Merging three small districts into one larger entity was a delicate
matter in 1972. Each district was afraid of losing its identity, its
unique responses to local community needs. Only when "autonomy" was
guaranteed to each school did the three districts agree to merge.
Under the concept of building autonomy, each school in the newly formed district
had its own budget and developed and educational plan suited to its own specific
needs. Staff members in each school decided how to make use of classroom and
playground aides, counselors, and physical education teachers. The building
principal took charge of the hiring, sometimes with the input from staff members.
Committees of teachers evaluated new textbooks and made recommendations to the
entire faculty, who then collectively chose texts that they believe would best meet
the needs of teachers and the school community. Report cards for each school were
designed by the faculty of that school and reflected its particular philosophy and
character. At my school our report card consisted of a checklist of skills, with
ample spaces for commonest; this reflect our focus on students' self concepts and
our aversion to letter grades.
By 1980 there were 18 different report cards formats in use. Some
used letter grades, some used checkout systems (under columns with
heads as: commendable; satisfactory; needs improvement); and some
used checklists of skills. Both the content of each report card and the
system of marking had been dictated by the philosophies of instruction
and of evaluation that characterized the staff and principal of a given
school. The unique qualities of the school communities (which vary
widely within the district); the parents' attitudes and interests; the
teachersŐ philosophies and strengths, and the principals' knowledge and
values were all taken into account in determining the materials used
for instruction, the teaching methods, and the way of reporting the
results.
As a teacher, I appreciated the recognition of my professional competence to make
these choices, and I took the responsibility seriously. In my building, the process
operated smoothly -- but not without excitement and constructive controversy,
which stimulates personal growth and creativity. During a textbook adoption year,
our staff would name a committee to explore the available materials and to make
recommendations. We then invited selected publishers to present their materials
to use. We examined sample copies at a decision-making meeting that was often
heated, we voted for a series for our school. The successful use of the new series
could be attributed as much to teachers' enthusiasm as to the quality of the
materials. These were our chose programs, and we worked hard to make them
succeed.
Two years ago, unilateral decisions from the central office began to
replace school autonomy. Today, faculties are allowed to choose
between only two reading series (compared to 8 in 1980), two spelling
programs, and two K-12 language arts series. The choices were
narrowed to two by a district curriculum committees.
The changes began with the 1980 adoption of reading materials. In the fall of that
year the district curriculum department formed a textbook selection committee,
composed of one teacher from each school. This committee was asked to preview
the dozen or so reading series that had been approved by the state and to arrive at a
shorter list of recommended series, to be furnished to each school. Teacher were
told that this process would facilitate textbook selection at the building level,
since building committees would not have to screen all the books on the state list.
We expected the "recommended list" to contain at least 5-6 titles.
Not long after this debacle, all teachers in the district were required to
complete a questionnaire on report cards. We were asked whether we
agreed or disagreed with such statements as, "The report cards I
currently use adequately communicates information I want parents to
know" and "Letter grades would adequately communicate students
progress." A similar questionnaire was sent to 1/7th of the parents in
the district.
We teachers received no official information about the results of these
surveys until the last week of school, when a not from the central
office informed use that a district committee would meet during the
summer to construct a districtwide report card. However, several
weeks before this not was divulged to teachers, the report card
committee had already made a formal presentation to the school board.
Formed at the time of the surveys, this committee consisted of three
parents, three teachers, and one administrator -- all selected by the
director of elementary education. There mission was to design a
districtwide report card. The surveys had not been intended to
determine whether this report card was necessary or desirable, but
rather to assist the committee in designing the card.
The report card committee reported the results of the survey to the board. Those
parents and teachers who responded had agreed on two points: a report card should
indicate the level of a student's effort, and it should report the level of a student's
performance (at, above, or below grade level). On other report card features, the
two groups had shown little agreement. Slightly more than 50% of the teachers
favored the use of letter grades.
