document resume ed 390 948 author sebring, … · bets ann smith wrote the two case descriptions....

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 390 948 UD 030 752

AUTHOR Sebring, Penny Bender; And OthersTITLE Charting Reform: Chicago Teachers Take Stock. A

Report.INSTITUTION Consortium on Chicago School Research, IL.SPONS AGENCY Illinois State Board of Education, Springfield.; John

D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Chicago.IL.; Joyce Foundation, Chicago, IL.; SpencerFoundation, Chicago, Ill.

PUB DATE Aug 95NOTE 81p.PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142)

EDRS PRICE MFOI/PC04 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS CommuniLy Involvement; *Educational Change;

Educational Research; *Elementary School Teachers;Elementary Secondary Education; *InstructionalLeadership; *Parent Participation; ProfessionalDevelopment; School Restructuring; School Size;School Surveys; *Secondary School Teachers; *UrbanSchools

IDENTIFIERS *Chicago Public Schools IL; Reform Efforts

ABSTRACT

In 1994, as Chicago (Illinois) completed the fifthyear of school reform under the Chicago School Reform Act, theConsortium on Chicago School Research launched its third and fourthsurveys of teacher and student responses to change. In all, 39,000students, 6,200 elementary school teachers, and 2,600 high schoolteachers completed the surveys. Individually tailored reports wereprovided to the 266 elementary and 46 high schools that participated.This report, first of a two-part series, focuses on schoolleadership, parent involvement, and professional community anddevelopment. Most of the information was drawn from the teachersurvey. Survey responses made it clear that a broad set ofdevelopments must occur if Chicago is to fulfill the intentions ofthe reforms. Teachers, parents, and the community must work togethermore cooperatively to engage students in learning. Most teachers heldtheir principals in high regard and saw them as the most importantagents of local school reform. Findings of the surveys also indicatethat reform is progressing more successfully in smaller schools,where leadership and a sense of professional community are moreeasily fostered. Commentaries by Ruben Carriedo, Charles Payne, andBetty Malen supplement the discussior. (Contains 85 grP2hs, 13 boxplots, I map, I table, and 52 references.) (SLD)

*Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.

Charting Reform:Chicago Teachers Take StockA Report Sponsored by theConsortium on Chicago School Research

August 1995

U.S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION(Nice 01 Educallonal Rusoarch and imptovement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

.4"Tfus document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

0 Minor changes have been made to

improve reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

=\1)±:gnLe_r_SEIC)(0

hittfISLA-e&LAN\

TO THE EDUCATIONALRESOURCESINFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)."

School Leadership_ _

'Parent Involvement

Program Coherence

Reform in-Different ElemenlarV School Communities

Penny Bender Sebring, Consortium on Chicago School Research

Anthony S. Bryk, University of Chicago, Center for School Improvement

John Q. Easton, Chicago Public Schools

Stuart Luppescu, Consortium on Chicago School Research

Yeow Meng Thum, Consortium on Chicago School Research

Winifred A. Lopez, Center for School Improvement

BetsAnn Smith, Consortium on Chicago Sdiool Research

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

2

Charting Reform:Chicago Teachers Tako StockA Report Sponsored by theConsortium on Chicago School Research

August 1995

SChool Leadership

Parent Involvement

O

o

Program Coherence page 50

Reform.in Different Elementary School Communities page 53

Penny Bender Sebring, Consortium on Chicago School Research

Anthony S. Bryk, University of Chicago, Center for School Improvement

John Q. Easton, Chicago Public Schools

Stuart Luppeseu, consortium on Chicago School Research

Yeow Meng Thum, Ctinsortium on Chicago School liewarch

Winifred A. I.( dez, Center tor School Improvement

KetsAnn Smith, ( 'onsortium on Chicago School Research

Acknowledgments

A stud) of this scope requires the talents and skills of many

different individuals, and we wish to thank and acknowl-

edge the people who contributed significantly to the success

of this project. Yeow Meng Thum organized and main-

tained multiple, large data files, and he and Stuart Luppescu

conducted a wealth of statistical analyses. Stuart Luppescu,

along with Winifred Lopez, developed the scales that frame

the report. Bets Ann Smith wrote the two case descriptions.

The Chicago Public Schools' Department of Research,

Evaluation and Planning provided considerable support in

the distribution and collection of thousands of surveys,

Optical scanning, and data retrieval. Special thanks go to

William Rice, Charles Collins, William Galante, John

Delmonte, and Sandra Storey.

During the survey development stage, several national

advisors helped us create specific subject matter questions.

We are thankful to Andrcw Porter, Fred Newmann, Tom

Hoffer, Julia Smith, and George Hillocks.

At the Consortium, Eric Carnburn and Jami Camhurn

coordinated survey administration. Benjamin Wright

(University of Chicago) offered valuable guidance on

construction of the scales. Kay Kersch Kirkpatrick orga-

nized publicity for the surveys and provided extensive

editorial support for this publication. Sandra Jennings took

painstaking care in generating bar graphs and processing

numerous drafts of the report. Others who assisted in

various ways include Tom Golz, Sara Hallman, David

Kerbow, Diane King, Jaekyung l.ee, Sandra Smith, and Lisa

Scruggs.

We appreciate the insight and efforts 0: t.k. ;0..ow.ng work

and advisory groups during the questionnaire development

and the analysis stage:

MOM!

