district against the newcomers who saw advantages in aligning with larger, more prosperous, and progressive districts. (For the purposes of this study, it is important to keep in mind that while this issue certainly showed the clear divisions within the district, the role of vocational education was never a major issue between the two groups.) In 1993-1994, Oakfield faced the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) mandated Quality Review Process that, as in other Alliance schools across the state, ground to a halt all other efforts as the school concentrated on and worked mightily to gather and collate the voluminous information required (Prestine, 1994b).

Internally, there were other difficulties and obstacles. The first years of the essential school effort were spent, as one respondent noted, "spinning our wheels and getting nowhere." Part of this difficulty was attributable to a lack of firm commitment to the essential school principles. To say the least, Oakfield's entry into the Alliance was less than propitious. Although the Alliance had called for anonymous balloting of teachers and staff to show that a minimum of 75% were committed to participation, the superintendent at that time saw Alliance membership as something he wanted. When the first balloting (which was anonymous) resulted in a less than 75% approval vote, the superintendent took over the meeting, called the first ballot a straw poll, and had the faculty revote, this time requiring that they sign their ballots. Not surprisingly, there was a unanimous vote for membership. The naming of the first teacher-coordinator was handled in a likewise heavy-handed manner, and the individual reluctantly and unenthusiastically accepted, clearly feeling coerced and cornered into accepting the position.

After the first year of Oakfield's membership in the Alliance and with the imprimaturs of the Coalition on his résumé, the superintendent departed for a new position in a larger district, as did the principal. Neither the new superintendent nor the new principal were familiar with or committed to essential school ideas. Under their leadership, essential school efforts were quickly preempted by what were seen as more pressing issues. In particular, planned time for Faculty Steering Committee meetings to focus on essential school efforts quickly degenerated into general faculty meetings concerned with non-essential school issues. Control of grant monies to the school for essential school restructuring purposes came under the superintendent's direct and exclusive purview. Plans for instituting common planning time fell by the wayside. A pervasive gloom and deepening resentment festered among those faculty still committed to essential school ideas. In frustration, the Steering Committee's leadership appealed directly to the then state coordinator for the Alliance for assistance. This brought a swift response from the state coordinator. In a 1991 letter addressed to the district superintendent and written on ISBE stationary, the state coordinator directly addressed each of the above-mentioned concerns in a series of questions posed to the superintendent, noting, "the nature of an essential school program is based on trust, decency, and unanxious expectations. To the extent that a school is able to establish such an environment, will determine the degree of success the program will enjoy. . . . A formal written response to these questions should be prepared cooperatively between the school's administration, the Steering Committee, the coordinator, and the Alliance coach. It is the view of this office that unless these issues are addressed in a mutually satisfactorily [sic] manner, funding for this year will not be forthcoming. Also, to the extent that these issues can be resolved will determine the amount of funds that will be awarded for the remainder of the funding cycle." By early January 1992, the Oakfield CUSD had hammered out a compromise and joint response: "We hope that the following response . . . will put to rest your concerns about our progress as an essential school. . . . The Steering Committee is now working collaboratively with the school's administration at this time. . . . Despite the changes in our district's Board of Education, in our superintendent, in our principal, and in our coach, the administration and faculty remain committed to essential schools."

Given these external and internal upheavals over the years, the progress of change at Oakfield can be characterized as, at best, uneven with most of the essential school work focusing on two areas: (1) simplifying goals and (2) developing crosscurricular projects. One of the first tasks Oakfield engaged in upon becoming an essential school was to define or redefine the nine common principles to fit their particular situation (see Table 1).