The committee's report to the school board included a section titled
"Statement of Reporting Philosophy." This was a God-and-Motherhood
affirmation of report cards as an essential form of communication. It
concluded with these words. "In order to attain district uniformity, a
standard report card . . . will be used." I note the reference to
uniformity and wondered what had happened to the concept of building
autonomy.
I talked to the school board chairperson, the superintendent, and other
administrators, but I never did find out what motivated the change in policy. From
school board chairperson, I learned that early in the year the board had adopted a
uniform report card for all elementary schools as one of its goals. She said that
the board wanted to bring the elementary schools into line with the JH and HS, all
of which use the same computer-generated report card format. The board was also
concerned about parents who moved from one elementary school to another within
the district and had to adjust each time to a new reporting format. Board members
perceived some elementary report cards as ridden with educational jargon and
confusing to parents. She maintained that the board's goal was the "clarification
and simplification" of the reporting process. "I would not like to use the word
'standardized', she said -- but she could not think of a better term."
She spoke matter-of-factly about a decision that seemed routine to her.
I could imagine the seven school board members, each seeking quite
innocently to simplify a situation that might logical be a source of
parental confusion. It probably never crossed their minds that some
others have a passionate philosophical aversion to the use of letter
grades, to labeling struggling students "below grade level," or to having
to use a set of standards that do not quite fit the school or its students.
When I asked for an explanation of these new restrictions on building autonomy,
district administrators expressed a unified viewpoint. The superintendent said he
thought it unnecessary "to replicate the same activities in every school in the
district. It is important, in terms of energy and effort, to centralize somethings."
He admitted that other things -- such as the building budget process -- should
remain decentralized. "As far a possible," he concluded, "a decision ought to be
made as close as possible to where it impacts." He did not seem to find this
statement in conflict with his first one about the importance of centralization.
in the past few years, EIU has decentralized the budget process --
good news ? --- bad news ?
The director of elementary education is a building principal and has been a staunch
advocate of building-level decision making, now expressed another view. "The
district has to do something about program articulation," he said, citing the
complaints of HS English teachers that their literary selections where being used
in JHS courses. A single series of literature texts would solve this problem, he
maintained. "There is also the problems of teachers who don't know how to
individualize. They need a common thread so that they don't skip skills that are
basic." He saw reliance on a single textbook series as one way to provide this
thread of continuity from grade to grade. I interpreted his statement to mean that
good materials can shore up poor teachers.
Our district is now in the process of replacing a locally created
individualized math program that has been used for seven years, with a
single math textbook series. School staffs have been permitted to
choose between two titles, rather like choosing between Tweedledum
and Tweedledee. When the final vote is counted, we will be given one
grade-level textbook from the chosen series of each student, no matter
what level of math skill that student may possess. We have been
informed that both texts contain "revue problems" for slower students"
in the front of the book and "enrichment problems for capable
students" in the back of the book. I am not reassured by this
information. I believe that , in the long run, the real losers in the
whole movement toward uniformity will be the students, who in time
will become as standardized as their texts.
I am not sure whether these changes have been prompted by a notion that
uniformity equals control or out of a belief that district administrators can make
better decisions than district staff members. In either case, teachers have been
left with few options. Backed by the teacher union, a number of concerned teachers
met with district administrators to express their distress over these changes. The
administrates listened politely and thanked them for their input. Nothing changed.
An administrator from another district put it this way. "If your a
carpenter and I want a house built, I'll tell you what kind of house I
want -- but I won't tell you what tools to use." That's the way things
operate in his district and the way things used to me in mine. As I see
it, change isn't always synonymous with progress. Sometimes it can
mean a giant step backward.
"Improvement (of schooling) his to be planned and implemented where
the students, the teachers, the parents, and others actors are -- that
is, at the building level."