Teacher Survey Work Group:Chair, John Easton

Joseph Kahne, University ot Illinois at Chicago

Mari Koerner, Roosevelt Univers:ty

John Kotsakis, Chicago Teachers Union

Tony Pitruzzello, Chicago Public Schools

BetsAnn Smith, Consortium on Chicago School Research

Suzanne Bavly, staff to the Work Group

Teacher Advisory GroupElementary:Tom Arnieri, Sherman

L inda H. Coks, Poe

Rosetta C. Gray, Drummond

Joaquina Greene, Revere

Aida Guidice, Roosevelt

Rosalyn K. Keyes, Parkside

Patricia Knazze, Hendricks

Nick B. Mitchell, Taft

Maria J. Rodriguez, Edwards

Maria R. Rodriguez-O'Keefe, WIntney

Pamela Samulis, Saucedo

Vickki Taylor, Jungman

Wilma J. Turner, Revere

Teacher Advisory GroupHigh School:James Alexander, Carver

Pat BoLmd, Clemente

Alice Crawford, Phillips

Frank I iaggerty, Schurz

Rose Meyer, Curie

Linda Mitchell, DuSable

Joann Podkul, Bowen

Alice Price, Lincoln Park

Willie E. Scott, Simeon

Fal. e B. Williams, Carver

And, finally, we wish to t hank the 8,800 Chicago teachers who gas e

us 45 minutes during the hectic last dat s of scht tol in 1994.

Funding for this study was pt ovided by The John D. and (:atherine

U. MacArthur l'oundation, The Spencer Itt,undation, The Jo. ce

Foundation, and the Illinois State Board of I ducat ion.

This report reflects the interpretations of the authors. Although the Consortium Steering Committee providedtechnical advice and reviewed an earlier version of the report, no formal endorsement by these individuals,their organizations, or the full Consortium should be assumed.

The Consortium on Chicago School Research 1

Background

1n 1994, as Chicago completed

the fifth year of school re-form under the Chicago

School Reform Act, the Consor-tium launched its third and fourthsurveys in the Charting Reformseries. These surveys of teachersand students make it possible to"take thc pulse" of Chicagoschool reform, to gauge whatchanges have occurred, and to seehow reform has affected them.Major topics in the surveys in-clude: school governance, parentinvolvement, professional com-munity, a climate centered on stu-dent learn fng, and classroominstruction. Teachers and studentsin 266 dementary and 46 highschools took part in thc surveys.In all, 39,000 students completedsurveys, along with 6,200 elemen-tary school teachers and 2,600high school teachers.'

In the early winter of 1995, theConsortium provided individu-ally tailored reports to all schoolsthat participated in the study.'These reports were designed tohelp schools assess their strengthsand weaknesses and the effective-ness of improvement efforts un-der way. Schools were encouraged

to use these data to complete aself-analysis according to Path-

ways to Achievement: Three-Tiered P-ocess, Self-AnalysisGuide, w iich was produced bythe Chicago Public Schools (CPS).

The responses to these twonew surveys, along with theresults from the two previousConsortium surveys, yield richand comprehensive informationon the progress of reform effortsin the Chicago Public Schools.Extant case studies and anecdotalaccounts suggest that there is greatdiversity in how schools are re-sponding to reform, but it is onlythrough broad-based analysis thatwe can better undtrstand thisvariability. Just how great are thedifferences from one school to an-other and to what extent are theylinked to other factors in theschools and thcir communities?

This is the first report in atwo-part series. Here we focus onthree of the essential supports forstudent learning in Pathways toAchievement: school leadership,parental involvement, and profes-sional community and develop-ment. The second report willprobe two additional supports forlearning: the nature of schools'learning climate and instructionalprograms. The information in thisfirst report draws mainly from

teachers, although some use is alsomade of student data. We reversethis process in the second reportwhich primarily examines stu-dents' experiences.

Teachers are central actors inschool reform. Thus, we focushere on teachers' attitudes, beliefs,

and behavior. We have tried tobring fidelity to their perspectivesabout their work, their schoolcommunity, and the progress ofreform. Successful improvementefforts are highly unlikely unlessteachers seriously engage thereform. Any effort to promoteimprovement, whether at thesystem or individual school level,must be grounded in an under-standing of how teachers perceive

their circumstances. We hopethat this report provides a deeperperspective on the issues embed-ded here, and we are pleased to bcable to give voice to the teachers'perspective.

On balance, teachers' views onsome matters deviate from thoseoffered by students in our nextreport. Both of these, in turn, dif-fer some from those of "outsideresearchers" looking in at schoolactivities. (For this reason, thisrepoi t includes two short casestudies from this "researcher

2

perspective" and several moreappear in the second report.) Bycomparing across these variousperspectives, we develop a morecomprehensive understanding ofChicago's reform.

Beyond these two reports, athird report detailing trends instudent achievement over the lastnine years will be released laterthis fall by the Chicago Panel onSchool Policy and the Center for

School Improvement. During thenext year, the Consortium willalso share results of its three-yearstudy of the effects of reform onclassroom instruction. Based onextensive interviews and over1,000 hours of classroom observa-tions, this study will examinechanges in curriculum and in-struction in the context of decen -tralization. We are also currentlyattempting our first survey of Lo-

cal School Council (LSC) mem-bers and hope to report on thissometime next year. All thesestudies will add greatly to our col-lective understanding of schoolreform and school improvement.

What is Reform?BY devolving authority to localschools, the 1988 Chicago SchoolReform Act sought to weakencentral power of the school

About the Surveys . . .

Work on these surveys began in the fall of 1993 as "work groups" were assembled to identify the keyconcepts that should be included and procedures for data collection. These groups involved researchersfrom local universities, independent organizations, and the school system. As is customary in all Consor-tium projects, die ,,urvey development and planning were greatly influenced by a diverse group of stake-holders. Teachcr and student advisory committees played a major rolc in creating and conducting thesesurveys. Elementary and high school teachers and students discussed and reviewed materials and proce-dures during survey development. Teachers and students also pilot-tested many new survey questions andprovided us with feedback on the content of the surveys. After the data collection was complete, teachersand students helped review basic findings to sharpen our interpretations.

In addition to the teacher and student advisory groups, we held numerous formal and informal disa.s-sions across the city with important local constituencies. We sought ideas and reactions from a broad baseof civic and political leadership through our Constituent Advisory Board. We also drew on assistance frommany national experts who critically reviewed technical aspects of thc surveys. The work groupscollected

numerous surveys from other school districts, from nationally funded research projects, and from school

improvement efforts. These many sources helped us shape surveys that provide a fair and accurate pictureof how teachers and students perceive their school experiences and how Chicago's unique reform isprogressing.