Common Principles	Oakfield's Definition
The school should focus on helping adolescents to learn to use their minds well. Schools should not attempt to be comprehensive if such a claim is made at the expense of the school's central intellectual purpose.	It is the job of the school to provide students with a body of information so that they will be able to think analytically, skeptically, creatively, and critically to generate effective and appropriate responses.
The school's goals should be simple: that each student master a limited number of essential skills and areas of knowledge. While these skills and areas will, to varying degrees, reflect the traditional academic disciplines, the program's design should be shaped by the intellectual and imaginative powers and competencies that students need, rather than necessarily by "subject" as conventionally defined. The aphorism, "Less Is More," should dominate: curricular decisions should be guided by the aim of thorough student mastery and achievement rather than by an effort merely to "cover content."	Each student is expected to master a limited number of essential skills and areas of knowledge such as reading, listening, writing, speaking, computations, problem solving, independent research, and socialization. Curricular decisions should be guided by mastery and achievement rather than by just covering content.
The school's goals should apply to all students, while the means to these goals will vary as those students themselves vary. School practice should be tailor-made to meet the needs of every group or class.	The school's goals should apply to all students, while the methods of reaching these goals will vary as the students vary.
Teaching and learning should be personalized to the maximum feasible extent. Efforts should be directed toward a goal that no teacher would have direct responsibility for more than 80 students. To capitalize on this personalization, decisions about the details of the course of study, the use of students' and teachers' time, and the choice of teaching materials and specific pedagogies must be unreservedly placed in the hands of the principal and staff.	Teaching and learning should be personalized to the maximum feasible extent, considering the student's individual and group-related needs. Ideally, a teacher should have the responsibility of no more than eighty students. The basic course of study, materials, and time will be determined by principal and teaching staff.
The governing practical metaphor of the school should be student-as-worker, rather than the more familiar metaphor of teacher-as-deliverer-of-instructional-services. Accordingly, a prominent pedagogy will be coaching--that is, to provoke students to learn how to learn and thus to teach themselves.	The basic policy of the school will be student-as-worker. The teacher's role will be that of coach motivating and guiding students to learn how to learn.
Students entering secondary school studies are those who can show competence in language and elementary mathematics. Students of traditional high school age, but not yet at appropriate levels of competence to enter secondary school studies, will be provided intensive remedial work to assist them in quickly meeting these standards. The diploma should be awarded upon a successful final demonstration of mastery for graduation--an "Exhibition." The exhibition by the student of his or her grasp of the central skills and knowledge of the school's program may be jointly administered by the faculty and higher authorities. As the diploma is awarded when earned, the school's program proceeds with no strict age grading and no system of "credits earned" by "time spent" in class. The emphasis is on the students' demonstration that they can do important things.	First, students shall meet a minimum competence in language and mathematics. Students who do not meet minimum competency levels shall receive remediation through summer school and tutoring programs. Second, graduation from secondary school is based on an "exhibition" which demonstrates the student's ability to assimilate his or her secondary education.
The tone of the school should explicitly and self-consciously stress values of unanxious expectation ("I won't threaten you, but I expect much of you"), of trust (until abused), and of decency (the values of fairness, generosity and tolerance). Incentives appropriate to the school's particular students and teachers [should] be emphasized, and parents should be treated as essential collaborators.	The tone of the school should be supportive; however, expectations shall be high. Ethical behavior should be stressed. Students should learn to be intrinsically motivated. Parental involvement shall be a high priority. Incentives for student performance will be determined by the faculty.
The principal and teachers should perceive themselves as generalists first (teachers and scholars in general education) and specialists second (experts in but one particular discipline). Staff should expect multiple obligations (teacher-counselor-manager) and a sense of commitment to the entire school.	The principal and teachers should perceive themselves as generalists first (emphasizing and stressing the essential skills listed in Principle #2) and specialists second. Staff should have a sense of commitment to the well-being of the students and the school.
Ultimate administrative and budget targets should include, in addition to total student loads per teacher of eighty or fewer pupils, substantial time for collective planning by teachers, competitive salaries for staff, and ultimate per pupil cost not to exceed that at traditional schools by more than 10%. To accomplish this, administrative plans may have to show the phased reduction or elimination of some services now provided students in many traditional, comprehensive secondary schools.	Teachers should have no more than 80 pupil contacts per day and should have sufficient time for collective planning. Salaries should be competitive with other districts and the professions. A concerted effort will be made to retain all possible course offerings, even if additional costs are incurred.

