NCRVE MDS-885 - Afterword: Introduction

NCRVE Home | Site Search | Product Search

Introduction

While the schools portrayed in the previous case studies learned to redesign their programs around all aspects of the industry, common implementation issues arose. Certain features of redesign proved particularly complex such as creating and sustaining schools-within-schools, integrating curriculum across multiple disciplines, or linking student work and community-based experiences with school-based curriculum. We realized that these dilemmas and implementation issues were in many ways parallel to those experienced by teachers involved in complementary reforms around the country.

We decided to take a look at schools involved with the Coalition of Essential Schools, the Center for Collaborative Education, the Philadelphia Schools Collaborative, Service Learning Programs, Foxfire, REAL Enterprises, and City/Community-as-School. (Detailed descriptions of these efforts appear in As Teachers Tell It: Implementing All Aspacts of the Industry: Supporting Materials [MDS-885b].) While each of these efforts are distinct, we knew that they were beginning to converge around common ideas and processes--ideas that were also common to our teachers restructuring around AAI. In particular, they all

emphasize student ownership over their education through involvement in curriculum development and through ample student choice.
make students take responsibility within and for their education.
appeal to students' interests through subject matter and theme.
develop structured pathways from high school through post-high school--for example, Tech Prep and work-based learning--so that students see the relevancy of the skills which they are developing.
use experiential learning methods--for example, project-based learning and field-based learning.
create individualized learning experiences to address the individual learning styles and needs of students.
create and foster communities of which students and staff can identify and feel a distinct part.

Thus, they agree about the pedagogy of instruction--or how and where students are taught and the roles played by teachers and students. Although they articulate it in different ways, they seem to agree about creating student experiences that are real and grounded in the community or workplace. Structural commonalties follow as many advocate the creation of smaller, and thus more personal learning communities. Because of these similarities, we felt that learning from teachers engaged in these efforts would be especially helpful to the teachers involved in AAI study. They differed in one key way, however. Few of the above stated reforms share an interest in interdisciplinary curriculum developed around an industry theme. Thus, they differ on the content and focus of interdisciplinary efforts. Despite this distinction, we decided to spend some time learning from them about implementation.

After reading about the Coalition of Essential Schools, the Center for Collaborative Education, the Philadelphia Schools Collaborative, Service Learning Programs, Foxfire, REAL Enterprises, and City/Community-as-School, we identified schools which had worked with them in some way or another. We then spoke with members of the staff during site visits and over the telephone about some of their successes and stumbling blocks in restructuring. The set of shared issues and problems which emerged--similar to the struggles experienced by the schools participating in the AAI Project--were used to develop a protocol of probing questions. The questionnaire was distributed to those schools we spoke with and completed by a diversity of staff members. Issues included creating small learning communities, formulating common school goals, integrating curriculum, creating themes for schools or classrooms, defining real and relevant learning, creating field-based learning, and implementing school change.

With these questionnaires, we identified more common issues and held follow-up phone interviews with the respondents. We were not seeking answers to difficult questions of school change; rather, we were gathering advice and perspectives. What we learned from these teachers about creating small learning environments, integration, and field-based learning programs overlapped tremendously, both in content and process. While it is somewhat artificial to discuss pieces of the system as if unrelated to one another--that is, curriculum or schools-within-schools--we isolated them in order to capture in-depth and specific lessons. Thus, this chapter conveys advice from teachers of these complementary reforms about efforts and processes that are similar to the AAI teachers in the case studies. They do not provide single answers to obvious barriers; rather, they present dilemmas and pose a variety of ways to approach them. They then provide a host of questions to consider as schools begin to redesign. In the next three sections, teachers from complementary reforms discuss creating small learning environments, integration, and field-based learning programs.

NCRVE Home | Site Search | Product Search