The surveys were administered in May and June of 1994 to sixth-, eighth-, and tenth-grade student s andto elementary and high school teachers. A Spanish language version was available for students. Studentscompleted surveys during a class. Teachers completed surveys during teacher meetings or on their own.

The basic statistic presented in the report is "percentage of teachers" who responded to a survey item ina specific way. The percentage that we use for this purpose is based on the probability sample of 80elemen-

tary and 31 high schools. When we compare different types of schools or ascertain the relative importanceof various factors on t espouses, we make use of all the available data from the total of 266 elementary and

46 participating high schools.

ii


system and to promote greatersite-based control. P. gave

principals greater am horr v overthe school budget, the physicalbuilding, and personnel decisions.For the first time, principals, freed

from seniority requirements, wereable to recruit and hire new teach-ers. Plaving lost their tenure andnow accountable to their LocalSchool Councils, principals wereencouraged to redirect initiativestoward local constituencies andtheir concerns.

The reform package created areal voice for parents and commu-nit members because each grouphas representatis es on the LSC.These part:in-maim it \ councilshas e the pow er to hire .thd I it e the

school principal and to appro ethe budget and the School Int-

proyement Plan (SIP). Teacherswere also given an expanded voice.

Through their two seats on theLSC, they have direct influence on

school affairs, including the choiceof principal. Teachers also haveadvisory responsibility overschool currkulum and instructionthrough the teacher-elected Pro-fessional Personnel AdvisoryCommittee (PPAC).

Under the Chicago SchoolReform Act, new resources alsobecame available to supportschool improvements. The lawchanged how state compensatoteducation funds (state (Ihapter Ifunds) were to be used. Moneynow flows to each school based,(11 the ol fis,td titi aged

students. Schools with manydisads .intaged students received

An

substantial increases in discretion-ary dollars and greater freedom inhow they could be spent.

To guide the local schoolchange process, the ChicagoSchool Reform Act also formu-lated explicit educational goals forchildren and an extended set ofschool objectives. Principals wererequired to develop three-yearimprovement plans subject toLSC approval.

BY spring 1994, when the stu-dent and teacher sur.eys wereadministered, three I ,C electionshad occurredin 1989, 199 I, and1993. In addition, schools wereimplementing their fourth SIP andschool budget and were de clop.Mg plans tor the III iii ear.

Section ITeachers' Overall Assessment of School Improvement

Wc begin by taking alook at how bothelementary and high

school teachers across the systemassess general changes and ratereform in their schools. We askedteachers to evaluate whether thir-teen different features of thcirschools had gotten worse, notchanged, or gotten better in thepast three years. These questionsasked about the teachers them-selves (their teaching effectiveness,

their professional opportunities,their commitment to the school,and their learning from otherteachers); about their relationshipswith students, parents, and com-munity; and, finally, several ques-tions about their students (theirbehavior, academic performar cc,and how they get along with otherstudents). Since on average therewere only small differences be-tween elementary and high schoolteachers' answers to specific ques-tions, we have combined theirresponses. (Generally elementaryteachers were more positive by amargin of 3 percent to 7 percent.)'

Teachers offer very positivereports about improvements intheir own teaching, their oppor-tunities for professional growth,their experiences with colleagues,

and their own commitment. Over

70 percent said that their teachingeffectiveness had gotten better inthe past three years, and only 4

percent said that it had gottenworse. In other words, for everyteacher reporting a decline ineffectiveness, 18 teachers claimed

Recent Changes in Specific Aspects of SchoolElementary and High School Teachers

3EST COPY AVAILABLE

My teaching effectiveness

Professional growthopportunities

Teachers learnfrom one another

Curriculum quality

My commitment to the school

42191r

How school relatesto community

Sense of communityin the school

School's relationshipwith parents

Quality of studentacademic performance

How teachers get alongwith students

How parents get alongwith teachers

Student behavior

How students get alongwith other students

*., 30%

23%

20%

42%

.1111

7%

7%

8%

7%

7%

16%

12%

22%

10%

14%

26%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

III Better I No change Worse

Note Due to limited space, numbers for 5 percent o less are not

greater effectiveness. Also, manymore teachers say that thcir pro-fessional growth opportunities arcbetter than they are worse (57 per-cent to 7 percent). The same holdstrue for their own commitment tothe school (53 percent to 7 per-cent) and teachers learning fromeach other (52 percent to 7 per-cent). In addition, the majority ofteachers see improvements in cur-riculum quality over the past threeyears (53 percent to 8 percent).

Teachers are also positiveabout parents and communityrelations. Half report that theschool's relations with the com-munity arc better (7 percent sayworse) and 40 percent note im-proved school relations withparents (12 percent say they havegotten worse).

On the majority of these ques-tions, between 35 and 45 percentreport no change. In the contextof the need for major improve-ments in most Chicago schools,these "status quo" reports temperthe generally positive resultsdescribed so far. A broad base ofteachers see improvements, butmany others remain unaffected.In fact, a majority of teachersoffer no change reports on itemsthat ask about teacher-student,parent-teacherind student-student relations. Although ingeneral there are many positivereports from teachers about recentchanges, the prinlary relationsamong teachers, students, and par-ents that support student learninghave been less affected.


The most negative teacher re-ports focus on student behavior.By almost two to one, more teach-ers say that student behavior hasgotten worse in the past threeyears (42 percent) than those whosay that behavior has gottenbetter (23 percent). Similarly,more teachers say that how stu-dents get along with other stu-dents has gotten worse (26percent) than better (20 percent).

Although teachers over-whelmingly believe that their owneffectiveness and curriculum qual-ity have improved, they do notnecessarily see corresponding stu-dent results. Only slightly morethan one-third believe that stu-dent academic performance hasgotten better in the past threeyears and nearly one-quarter saythat it has gotten worse.