For the most part, Oakfield's "redefinitions" were barely more than paraphrases of the original principles and, of all the Alliance schools, Oakfield's interpretation showed the least variation. In part, this cautious, conservative approach may have been due to the early confusion and consternation over exactly what essential school restructuring entailed. In part, it may have been due to a lack of imagination and an inability or unwillingness to move beyond the boundaries. Whatever the case, there are two important pieces that deserve further note. First, although the Coalition's principle #9 calls for the "phased reduction or elimination of some services now provided students," Oakfield's redefinition specifically calls for "a concerted effort" to be made to "retain all possible course offerings." Clearly, Oakfield was not prepared to eliminate any of the conventional offerings or trappings of a traditional, comprehensive high school.

In Oakfield's case, one of the most noteworthy of the redefinitions was that of principle #2. In the Oakfield CUSD definitions, which were established in 1991, "Each student is expected to master a limited number of essential skills and areas of knowledge such as reading, listening, writing, speaking, computations, problem solving, independent research, and socialization. Curricular decisions should be guided by mastery and achievement rather than just covering content." For reasons not entirely clear, of all the skill areas listed, the school became fixated on listening skills and spent nearly two years creating projects, standards, and assessment devices for the exhibition of mastery of listening skills. Perhaps because they were uncertain, unwilling, and/or unable to head into other areas of change, this one area came to consume nearly all time and effort.

Eventually, however, the redefinition of this principle formed the basis for the development of "The Oakfield High School Graduate," or as referred to by the school, simply the "Oakfield Graduate" (see Table 2). These are a codified set of standards required for graduation from the school. As the current principal noted, "We now have our `Oakfield Graduate,' which [are] the requirements for getting out of this school [which were] developed by the essential school committee. It's the umbrella under which everything else in the building exists. If it doesn't fit under that umbrella, we don't do it." The Board of Education adopted the requirements as an addition to the Carnegie unit requirements in 1995, and these will apply for the first time to the graduating class of 1999.

During their high school career, the students will document or demonstrate excellence or proficiency in each of the areas outlined below.

COMMUNICATION The OHS graduate demonstrates excellence or proficiency in the following: Speaking and writing articulately and effectively Reading and listening actively

PROBLEM SOLVING The OHS graduate demonstrates excellence or proficiency in the following: Researching Investigating and using the scientific method Computing and calculating Critical thinking

DESIGN, PRODUCTION, AND PERFORMANCE The OHS graduate demonstrates excellence or proficiency in one or more of the following areas: Drama/dance Music Visual arts Media Technology Prose or verse

SOCIAL AND WORLD RELATIONSHIPS The OHS graduate demonstrates excellence or proficiency in the following: Concepts of U.S. history, citizenship, and government Knowledge of other peoples and their cultures

CONCEPTS OF A NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The OHS graduate demonstrates excellence of proficiency in the key concepts of the environment, including the following: The physical, biological, and chemical components Their interrelatedness Awareness of personal impact on the environment

PERSONAL GROWTH The OHS graduate demonstrates excellence or proficiency in the following: Life and career planning Ways to develop and maintain wellness Social interaction

As Oakfield saw it, the construction of the "Oakfield Graduate" statement was in keeping with Sizer's advice to engage in "backwards planning." That is, they sought to identify what a graduate from their high school should look like, what attributes they would like the graduate to have, and then set out to determine the means by which to accomplish this. However, this work was accomplished within a narrow subject-oriented, curricular offerings framework and never took into account other issues or considerations such as preparation for work. Also, the accountability attached to this statement as well as to other innovations such as portfolios and exhibitions is at present unknown. The senior exhibition has not yet been implemented and exists only on paper. Emphasis on portfolio development is uneven and seems to be determined more by the inclination of the individual teacher than anything else. For the most part, it seems quite plausible that students will be able to meet the goals of the "Oakfield Graduate" simply by passing through the traditional curriculum and accumulating Carnegie units.

During this time, Oakfield also worked on developing crosscurricular units, all-school projects, and speaking and writing skills across the curriculum. Homerooms were established and student portfolios were required, with the latter constructed as something like a student-mediated permanent record.

