Previous Next Contents NCRVE Home

CHAPTER 1

Lola Jackson

OVERVIEW OF THE URBAN SCHOOLS NETWORK





HISTORY

      In 1992 the National Center for Research in Vocational Education (NCRVE) received funding from the U.S. Department of Education to provide technical assistance to urban schools receiving funds from the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1990 (Perkins II). Initially this technical assistance was intended to take the form of a two-week staff development conference in the summer of 1992. It soon expanded into the creation of a national Urban Schools Network. What follows is an overview of the evolution of the Urban Schools Network from 1992 through 1997 based on the legislative principles found in Perkins II and the mission of NCRVE.

      Perkins II created the opportunity to transform urban education with a shift in funding toward areas of poverty and special needs. It authorized state and local programs to teach the competencies necessary to work in a technologically advanced society, and specifically earmarked funds for programs that address the needs of poor and handicapped students and those with limited English-language proficiency. States were obligated to spend this money on schools, area vocational centers, and postsecondary institutions serving the greatest number of disadvantaged students. Perkins II specified the integration of academic and vocational education--integrated curricula that aim at the development and use of problem-solving skills and basic and advanced academic skills (including skills in mathematics, reading, writing, science, and social studies) in a technological setting. Perkins II also specified the establishment of cooperative arrangements that combine The second Perkins Act was a significant response to what many viewed as narrow vocational education programs. two years of technology-oriented preparatory education in high school with two years of advanced technology studies at the community college (now called Tech Prep). The second Perkins Act was a significant response to what many viewed as narrow vocational education programs. Integration and Tech Prep are also linked to broader reform movements within education, including the various efforts to restructure schools.

      Most urban areas received substantially increased federal funding from Perkins II and were charged with developing programs to address the legislative requirements. Schools in the process of developing and operating new integration and Tech Prep initiatives faced a variety of instructional, institutional, and political problems. As a result, many urban schools needed further information about Perkins II requirements and examples of successful programs already in operation. They also needed technical assistance on strategies for implementation.


THE INITIAL PLAN FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE:
1992 SUMMER INSTITUTES

      At the same time that urban schools were starting to plan and implement Perkins II initiatives, NCRVE was devoting resources and time to the study of integration and Tech Prep. In keeping with NCRVE's mission of engaging in research activities that increase the access of all learners to high-quality college and career experiences, NCRVE applied for and received funding from the U.S. Department of Education to sponsor two technical assistance conferences for urban schools grappling with Perkins II. In July of 1992, the National Center for Research in Vocational Education conducted two national conferences, called summer institutes, in Berkeley, California. The first institute was titled "Establishing Tech Prep Programs in Urban Schools", and the second was titled "Establishing the Integration of Academics and Vocational Education in Urban Schools."

      Requests for Proposals (RFPs) were sent to schools and colleges in the largest 200 cities in the country. Proposal respondents were asked to identify teams of ten to twelve persons, including vocational and academic teachers, a counselor, a local administrator, and a state administrator. From an impressive number of applicants, ten teams were chosen to participate in each institute. Integration teams were composed of individuals from one or two secondary schools. Tech Prep teams were composed of individuals from a postsecondary institution and its feeder secondary school(s). Among the first twenty cities represented were the metropolitan areas of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Denver, Cleveland, Baltimore, and Washington D.C.

      The goals of the institutes were to:

  1. Create models of urban integration and Tech Prep programs and a network of developing programs in urban school districts.

  2. Create a forum of exchange between individuals with extensive program development experience and those who were just beginning the process and establish teacher-to-teacher networks on integration and Tech Prep.

  3. Help school- and district-based teams develop and implement plans for integrated Tech Prep programs for their schools and equip school- and district based teams with the resources and knowledge to serve as mentors to other schools in their areas.


TEAM PLANS

      The major objective of the summer institutes were for each team to develop a The major objective of the institute was for each team to develop a strategic plan for initiating or continuing Tech Prep or integration at their site.strategic plan for initiating or continuing Tech Prep or the integration of academic and vocational education at its site during the 1992-93 school year. Teams were assisted in developing their plans by mentor teachers and graduate students. Mentor teachers were selected from exemplary programs around the country. Graduate students who had teaching or administration backgrounds were selected from the University of California at Berkeley's School of Education. During dedicated team meeting time, mentor teachers and graduate students assisted each team in establishing an organizational structure, designing required program components, involving key groups, devising a time line, and monitoring results. Teams also attended workshops and presentations led by visiting experts (business and labor representatives, education researchers, practitioners, and other specialists) and mentors teachers. These sessions were intended to promote cross-team interaction and help all teams develop implementation strategies in the areas of business and industry partnerships, guidance and counseling activities, mentoring, internships, and the development and revision of curriculum.