For purposes of summarizinghow teachers responded to thesequestions, we created a scale basedon the 13 "recent change" items.'At one end of the scale are theteachers who note very positilxchange. They see constructivechanges occurring in all areas inthe past three years. Ten percent

of teachers are in this category.Another 38 percent of the teach-ers recognize that some positivechange has occurred. Those teach-

ers note improvements in all ar-eas including student achievementbut not in student behavior. Thenext group of teachers-37 per-centcluster in a category we calllittle change. Thcy rated that cer-tain areas have gotten better, suchas their teaching effectiveness andprofessional growth opportuni-ties, that most other areas have notchanged, and that student behav-ior has gotten worse. The finalcategory, change for the worse,contains the most negative re-sponses. Fifteen percent of theteachers indicated that studentbehavior, student academic per-formance, and how students getalong with other students havegotten worse. These teachers gen-erally did not note improvementsanywhere. At best, they thoughtthings remained the same.

That teachers are quite positiveabout changes in their ownwork is especially interesting inlight of early' criticisms that theChicago school reform was

Extent of Recent ChangesElementary and High School Teachers

Very positive change

Some positive change

Little change

Change for the worse

10%

15%

38%

37%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

6

"antiprofessional." In spite ofthose early sentiments, teachersoffer quite positive reports aboutimprovements in their work livesand suggest that the reform mayhave even contributed to a greaterprofessionalism among teachers.

Similarly, Chicago schoolreform made explicit anothercore aimthat of reestablishing in the school

greater connections betweencommunities and their schools, with parents

Teachers also offer generallypositive responses to questions inthis domain. Teachers learn from

While, overall, teachers makcmore positive than negativeresponses, they are also indicatingthat much hard work remains tobe done in order to improve in-struction and student achieve-ment. The gap between thei rratings of improved teacher effec-tiveness and improvements in stu-dent academic performance is akey indicator in this regard. Whilemany changes may be occurring with other students

in classrooms, improvements inthe bottom linestudent achieve-mentare harder to find. To

Impact of Reform on Specific Aspects of SchoolElementary and High School Teachers

How school relatesto community

Professional growthopportunities

Curriculum quality

Sense of community

School's relationship

My teaching effectiveness

one another

My commitment to the school

How parents get alongwith teachers

Quality of studentacademic performance

How teachers get alongwith students

Student behavior

How students get along

18%

.1/10%

9%

11%

17%

14%

9%

10%

10%

16%

15%

10%

23%

12%16%,

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Positive None

understand these trends betterrequires a closer look at develop- reform on the same thirteen fea-

ments in teaching and learning. tures. Teachers are most positive

For this reason, the Consortium's about the effects of school reform

next report examines questions on the school's relations with the

about inst ruction from the community. Forty-three percentperspective of both teachers and of the teachers say that reform has

students. had a positive effect in this areacompared to 10 percent who saythat reform has had a negative

We aisl) asked teachers about the effect. Almost half of the teach

specif ic impact of Chicago school er---17 percentsaN that school

Negative...111C-711111111M

reform has had no impact. liv awide margin (3 5 percent positiveto 14 percent negative), teachersalso agree that reform has had aconstructive impact on theschool's relations with parents.

Again, teachers note positiveeffects of school reform on theirown professional activities. TheyAre pi isitive about the impact oischool reform on pi of cssion al

opportunities (39 percent positiveversus 9 percent negative), teach-ers learning from each other (32

percent positive to 10 percent.native), and their own commit-ment to the school (31 percentpositive to 10 percent negative).Teachers also give reform creditfor improving curriculum quality(37 percent positive versus 11 per-cent negati-;e). In all of these cases,

the number of teachers saving thatschool reform has had a positiveimpact far outweighs the numberwho believe that reform has had anegative impact by between threeand four to one.

Even so, half or more of theteachers state that reform has hadno impact on most of these items.In general, there is a considerablyhigher level of neutral responsesfor the impact of reform than forthe teacher ratings of receiuchanges. In fact, the majority re-sponse for all but two items is thenone category. The most extremeinstances of this are the two itemsthat enquire about how teachersand students get along with stu-dents. Over two-thirds of theteachers offer reports of no impactin these two areas.

Teachers are least positiveabout reform's impact in the samebasic areas where they observe the

fewest improvements in the pastihree years. How students getalong with each other is the areawhere reform has had the leastpositive impact, with only 16 per-cent reporting a pwitive et fect


and 12 percent a negative effect.The most negative reports aboutreform are for student behavior,with 23 percent observing a nega-tive effect and 18 percent positive.Relatively high percentages ofteachers also offered negative rat-ings of how parents get along withteachers and how teachers and

students relate.Again using a scale to summa-

rize the results, we found thatabout 8 percent of teachers werevery positive; that is, they indicatethat reform has led to improve-ments in all areas. Another 37 per-

cent of the teachers were positive.They believe that reform has led

Impact of Reform Elementary and High School Teachers

Very positive impact

Positive impact

No impact

Some negative impact 19%

37%

36%

10 20 30 40 50 60

8

to improvements in most areasexcept student behavior. Anotherlarge group of teachers (about 36percent) report no impact. For themost part, these tcachers believethat school reform has had noeffect in most areas. A final groupof teachers, about 19 percent,believe that school reform has hadsome negative impact on studentbehavior but has not affectedother aspects of the school.

Looking across teachers' re-ports about both recent changesand the effects of school reform,a general pattern is apparent.Teachers are most positive abouttheir own effectiveness, profes-sional opportunities and commit-nent, and about strengthenedrelations between the school andcommunity. They are least posi-tive about effects on students, es-pecially student behavior. In thisregard, it is worth noting that re-searchers have documented urbanschools that are successful inbreaking down alienation and

shaping students' behavior so thatthey can engage in productiveacademic work.'