Yet, for every step forward, there seemed to be one or two back. Paradoxically, for all that Oakfield has done, it does not seem to have actually done much at all outside of the development of some crosscurricular units and the "Oakfield Graduate" document. After a review of progress in 1995, an external evaluator for the Alliance put it this way:

Oakfield strikes me as being rather like the school equivalent of a "good girl." It does everything it's told to do, studies hard, and avoids risks. It's the only school . . . [that] defined characteristics of the "Oakfield Graduate"; it worked hard to draw most of the faculty into the essential school movement, and succeeded for the most part; it's created a new faculty handbook and orientation workshop; it's held numerous one- and two-day faculty and staff workshops and retreats; it's begun work on authentic assessment and instituted portfolios with little fanfare. . . . Part of the problem may be that as fast as Oakfield institutes a change (and that is not very fast), it rather rapidly does something to undercut it.

A classic example of this was illustrated by one of the first attempts to develop a crosscurricular unit. This unit was to be a planned effort between chemistry and home economics. The unit never saw the light of day, however, because the grade levels of the courses did not match with chemistry being an 11th grade subject and home economics an 8th grade subject. This was apparently an aspect that was never considered by anyone while the planning for the unit was proceeding. In another instance, Oakfield did indeed implement homerooms during their first year with the Alliance in order to help personalize learning and work on student self-esteem. However, it quickly became clear that no one really knew what to do with the homeroom time, and by the third year, the homeroom was used mostly to show Channel One. Oakfield may be a classic illustration of the old maxim, "the more things change, the more they stay the same."

Vocational Education, Tech Prep, and Essential School Programs

Historically, vocational education has been perceived as having an important role at Oakfield High School. As noted by several of the respondents, traditional vocational education courses are viewed as being an integral part of the school even though there are only three teachers. (Of these three, the business and agriculture teachers are full-time teachers but have split assignments with the junior high school. The home economics teacher actually retired three years ago but continues to carry her program as a part-time teacher.) Nonetheless, for the Oakfield teachers, the very existence of the traditional voc ed courses is a demonstration of a continuing commitment to vocational education. This is not surprising given its rural location and the strong agricultural ties of the community.

What is surprising is the relative lack of attention given to the place of the vocational education program in the essential school initiative. A section of Oakfield's initial application for membership in the Alliance in 1989 was devoted to responses to faculty questions and concerns about Alliance membership. Only one of the 30 issues raised specifically questioned whether provisions were to be made for vocational education. The response read, "No special compensation or dispensation is made for any particular discipline. The possibilities in the Vo. Ed. area, though, could be limitless--given the hands-on nature of such courses." At least until 1995, these "possibilities" appear to never have been explored, let alone deliberately nurtured or developed. When they did occur, it was through the efforts of the individuals heading up the Tech Prep initiative rather than those involved in the traditional vocational education area.

Although the vocational education reforms first came into Oakfield shortly after the essential school work had begun, no connection was made between the two reform initiatives. This may be due in part to the fact that in the first three years of its existence at Oakfield, the vocational education reforms languished, largely due to uninspired leadership that made little effort to develop a viable program or secure available funds. The vocational education program chugged along, continuing to do those things it had always done in much the same way they had always been done. Career exploration and information remained the sole province of the school guidance counselor. Technology, such as it was, was limited to a computer in the library and one in the main office for administrative purposes. By the end of 1994, Oakfield was in imminent danger of losing even its meager vocational education reform funds, largely because no viable business partnership had been established.

This changed in 1995 with the appointment of two new co-coordinators for the Tech Prep program, both of whom are academic area (English and math) teachers. These dynamic women breathed new life into Tech Prep through their energy and organization. Within the space of one year, the two teachers had pulled together a business partnership arrangement for the school that encompassed all business and commercial enterprises in Oakfield; obtained a substantial increase in funding; and put together a comprehensive and lengthy program proposal for a Tech Prep/Education to Careers Program (TP/ECP), encompassing no less than 16 component areas. For each of the 16 areas, an action plan was developed that noted the foundations already in place, outlined the action steps necessary "to provide Oakfield students with skills and knowledge necessary for today's technological careers," and designated "the person or persons responsible for implementing each step and evaluating it." Briefly, these 16 program components included (1) selection of a career pathway; (2) identification of key players; (3) recruitment of business/industry/ labor; (4) identification of basic issues; (5) recruitment and selection of students; (6) support and retention of students; (7) evaluation of students; (8) articulated course sequences and integrated curriculum; (9) role of parents; (10) staff development; (11) selection, training, and follow-up of mentors; (12) program evaluation; (13) student incentives and recognition; (14) articulation and postsecondary; (15) work-site activities which correlate to school-based learning activities; and (16) integration of a TP/ECP into essential school programs.