      One of the most positive aspects of both institutes was the sense of team unity One of the most postive aspects of both institutes was the sense of team unity that developed. Academic and vocational teachers began to work together as teammates with a set of common goals.that developed. Academic and vocational teachers began to work together as teammates with a set of common goals. Research has shown that team building among educators increases the possibility of risk taking and change occurring in a school (Saphier and King, 1985). A sense of ownership, a unified commitment, a collaborative climate, and clear goals helped to drive school-based teams to create successful change. Another positive aspect of the institutes was the support that participants reported experiencing from the state representatives who were part of the team. Teams also felt recognized and supported by U.S. Department of Education representatives and the business community members who took part in the institutes.


TAKING THE PLAN HOME

      NCRVE envisioned that Summer Institute participants would develop strategic implementation plans for model programs, return home, and share their models with other local educators. Teams who participated in NCRVE's Institutes were energized by the experience and returned home ready to implement their plans for change. However, many teams were quickly frustrated in their efforts by circumstances at their school sites, such as inadequate retraining time and inflexible master schedules. In addition, resistance from staff members who did not participate in the summer institutes hindered the implementation of teams' plans.


TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE:
LAUNCHING A NETWORK

      It was evident to the teams and to NCRVE that the schools who came to the 1992 Summer Institutes could not implement their plans without continued support from each other and from a main coordinating unit like NCRVE. Therefore, NCRVE launched the Urban Schools Network to support these schools in their integration and Tech Prep efforts. The Network brought together top-down and bottom-up reform, enabling NCRVE researchers to work hand in hand with expert practitioners in the field of urban high school reform.

      When developing the Urban Schools Network, NCRVE took into account the experiences of other school reform and restructuring networks. The design of the Network incorporated a model of teachers teaching teachers, a guiding principle of the highly successful National Writing Project, which originated at and was operated by the The Network brought together top-down and bottom-up reform. Graduate School of Education at the University of California at Berkeley. The National Writing Project was a staff development model based on a belief that classroom teachers are the most convincing consultants because their knowledge about effective teaching was based on their own experiences in real classrooms. NCRVE activities focused on teacher collegiality and collaboration, giving teachers the leadership and decision-making skills to recommend the restructuring of their schools or programs. Teams of teachers and other representatives were encouraged to review the organizational needs of their school staff, students and community and use that information as a basis for planning. Teams were guided by mentor teachers and other expert practitioners who later came to be known as the Urban Schools Network Fellows.


PURPOSE OF THE NETWORK

      The purpose of the Urban Schools Network was to:

  1. Equip schools and district-based teams with the resources and knowledge necessary to advance the implementation of curriculum integration, Tech Prep, and school-to-work efforts in urban schools.

  2. Sustain a network through which urban practitioners, in coordination with local and state offices, schools of education, and other partners, can continue to share expertise and learn from one another.

  3. Investigate examples of the best practices in human resources, staff and program development, curriculum development and implementation, guidance and counseling, program evaluation, and business and community partnerships.

  4. Create a forum of exchange between individuals with extensive program development experience and those who are just beginning the process through a range of teacher-to-teacher outreach and dissemination activities.

  5. Promote and support the process of systemic reform in urban schools.


THE NETWORK'S TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PLAN

      The Network was built on a four-point plan of technical assistance:

  1. Ongoing communication

  2. Summer institutes and regional meetings

  3. Site visits

  4. Progress reports and team evaluation


ONGOING COMMUNICATION

      Maintaining a national network required ongoing communication among member institutions and the coordinating agency, NCRVE. During the past five years, NCRVE Network staff stayed in contact with teams across the country by phone, fax, mail, and e-mail. Network staff were designated team managers for particular teams and communicated monthly with at least one liaison from each team. Team managers monitored site progress and responded to site requests for information and technical assistance. In addition, NCRVE Berkeley staff and other contributors produced the Urban Update newsletter, which was published twice a year and featured successful implementation strategies.


SUMMER INSTITUTES AND REGIONAL MEETINGS

      Following up on the success of the 1992 Summer Institutes, two more institutes were hosted in Berkeley in the summers of 1993 and 1995. These events brought existing Network teams together, along with some new participants, for networking, learning, and planning in an intensive residential institute setting.

      Regional networking meetings were held each year in cities close to Network sites, enabling larger numbers of Network members to attend. Regional meetings usually began on a Friday, to reduce the need for teacher release time, and included visits to Network institutions in the host city, as well as to other exemplary secondary, postsecondary, and work-based programs in the region. Like summer institutes, regional meetings featured workshops and presentations, often with a targeted regional focus, and intensive planning time and networking opportunities.