It is important to recognizethat the weakest areas identifiedby teachers cluster around the re-lations among students, teacherswith studcnts, and parents withteachers. If significant advances instudent learning arc to occur, theseprimary social relations mustsupport it. Taken as a set, theycomplement the "technical strand"of school improvement, involvingprofessional development andcurriculum and instruction.

Teachers are seeing some im-provements on the technical side,although much more needs to bedone here as the next report docu-ments. The lack of improvementsin the primary social relationshipsthat support student learning isworrisome. While teachers offerpositive reports about institu-tional changes (e.g., how theschool relates to the comnlunity),these improved relations are not

manifest at the classroom level.These teacher comments directour attention toward an aspect ofrcform that has received muchpublic acknowledgment, but ap-parently less constructive actionthe need to strengthen primaryrelationships among teachers, stu-dents, and parents that aLvancelearning. This is a major findingthat runs throughout this report.

Comparison of Elementaryand High SchoolsHit;11 school and elementaryschool teachers see their schoolsvery differently. Even though theaverage responses for elementaryand high school teachers arc onlymoderately different, when wegroup teachers into their schoolsand examine the variability among

schools, this picture comes intoclear focus. There are manyelementary schools where thctypical teacher response is quitepositive. In high schools, however,the average responses are lower,

How to Read a Box Plot andWhy We Use ThemThe box plot details the relative frequency of positive and nega-tive school reports. Each box (black for elementary schools andgray for high schools) encloses the middle 50 percent of theschools. The lines, called "whiskers", extending up and downfrom the box, show the range of scores for the top and bottomquartile schools. These are the highest and lowest performingschools on each particular scale. 'Within each profile, the scalesare centered on the systemwide average for the schools thatparticipated in the survey.

Top 25% ofthe schools

Middle 50%of the schools

Bottom 25%of the schools

75th percentile

The median; half ofthe schools are abovethis line; half are below

25' percentile


Overall Assessment of School ImprovementDistribution of School Indicators

Highestrated

schools

Systemwideaverage

Lowestrated

schools

III Elementary E High sc5oo

Extent ofrecent changes

Impactof reform

and very few schools arc charac-

terized by overall positive reports.

We also find much greater vari-ability among the elementaryschools. Some schools offer re-ports which suggest that theseschools are really moving for-ward; othcr elementary schools,in contrast, are more negative,looking more like many of thehigh schook.

All ot the data presented so far

in this report has focused on how

individual teachers see reform. Itis also informative to examine these

trends at the school level. For this

purpose, we computed an overall

indicator for each school on recent

changes and effects of reform by

averaging the responses of allteachers in each school on each

of these two measures. In someschools most teachers arc positive,

producing a high value for -,heschool indicator. In other schools,

many teachers are negative, yield-

ing a low school value. The boxplots display the relative frequency

of positive and negative schoolreports. There arc two box plotsfor each measure. The black one on

the left shows elementary schools

and the gray box on the right,high schools.

The differences betweenelementary and high schools are

readily apparent. Faculties inmany elementary schools arequite positive about the extent ofrecent changes and the impact of

reform on those changes. Theaverage response among high

13

sclioals is, however, roughly com-

parable to responses among thelowest quarter of elementaryschools. Even some of the high-est-rated high schools are lessenthusiastic than an averageelementary school. These substan-

tial differences between elemen-tary and high schools is a second

major finding that runs through-out this report.

Teachers' Perceptions ofFlementary Schools in1991 and 1994

The 1994 teacher survey con-tained several questions that were

alFo asked in the 1991 survey of

elementary school teachers.Thus, we were able to directlycompare teachers' responses over

the three years between surveys.

In addition to the data alreadypresented above, these compari-sons provide another means toassess recent progress, and they

offer further evidence about ways

die school system as a whole ischanging. To make the most valid

comparisons, we limited thisanalysis to the 245 elementaryschools that participated in thesurveys in both years.

In general, teachers' responses

in 1994 are about the same as in1991. On some questions, teachers

offer more positive responses in1994. On other questions, they are

more negative, and in many cases

the responses are almost identical.

As an overall indicator ofteacher reaction to reform, bothsurveys asked whether teachers

1 0

usually look forward to workingeach day at their school. In 1991about 79 percent of teachers,zgreed or strongly agreed withthis question. In 1994 about 85percent offer similar responses.One interesting trend is apparentin this and several other items.Fewer teachers use the extremeresponsesstrongly agree orstrongly disagreein 1994 than in1991. There appears to be a grow-

ing convergence toward agree.This pattern of responses sug-

gests two movements occurringsimultaneously. A larger portionof teachers are engaging in thereform andIs a result, moving;ino the agree category from thenegative side of the ledger. At thesame time, some of the mostactive and committed teachersma\ be realizing what it reallytakes for genuine improvementto oc 'ir. As a result, they nowoffer somewhat more guarded re-sponses. Both of these are naturalelements in a serious organiza-tional change process. School

m p To v e m en t is a long-termendeavor. It creates a sense ofreality, even as it recruits moreenthusiasts. We now take a lookat specific comparisons between199 1 .ind I 99 4 .

Governance. Teachers reportspending more time each week onI,SC and PPAC business in the1994 sols es. than the\ did in1991. More teachers now spendsignificant amounts of time (fourhours or more per week) than

I Usually Look Forward to Working Each Day at This SchoolElementary Teachers

=1.

1994

1991

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Strongly agree III Agree "'Disagree Strongly disagree

Hours Worked on LSC or PPAC during Typical WeekElementary Teacners

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Less than I 1103 4to8 9 or more

Number of Meetings Attended since SeptemberElementary Teachers

LSC Meetings

1994

1991

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PPAC Meetings

1994

1991

24%

zrA,

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 NI 1 to 2 31o5 More than 5

pi es iousls. Similarly, in 1991, 68percent of the teachers spent lessthan one hour p,:r week on theseaffairs, whereas 62 percent report

14

this minimal level of involvementin 199 1 . Counterbalancing this is

the fact that somewhat fewerteachers report attending I.SC


Amount of Elementary Teacher Influence over:

Content of in-service

1994

1991

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Standards forstudent behavior

1994

1991

and PPM: meetings in 1994 thanin 1991. For example, in 1994, 36percent of teachers sav that theyattended no I.SC meetings thepast yearup from 33 percent in1991.