The last of these component areas is especially interesting as it specifically addressed the integration of TP/ECP into the essential school program. In it, the Oakfield Tech Prep Team noted, "The Tech Prep/Education to Careers Program and the essential school program are based on similar foundations. The TP/ECP will enhance our essential school program. . . . It is really difficult to separate the essential school program and the Tech Prep/Education to Careers Program since both programs share many of the same goals; therefore, it will be imperative that both programs work together very closely toward the common goal of preparing the OHS graduate for the future." The proposal goes on to note specific areas of TP/ECP that would overlap with or fit into the larger essential school program (see Appendix A).

While the faculty are clearly supportive and appreciative of the work, the two coordinators have done to get the Tech Prep initiative off the ground, it must be kept in mind that Oakfield is a small school characterized first and foremost by strong social and personal ties among its faculty. Everyone assumes multiple responsibilities. In the larger picture, being Tech Prep coordinators and revitalizing this initiative is secondary to being Linda and Susan (pseudonyms). Thus, the sudden flurry of activity surrounding Tech Prep had no substantive impact on the relative importance of or regard for Tech Prep within the school.

There are several reasons for the relatively recent attempts at documenting a relationship and solidifying linkages between the essential school initiative and vocational education reforms. Clearly, the initiative for this interaction rested with the newly appointed Tech Prep coordinators, not with the essential school team. Until the appointment of these two academic area teachers as Tech Prep coordinators in 1995, no teacher with primary affiliation with vocational education or Tech Prep had ever been a member of the Essential School Steering Committee. This was in a school wherein the total physical expanse from one end to the other can be traversed in under one minute; where there is a grand total of twenty-two FTE in the high school; and where many teachers have crossdiscipline teaching responsibilities, which, in turn, blurs departmental affiliations. Thus, smallness in faculty size alone clearly did not guarantee linkages between programs. It took the active initiative of two newly appointed Tech Prep coordinators to get the ball rolling.

The development of the "Oakfield Graduate" by the Essential School Steering Committee and its approval by the Board of Education also appears to have been a seminal event. Although ambiguous and loosely worded, the document became the organizing point and served as a means for Tech Prep to make the first tenuous connections to the essential school changes. For example, in the 1995-1996 school year, each Tuesday homeroom period was devoted to TP/ECP activities devised by the coordinators. More familiarly known as "Tech Prep Tuesday," these activities revolved primarily around career exploration activities. As well, the development of a career paper became part of the 11th grade English requirements. Serendipitously, all students take exactly the same four years of English coursework.

Along with this, there has been some mingling of funds from both essential school monies and Tech Prep grants in the development of computer technology for the school. It is clearly in this area that one of the strongest linkages between the two reform initiatives exist, although there is not full agreement about the exact composition or extent of these relationships. The principal saw the connections as being fairly evident and strong. "In putting technology [computers] into the building, my contention was that every class is Tech Prep. We have software applications across all the subject areas. . . . So the technology piece is emphasized more than anything else and has a direct tie into the essential school piece. For the rural community, the old vocational education is still important. But we're looking to the future, to job shadowing via the Internet." A former coordinator for the essential school effort was less enthusiastic, less certain: "Is there a connection between the essential school initiative and Tech Prep? Tech Prep believes there is. If there is one, I guess its the technology"--and, one may add, not in any real integration of the academic and vocational education areas.