SITE VISITS

      NCRVE Urban Schools Network staff, researchers, field consultants, and mentor teachers conducted monitoring visits to all sites during the first three years of the Network. Site visits consisted of meetings with team members, administrators, and staff at institutions represented on the team; meetings with district administrators; visits to classes and adjunct activities; and the development of recommendations for future actions to be taken by the team, district, or institution. NCRVE staff compiled a site evaluation report and shared it with the team following the visit. The emphasis of site visits shifted in 1995 to a technical assistance focus. NCRVE staff, field consultants, and Network Fellows conducted site visits with agendas based on team needs and requests.


PROGRESS REPORTS AND TEAM EVALUATION

      At the close of each summer institute and regional meeting, teams submitted copies of their implementation plans to NCRVE. Through written progress reports, sites were encouraged to engage in ongoing self-assessment and evaluation of their implementation efforts. Progress reports addressed areas such as the frequency and structure of team meetings; strategies to encourage cross-team communication; student identification, recruitment, and retention; community outreach efforts; identification of resources; program evaluation strategies; and materials produced during the school year. NCRVE staff reviewed progress reports and offered practical suggestions. Along with progress reports, teams were provided with structured self-assessment tools such as implementation checklists and surveys, and technical assistance in the area of evaluation for program improvement. In addition, teams were encouraged to periodically review and revise the plans originally produced at the summer institutes.



A LOOK AHEAD

      As the Network prepares to phase out, its focus has evolved once again. In the last two years, NCRVE staff, field consultants, and fellows have worked with Network members to consider connections with other initiatives at the local and state level that may complement existing delivery systems. Specifically, NCRVE has encouraged Network sites to align earlier curriculum integration and Tech Prep efforts with more recent reform efforts included in the 1994 School-to-Work Opportunities Act, the 1994 Goals 2000: Educate America Act, and other restructuring initiatives. NCRVE has assisted Network schools in making connections with organizations or networks such as the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), Coalition of Essential Schools (CES), and Jobs For the Future (JFF). During the most recent Network meetings, NCRVE advocated that sites' plans include detailed approaches for combining reform efforts and affiliating with other organizations and networks.

      In July 1997, NCRVE brought the Urban Schools Network members together for one last meeting. The purpose of this culminating activity was to celebrate the Network sites' five years of progress and to conduct focus group interviews to document their struggles and success. The focus group meeting, aptly nicknamed The Reflectathon, took place over three days, in Berkeley, California. During focus group discussions conducted by Network staff, field consultants, and fellows, representatives from Network sites reflected on their five-year journey with NCRVE.

      Network teams confronted many barriers to the implementation of their plans. These obstacles can be found in many school districts but are particularly daunting in urban areas that are coping with large numbers of at-risk children and overworked teachers and administrators. Urban high schools have typically received fewer resources and have been excluded from the many education infrastructures that grew up around rural and suburban schools. Linkages with employers and connections with parents are more difficult to establish in areas of inner city poverty than in more affluent suburban areas. Nonetheless, over the past five years, even in the face of these contextual challenges, Urban Schools Network teams have developed innovative methods to address their needs for strong leadership, team and staff stability, teacher- focused endeavors, time to plan and learn, and assistance in the evaluation of their efforts. The chapters that follow include examples of how Network sites creatively addressed a variety of challenges in the reform process.


REFERENCE

Saphier, J. and King, M. (1985). Good seeds grow in strong cultures.
Educational Leadership, (53), 67-74.


APPENDIX

      NCRVE's Urban Schools Network[*]

  1. Akron (OH)
  1. Baltimore (MD)
  1. Baltimore (MD)

    Baltimore City Technology Team, including:
  1. Baltimore (MD)
  1. Charlotte (NC)
  1. Chicago (IL)
  1. Cleveland (OH)
  1. Cleveland (OH)
  1. Denver (CO)
  1. Detroit (MI)
  1. Harrisburg (PA)
  1. Houston (TX)
  1. Indianapolis (IN)
  1. Las Cruces (NM)

    Doña Ana Tech Prep Consortium, including:
  1. Los Angeles (CA)
  1. Milwaukee (WI)
  1. Nashville (TN)
  1. New Orleans (LA)
  1. New York (NY)
  1. Oklahoma City (OK)

    Consortium to Restructure Education through Academic and Technological Excellence (CREATE), including:
  1. Oklahoma City (OK)

    SOAR Consortium, including:
  1. Omaha (NE)
  1. Philadelphia (PA)
  1. Raleigh (NC)
  1. Seattle (WA)
  1. Somerville (MA)
  1. St. Louis, (MO)
  1. St. Paul (MN)

    St. Paul Tech Prep Consortium, including:
  1. Tuscaloosa (AL)
  1. Washington (DC)
  1. Washington (DC)

[*] The sites above have participated in the Network at various times since 1992. Additional institutions not listed here have participated periodically in Network events.

Previous Next Contents NCRVE Home
NCRVE Home | Site Search | Product Search