Teacher influence. T 1eac.lersreport in 1994 having somewhatless influence in their schools overthe content of school in-services(training and professional devel-opment), as compared to the firstsurvey." In 1994, more than half(51 percent) describe their influ-ence in the lowest categories,0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

whereas in 1991 only 44 percentmarked this. In terms of settingstandards for student behavior,

ark about the same percent of teach-ers report some or a great deal of

36%influence in 1994 as in 1991 (60percent versus 58 percent, respec-

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 tively). Teachers' influence over

School schedule

1994

1991

Hiring newprofessional

personnel

1994

1991

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

A great deal Some II Little

I Feel Comfortable Voicing ConcernsElementary Teachers

1994

1991

.,==.001M111171.

the school schedule shows a slightdecline, whereas their involve-ment in hiring new professionalpersonnel has remained stable.Overall, about as many teachersfeel comfortable voicing theirconcerns in 1994 as three yearsearlier (69 percent and 70 percent).

NoneThis item offers another exampleof the growing moderations inteachers views from 1 991 to 1994.The trongly agrees and stronglythagrers drop front 48 peNent to

11% 31 percent.

13%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

I Strongly agree Agree III Disagree Strongly disagree

lu

Involvement in school improve-ment planning. Survey queqicinabout the School ImprovementPlan offer an interesting stor

lEST COPY AVAILABLE

12

about teacher involvement in Selected Questions about the SIP

this important process. The vastI am familiar with the SIP

majority of teachers still agree orstrongly agree that they are famil- 1994

iar with most of the major pointsof the SIP. More, however, now 1991

indicate that they helped to de-velop the SIP. There is an increaseof about 10 percent here from 1991

to 1994. I helped develop .he SIP

Similarly, more teachers are1994

optimistic about the prospects ofthe SIP making the school better

1991over the next five years. In 1994,79 percent of teachers agree orstrongly agree with this statement,an increase of 9 percent. The re- The SIP will make us

sponses to this item are another a better school

instance where we find fewerteachers marking strongly agree 1994

but many more indicating that

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1991they agree with the statement.

Parent involvement. In 1994,fewer teachers indicate that nearlyall parents picked up their child'sreport card on report card pickupday than in 1991. On the otherhand, there is a slight increase inteachers reporting that at leastsome parents are volunteering inclassrooms. Here again we havewhat appear to be counterbalanc-ing trends in the data.

Student behavior. Slightl moreteachers in 1994 than in 1991report frequent disruptions lystudents (five or more times perday). At the same time, however,an increased proportion of teachers report few disruptions (oneor none per day). Interruptions

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Strongly agree III Agree N Disagree Strongly disagree

How Many Parents

Picked up report cards

1994

1991

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Nearly all Most About half Ea Some None

Volunteered in class

1994

1991

43%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Nearly all!Most 111 About half r, Sonic None

16


How Many Times per Day

Is your classmom disruptedby student behavior

1994

1991

21% 12%

21% 9%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Is your classroom disruptedby messengers, tardy stud-ents, announcements, etc.

1994

1991

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Never Once 2 M 3 to 4 5 to 9 10 or more

Rules for Student Behavior Strictly Enforced

1994

1991

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Strongly agree U Agree U Disagree Strongly disagree

Hours of Class Preparation for Student Testing

1994

1991

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Less than 4 4 to 12 13 or more

by messengers, announcements,etc., arc also slightly up in 1994.Apparently, distractions arebecoming less problematic forsome teachers while simulta-neously getting worse for others.More teachers in 1994 believethat rules for studcnt behavior arcconsistently enforced, althoughagain fewer teachers are in thestrongly agree category.

Student testing. Teachers i eport an

increase in the number of hoursspent in preparing studcnts forstandardized tests such as theIGAP and ITBS. About five per-cent more teachers report spending13 or more hours getting ready fortests. In 1994, nearly half of theteachers fall in this top category.This "testing orientation" in theCPS, which was already high in1991, has increased further overthe last three years. At some point,schools must ask themselveswhether or not they have achievedthe proper balance betweenteaching test preparation skillsand carrying out broader instruc-tional goals.

14

Section IISchool Leadership

The Chicago Reform Actof 1988 focused on re-claiming initiative for

parents, community members,teachers, and principals. The newstructures and roles established bythis law sought to create a politi-cal force in school communitiesfor reform. At base was the beliefthat the expanded engagement oflocal participants in the school'swork would sustain attentionand provide substantial supportfor improvements in classroominstruction and student learning.

Chicago's reform has createda complex dynamic at the schoolbuilding level. It involves an inter-

play among three sites of leadership:

parents and community membersthrough the LSC, an expandedrole-authority for the principal,and the collective force of theschool faculty. Each of these has the

potential to challenge dysfunctional

school operations and promotemeaningful improvements.

We now consider the nature ofthe activity occurring in each ofthese distinct sites of leadership.We focus particular attention onteachers' perceptions of how thesegroups work together to develop,approve, and implement theSchool I mprol ement Plan (SIP),

which is the major instrument setout in the original school reformlegislation to advance studentlearning.

The Local School CouncilThe LSC is the primary agent forschool governance under Chicagoschool reform. It includes the

principal, two teachers, six par-ents, and two community resi-dents who set formal policy andadvise on many important schoolissues. Specifically, it is respon-sible for selecting and evaluatingthe principal and for approvingboth the School ImprovementPlan and the school budget.