In early 1996, the by-laws of the Oakfield Essential School Steering Committee were amended to be more inclusive in general and to specifically include Tech Prep membership: "Membership will now be selected from the respective departments. Two teachers will be nominated from each of these areas. One teacher will be selected from each of the following departments: VocEd/SpEd, Language Arts, Math/Science, Fine Arts/ Foreign Language, and Social Studies/PE/Health. If none of the above is a member of the Tech Prep Team, then a Tech Prep Team member will be selected for membership on this committee." [Note: The reader will likely be struck by the fact that vocational education is paired with special education in Oakfield's departmental arrangements. However, of even greater interest is the fact that no one at Oakfield seems to attach any significance whatsoever to this. When contacted specifically about this, most respondents expressed genuine confusion as to any reason for concern, including the vocational teachers. The respondents felt that this arrangement was a simple matter of convenience rather than one motivated by any nefarious intent.] If still lacking the necessary substance, at least the structures seem to be in place for the development of interaction and stronger linkages between the essential school initiative and Tech Prep reforms and, by proxy, the traditional vocational education program.

Conclusions

There are several conclusions that can be drawn from examining the essential school effort and the Tech Prep initiative at Oakfield High School. On the surface, it would seem that if any school is likely to have the potential for bringing together the two worlds of the academic and vocational (Little, 1993) in a systemic reform effort it should be Oakfield. The relative perceived importance and status of the vocational program (especially the historic importance of the agricultural strand) in the school, the smallness of the staff, and a concomitant lack of strong departmental affiliations, should provide especially fertile ground for such a union. Yet, affiliation and collaboration between the vocational/Tech Prep and academic/essential school pieces are riddled by internal paradoxes and external contingencies that served to keep these distanced and separate. It should be noted that while these conclusions are discussed separately, they are inherently interrelated and interconnected. In the final analysis, none stands by itself.

Small Is Better?

A small faculty in close physical proximity to each other and with numerous overlapping curricular responsibilities that cross department lines should clearly be an enabling factor for establishing conditions favorable to integrating academic and vocational areas. The faculty themselves see little difference or separation based on department affiliations. As one teacher noted, "We're a small school and a small faculty. As a faculty, we never thought of ourselves as being Tech Prep, academic, or vocational. . . . In terms of the school itself, I don't think that any of us see that this group of teachers over here is vocational; this group is academic. It all mingles. There never has been any difference." Another added, "There are three teachers in one department [and] that's the largest. So we have crossover in both students and teachers between vocational and academic courses. There are a number of courses that we allow students to put into more than one category. So, for example, communications can be used to meet a voc tech requirement or fine arts."

Because of its small size, Oakfield saw itself as a whole with no more than artificial department designations. As far as social cohesion is concerned, this lack of distinction appears to hold true. Several teachers noted that when one teacher became seriously ill, other teachers from across the school volunteered to give him some of their accumulated "sick days" so he wouldn't lose any pay. Yet traditional subject area divisions and prejudices appear to remain as a sub rosa factor when looking for interactions and collaborative actions between the essential school changes and vocational education reforms.

In spite of the tight social cohesion that binds the teachers as a whole, the essential school changes and the Tech Prep initiative seem to have gravitated toward and become the responsibility of different segments of the faculty. As the essential school coordinator noted, "I see the two as being pretty separate. I don't know exactly why. I certainly wouldn't characterize our teachers as being academic, or vocational or Tech Prep. But there is a difference between the Tech Prep [inclusive use of the term] people and essential school people. Even though I share the same classroom with Linda [one of the Tech Prep coordinators], we don't talk about coordinating the two. They just seem separate." Another content area teacher saw the Tech Prep initiatives as less than successful attempts to bridge the gap between vocational education and essential school ideas, that is, the academic strand: "Basically, essential school and voc tech [the vocational education reforms, i.e., Tech Prep] coexist as parallel lines with some bridges between them, like the Tech Prep requirement for a career paper in junior English. But I can't see that these bridges are either intellectually rigorous or represent authentic work." While social cohesion is undoubtedly strong among the faculty, subject area orientation and the subtle status differences it engenders, exist to the extent that essential school ideas are seen as far removed from any substantive involvement in vocational education/Tech Prep or vice versa.