His words gave me a great deal of ironic satisfaction. They hit home because I
teach in a district that used to allow exactly that: building-level planning that
encompassed every aspect of instruction. However, in the past few years South
Counties District has reversed those e policies that permitted building-level that
permitted building-level staff to make a majority of the curricular decisions. As a
teacher in that district, I have had little power to alter this process -- only to
deplore it. Apparently the concept of building-level autonomy was ahead of its
times."as a teacher i have had little power to alter
this process -- only to deplore it. Apparently
the concept of building-level autonomy was
ahead of its time."
dr. leyden's note:
about 23 (??) states have a "state textbook adoption list."
Publishers cannot sell their text in that state unless "the state
committee" approves. Indiana is such a state. Illinois is not -- we are
called a "free territiory."
This practice stems from anti-devil and anti-communist groups who
scour the books to see that nothing evil is contained therein. While doing a curriculum workshop in the "south," a teacher came up to me and said -- "I'm on this committee to make sure Satan doesn't creep into our schools through these textbooks." Sigh.
The teacher from our school who served on the textbook selection
committee expressed concern over the high degree of administrative
control, which limited the range of choices even bettor the committee
began its work. Moreover, a "steering committee" had drawn up an
evaluation instrument to be used in the selection process, and our
representative felt that this instrument was biased. Fro instance, the
instrument gave equal weight to textbook format, usability of the TE
and the literary content of the book. The committee was also directed
to reach consensus on K-8 series only; this eliminated those reading
materials that might meet the special needs of primary students or of
intermediate students but be unsuitable for use at other grade levels.
Working under these constraints, the committee recommended four
titles.
dr. leyden's note:
isn't ANY committee -- ANY instrument going to be biased ? YOU get on those committees if you want a chance to cause change.
Two of these titles were arbitrarily stricken from the list by the four central
office administrators who reviewed the committee's recommendations. When the
staff at my school was informed that our building-level reading committee would
be looking at just two series, a ripple of anger ran thru the room. "Why not flip a
nickel and forget about the committee ?" asked one teacher. Another predicted
darkly that we would soon be told which lessons to cover in the new books -- and
on which dates.
Leyden's note:
Well, "before", if we went a little over the allotted telephone budget --
someone in Old Main would "find the money" to bail us out.
Now -- over budget = no more phone calls -- regardless of whether it is March
lst and the school year has 90 days to go.
"Before" -- "big daddy" (Old Main) would help us out (heteronomy) -- now we
are on our own (autonomy).
moral: every decision has its price. :-(
The superintendent had three reasons for the decision to restrict textbooks
selection. One was in service training. If the district purchased a
series in large quantity, then it would receive more in the way of in
service training from the publisher. This sounded fine, but there is
nothing remarkably unusual or better about these all-district training
sessions on reading that we all attended the following fall. For 90
minutes, a charming woman gushed over the wonders of the text. I did
not learn anything that I could not have discovered on my own thru a
careful reading of the TE -- nor was this training session distinctly
different from those I had experiences in my own school after building-
level textbook adoptions. "faculties have been permitted to chose
between two textbooks, rather like
choosing between tweedledum and tweedledee."
The second reason for restricting textbook selection was the school board's desire
to assure more continuity within each school. Some schools used different reading
series for almost every grade, he said. I knew of one school where this had been
true, but I didn't think that test scores or other evidence indicated that students in
that school were learning to read less well than students in schools that used a
single reading series. In my own school, the reading program relied on paperback
books; the staff used no basal readers at all, yet our students scored acceptably on
standardized reading tests. Moreover, they like to read.
The third reason for the decision to restrict textbook selection, was
the close correlation of the two selected series to district goals in
reading. There are only three state "program goals." -- they addressed
word recognition skills; comprehension skills; and literary
appreciation. I wonder which basal series would not have met these
goals.Uniformity and change are not always synonymous with
progress, says Ms. Phipps. Sometimes they can mean a
giant step backwards.
the real losers in the whole movement
toward uniformity will be the
students, who will become as
standarized as the texts.