Specific Contributions of the LSZElementary and High School Teachers

The LSC is really helping tomake this school better

The LSC has been a positiveaddition to this school

14%

18%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Strongly agree Agree III Disagree Strongly disagree

Has your LSC helpedto improve:

Parent involvement

Community relations

The school building

Safety in or nearthe school

Curriculum and instruction

Student behavior

.5116/0 .`:4., 15IZAM

48°,0-

it%

8%

8%

6%

11%

11%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Has helped No contribution Has hindered


LSC Contribution Elementary and High School Teachers

Extensive contribution

Significant contribution

Limited contribution

No contribution

8%

23%

23%

46%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Teachers were asked, to ratewhether the LSC has helped, hashindered, or has made no contri-bution to improvements in a vari-ety of specific areas. Thcy werealso asked to rate their overall im-pressions of LSC performance:

In general, teachers arc rela-tively positive about the LSC.About 60 percent agree orstrongly agree that the LSC ishelping to make the school betterand also say that the LSC is a posi-

tive addition to the school.In terms of the specific com-

ponents of school improvement,teachers are most positive aboutthe LSC's contribution to helpingparent involvement (58 percent),community relations (58 percent),improvements in the school build-ing (56 percent), and school safety(52 percent). Relatively few teach-

ers see the I.SC as a hindrance inany of these areas. Approximatelyhalf report that the LSC hashelped curriculum and instruc-tion, but only about one-third seethe I. S( as a positive influence onstudent behavior. Almost 60 per-cent of the teachers sav that theI .SC has made no contribution inthis last area.

These findings are consistentwith our earlier study on activelyrestructuring schools.8 In general,the most visible contributions ofLSCs arc in school operationssuch as facilities and safety. Directimpact on instruction and class-room behavior is less common.Parents and community memberstend to defer to the principal andteachers for leadership in theseareas.'

By combining teachers' re-sponses to these eight questions,we created a scale to judge theiroverall views of LSC perfor-mance. We find that 8 percent ofthc teachers believe that their LSChas made extensive contributionsto their schools. These teachersnote that the LSC has helped im-provement efforts in all areas, in-cluding instruction and studentbehavior. Another 46 percent ofthe teachers note significant con-tributions of their I.SCs. Theymark improvements in most butnot all of the areas. About a quar-ter of the teachers note more lim-ited contributions, focusingprimarily on improving the facil-it v and community relations.Another quarter of the teachers

1 ij

offer responses that indicate nocontribution. These teachersbelieve that the LSC is not work-ing to improve the school overalland, in some regards, is a negative

factor in school life.

Principal LeadershipPrincipals play a central role inschool leadership. They are thesingle most important actor inpromoting reform at the buildinglevel.'c' Their efforts can bringteachers, parents, and studcntstogether to create and sustainmeaningful school improvements.

This survey asked teachers tenquestions about whether theirprincipal facilitates school devel-opment and broadly includes arange of people in the process.Specifically, the survey enquiredwhether the principal promotesparental involvement, sets highstandards for teaching, and com-municates a clear vision. We alsoasked whether the principal un-derstands how children learn,works to create a sense of com-munity in the school, encouragesteachers tt take risks and try newmethods, ahd is committed toshared decision making. Taken asa set, these items represent criti-cal facets of the principal's role intransforming the school into ahigh performing organization."

We combined the teachers'responses to these differentquestions to create an overall in-dicator of principal leadership.The overwhelming majority ofteachers (approximately three

16

fourths) rate their principalshighly. Nine percent of teachershold their principal in very highregard. These teachers stronglyagree that their principals arepromoting all of the positive prac-tices mentioned above. Another21 percent of teachers show highregard for :heir principals. Theystrongly a Ric with some of thesestatements and agree with the oth-ers. The moderately high regardgroup, consisting of 44 percent ofall teachers, arc slightly less enthu-

siastic. They tend to agree with allof the statements but do notstrongly agree with any of them.Even though these are somewhatmore guarded assessments ofschool leadership than the firsttwo categories, they are nonethe-less still quite positive.

It is only in the low regardgroup, 26 percent of teachers, thatgenuinely negative commentsappear. While these teachers agreethat the principal encouragesparental involvement and wantsteachers to try new methods, theydo not endorse anv of the otherstatements about their principal.These teachers do not see theirprincipal as promoting high stan-dards, for example, nor do theysee their principal facilitating abroad involvement in school

Teacher InfluenceTeachers are also important leaders hir school imprm ement. Itthey do not play an active part inthe reform process and do not

Principal Leadership Elemer ry and High School Teachers

Very high regard 9%

High regard

Moderately high regard

Low regard

21%

26%

44%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Selected Questions about Principal LeadershipElementary and High School Teachers

The principa; It this school:

Encourages teachers to trynew methods of instruction

Sets high standardsfor teaching

Works to create a sense ofcommunity in this school

Is strongly committed toshared decision making

.

31% 43% .

6%

6%

11%

14%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Stiongly agree N Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Over 80 percent of the teachers see their princtPals encouraging new

methods and high 3 tandards. Somewhat fewer, though a clear major-

ity, indicate principals work to create a sense of community nt the schOol

and are connnitted to shared decisUm making.

feel a real owner.hip for thechanges that result, it is unlikelythat these changes will culminatein meaningful improvements forstudents.1=

The survey asked teachersabout the extent of their invols e-ment in school decision making,including how much influencethey have over classroom issues,such a s selecting instructional111.11Clials, and os et larger issues,

such :IS setting the school sched-ule, planning in-service programs,

.124_,Mer esfent,aub-Mot,.....lexoed

budgetingmd hiring the princi-pal and new faculty. We alsoenquired more generally abouttheir ability to affect importantschool decisions, their informalopportunities for influencemdw healer they feel comfortablevoicing concerns.