Separate, and Not Equal

Part of the reason for this separation of essential school ideas from the vocational education reforms resides in the earliest interpretations of Coalition philosophy. As one of the teachers involved with the Essential School Steering Committee from its inception noted, "Essential school focuses more on academic areas. We looked at the nine common principles and thought we were talking about kids using their minds well. Kids using their minds well is automatically associated with the academic areas. I guess the more social and affective aspects of essential school programs, like personalization and a tone of decency, are more on the Tech Prep [inclusive term] side." Another teacher noted, "As the essential school program developed, voc tech was included and written into the "Oakfield Graduate" document. They were involved, but it was never focused on them by any means. It was always pretty much an academic impetus from the very start." The assumption appears to have been that, like everything else in the traditional curriculum, vocational education "fit" somewhere in the essential school design. Again, this recalls Oakfield CUSD's early reiteration of the principle #9 in 1991, "A concerted effort will be made to retain all possible course offerings . . ."

This confusion over what constitutes the "turf" of essential school programs versus the vocational education reforms is prevalent among academic area teachers. It seems that early on, lines, even if informally, were drawn, and they remain very much in place: "There isn't a gulf here between academic and vocational teachers, but there is in the programs. You don't see such intellectual rigor or high standards in the Tech Prep or voc ed programs." This is echoed by a telling comment from another teacher who noted, "Anything that deals with the curriculum or instructional issues is pretty much essential school ground. Tech Prep and voc ed deal with--well, I'm not sure what they deal with but it's not essential school stuff." Finally, another teacher noted, "There was clear ownership of what essential school programs owned and what Tech Prep owned. Essential school programs deal with all the staff development and curriculum work. Tech Prep buys most of the technology hardware."

This perception is not limited to academic area teachers. Vocational education teachers and the Tech Prep program coordinators felt it as well. As one of the Tech Prep coordinators noted, "Well, it's up to us, isn't it? We don't have the standing that the essential school program does. They defined the "Oakfield Graduate" so now it's up to us to find ways to link with them. We've managed to get approval (from the Board of Education) to put a Tech Prep accreditation on students' transcripts. It doesn't really mean anything, and it's not much, but there is not much we can do besides document participation." One of the vocational area teachers added, "I never felt any real interest in getting involved in essential school work. It just didn't seem to have anything to do with me really. For the first three years no one could tell what they were doing anyway. They didn't know either, but the focus always was an academic focus. The original nine common principles were pretty academically focused." In short, it appears that the issue of whole school change was clearly owned by the essential school reform. Tech Prep and vocational education reform was viewed, at best, as being, in the words of one of the Tech Prep coordinators, to "enhance our essential school program."

The early perception of the academic orientation of the essential school program was reinforced by the external organizations associated with the essential school movement. At the Coalition level stood a prestigious, Ivy League institution, Brown University, and a nationally renowned education philosopher, Ted Sizer. At the state level, the Alliance organization was closely associated with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the flagship university of the state. The imagery was overpowering. The message Oakfield read seemed crystal clear--essential school reform dealt with academic-centered concerns. One respondent put it well: "I've never thought about the Alliance or the Coalition in terms of Tech Prep or vocational education. When I look at the Alliance I see the University of Illinois and Brown. That's a long way from Tech Prep and vocational education. They're associated with the local Tech Prep consortium, trade schools, and community colleges." Another respondent added, "It's like you have parallel organizations. Here's the Alliance with its coordinators, programs, and funding. Then, over here, is Tech Prep with its own coordinators, programs, and funding. They are basically separate from each other. They have separate meetings, separate concerns, separate funds." It seems not unusual, then, that Oakfield was not able to bring together what they saw as two quite distinct initiatives.

Essential Versus Nonessential

An implicit understanding at Oakfield (and other Alliance schools) seems to revolve around the idea that if something is designated as essential, something else must be nonessential. Even at Oakfield, with its strong vocational orientation, the invective of "nonessential" fell most heavily on voc ed programs. As one of the respondents noted, "The intellectual focus [of essential school programs] seemed at odds with voc tech programs. It seemed to make these nonessential. Of course, that did not happen here. Maybe because we are a rural school, and farming is a widely respected vocation. These kinds of classes are not fringy."

Added to the dilemma of being perceived as "nonessential," vocational education faced additional credibility challenges from the state level. The state-identified learning goals do not include any direct reference to vocational education, nor does the
state-mandated testing program, the Illinois Goal Assessment Program (IGAP). As one vocational education teacher noted, "The state goals do not include voc tech, and this made everyone in those areas extremely nervous. The state-level organizations and even the national ones (in vocational education) did put some pressure on the state to include them. But they never did in the same format that they did the other six learning areas that were identified." In essence, the state was sending the same message to voc tech areas, questioning their relevance and centrality in education.

This spurred the impetus for vocational education teachers to attempt at least limited involvement with essential school changes. As the principal noted, "I told them that it was up to them. It was clear that they [the vocational education teachers] in those areas that were not covered by the six fundamental learning areas would have to be able to show how their curriculum content meets the existing goals. Basically, they were afraid that if they didn't show up and demonstrate how they help to meet those identified outcomes, they were going to disappear." Much the same appears to be true in regards to the "Oakfield Graduate" document.

The effect of the identification of state learning goals was to reinforce the academic areas, already closely associated with the essential school ideas, as the center of the universe in secondary education and to further marginalize vocational education. In essence, this state action endorsed the existing proclivity of the essential school initiative to be seen as academically centered in the traditional understandings of academic courses and offered little incentive or reason to take a more embracing stance toward inclusion of and affiliation with vocational education areas. The principal put it as well as anyone:

Quality Review, IGAP, and the state School Improvement effort all still ignore vocational education and Tech Prep kinds of issues. There's no requirement to report anything on these areas in your school report card, so I'm sure that most [schools] don't. The light still shines on the academic core. With IGAP, there is nothing beyond measurement of those academic areas. All the high stakes tests we as a school get evaluated on, mandated to do, and judged on from the State Board don't touch the voc ed or Tech Prep world.

Sweet Serendipity

It seems clear that the connections that do exist between the academic/essential school efforts at Oakfield and the vocational education/Tech Prep reforms are, for the most part, unplanned, serendipitous occurrences. While there are some activities that bridge across, for the most part these are not by deliberate design. As one teacher noted, "I don't think there were ever any planned connections between the two. No one was looking for these connections. Now there is some overlap of membership on both committees [essential school and Tech Prep], but serendipity probably describes it better than anything else."

These bridges exist largely because of the perceived strength and importance of the vocational education program at Oakfield. Comprising a reasonable proportion of students and because of the overwhelmingly strong social bonds between teachers, they will not be ignored. Nonetheless, a largely second-class status for vocational education undergirds implicit assumptions by both sides and is reinforced by policies of powerful external state and national agencies.

Summary

In this case at least, the relationship between essential school reform and vocational education reform seems fairly clear. Essential school reform was the dominant, driving force in the school and vocational education reforms as well as vocational education were placed in a position of attempting to "fit" into the larger change agenda. The responsibility for finding this "fit" clearly rested with the Tech Prep coordinators and, to a lesser extent, with the vocational education teachers.

There are likely several reasons for the differential status accorded to the two reforms. First, and most simply, essential school reform was there first. Even with its rocky start at the school, the essential school ideas of whole-school change had some form, substance, and momentum by the time the vocational education reforms arrived on the scene. Second, for whatever reason, there is an innate appeal and status accorded to reforms seen as "academic." Essential school reform had this aura for a variety of reasons; the vocational reforms did not. No matter how unreasonable or unjustifiable, in the pecking order of traditional, comprehensive high schools, anything carrying a "vocational" label is, to greater or lesser extents, still stigmatized and marginalized--somehow removed from the central core concerns of secondary education. Third, and closely connected to the preceding, the vocational education reforms did not garner the understanding, let alone interest, of the majority of staff at the school. This is clearly evidenced in numerous examples. It is illustrated in the loose and even at times inaccurate uses of the terminology, like "Tech Prep," by influentials in the school. For the principal, Tech Prep is computer technology in the classrooms. When asked what Tech Prep is concerned with, one of the essential school participants was completely stymied for a response. Another essential school coordinator shares a classroom with the Tech Prep coordinator, but they never discuss the two initiatives they respectively head up. At best, in most of the respondents' minds, there is a vague association that links Tech Prep with traditional vocational education and, thus, something largely unconnected with them.