About 10 percent of the teach-ers report having extensive influ-ence in their sc-hools. Theseteachers believe that they has ea great deal of influence os erclassroom decisions, and a lair


Teacher Influence Elementary and High School Teachers

Extensive influence

Moderate influence

,Limited influence

Minimal influence

10%

33%

9%

48%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Selected Questions about Teacher InfluenceElementary and High School Teachers

How much influence do teach-ers have over school policy on:

Choosing instruction

materials

Determining content

of in-service

Hiring new

principal

0 10 20 30

A great deal

40 50

Some

60 70 80 90 100

A little None

Note: On the survey, the middle two categories were listed as "3" and"2." Here we provide the titles "some" and "a little" respectively.

Teachers are involved in making

important decisions at this school17%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Strongly agree Agree I Disagree Strongly disagree

"leachers indicate they have the most influence over choosing materialsfor their classroom. They have less influence on the choice of in-serviceprograms and have the least impact on hiring a new principal. Ingeneral, over ball the teachers agree that they are involved in makingimportant decisions it the school.

amount of i nfluence over largerschool issues including budgetingand hiring decisions. Thev are also

ery In% olved in important St.+1001

decisions and feel erv comfort-able voicing their concerns about

the school. The largest group ofteacherstbout 48 percent, exertmoderate influence. They report alair amount ol control over class-room decisions, but only someeffect on larger school issues.

Approximately 33 percent ofthe teachers report more limitedinfluence in their schools. A kevdifference for these teachers is thatthey do not feel comfortable voic-ing their concerns in the school.This item is an important indica-tor of a teacher's willingness toengage with others in a collectiveprocess. When teachers are afraidof raising issues or concerns, itsignals a weak faculty base forschool improvement.

At the low end of the scale, 9percent report minimal influence.Although these teachers havesome discretion over classroomdecisions, they have almost noinfluence over larger issues, feelthat important decisions aremade without their input, andarc not comfortable voicing theirconcerns.

The 1988 School Reform Actcreated a specific structure, theProfessional Personnel AdvisoryCommittee, to provide for greaterteacher involvement in schooldecision making. The PPAC wasto advise the principal and LSCon important curricular andinstructional matters.

The survey contained a fewquestions about teachers' inyolve-ment in the PPAC (see graph onpage 18). About 70 percent of theteachers agree or strongly agreethat the PPAC takes an active rolein school planning, and more than60 percent agree that the PP\(regularly advises the I .SC aboutcurricular issues. We interpret thisas relativel high marks for the

18

Importance of the PPACElementary and High Schooi Teachers

Takes an active role in plannir gimprovements for the schoo!

Regularly advises LSC aboutcurriculum and instruction

School has other committeesfor teacher decision making

Other committees moreimportant than PPAC

11:1110111411.111MI 9%1

11%

10%

11%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Strongly agree 115 Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

SIP ImplementationElementary and High School Teachers

Very positive 4%

Positive

Mixed assessment

Negative 21%

32%

43%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Selected Questions about the School Improvement PlanElementary and High School Teachers

The SIP:

Will make schoolbetter in five years

Is based on studentperformance data

Has led to changesin my teaching

o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Strongly agree Agree I Disagree Strongly disagree

Three-quarters of the teachers are confident that the SIP will improvethe school in the next five years, and a little over half claim that the SIPtakes student test data into acmunt. I es than half repo!! that the SIPhas affected their own teaching.

PPAC, especially given how littleexternal support was provided forPPAC development in the eariieryears of reform.

It is also important to recog-nize that the PPAC is not thc onlyavailable structure for teacherinvolvement in many schools. Infact, more than 70 percent of theteachers indicate that there arcother committees, besides thePPAC, in which teachers makedecisions about the school. Lessthan one-third of the teachers,however, indicate that these othercommittees are more importantthan the PPAC. Thus, a broadarray of structures appear to existin most schools for teacher input.The PPAC is clearly a centralstructure, but not the only one.

We do note that a significantminority of teachers, between aquarter and a third, indicate thatnone of these committees areoperative in their school. Thus,the opportunities for teacher lead-ership, although widespread, arenot fully institutionalized acrossthe school system.

School Impros ement PlanThe school develops a SchoolImprovement Plan each spring.This document is intended to be ablueprint for efforts to meet theneeds of students and to improveoperations and outcomes. Teach-ers were asked a series of ques-tions about how the SIP isgenerated and the extent to whichit provides a real focus for theschool's Improvement efforts. We


Impact of Each Factor on Educational Improvementsin the School Elementary and High School Teachers

AMISIP

Current principal

Faculty leaders

Previous principal

PPAC or similarteacher committees

Union representative

LSC

CTU

Support fromother projects

Parents

State policiesand supports

Sub-District supports

Central office policiesand supports

44%-,7,1111011

190/0.:

.

28% .

7%

7%

10%

8%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Very positive Positive None LI Negative Very negative

enquired about teachers' familiar-ity with the SIP, their personalinvolvement in its development,and whether it was based on ananalysis of data on student perfor-mance. We also asked whetherthey thought that the SIP had ledto changes in their teaching, wasimproving student learning, andwould make their school betterover the next five years.

About 40 percent ol the teachers are positive or very positiz'e

about the SIP and its potentialbenefits for them and their stu-dents. These teachers endorse allof the items above, even agreeingthat the SIP has led to changes intheir own teaching.

About another forty percentof the teachers give the SI P amixed assessment. They are famil-iar with the SIP and believe that itwill make the school better overt he !lost live ears, but the SIP hasnot vet resulted in changes in their

4

own teaching. Finally, 21 percentof teachers are clearly negative.They do not see the SIP as inte-gral to the school and are not posi-tive about its impact.

Individual and OrganizationalImpacts on Local ImprovementEffortsTeachers were asked to rate theimpact on local school improve-ment efforts of 12 differentindividuals and organizations,including the current and formerprincipal, faculty leaders andteacher groups such as theChicago Teachers Union (CTU),the LSC, central and subdistrictoffices, state policy, and other out-

side organizations and projects.Here, again, we find more

testimony from teachers endors-ing their principal's efforts toimprove the school. More thanthree-quarters of the teachersindicate that the current principalhas a positive or very positiveimpact on educational improve-ments. (About 60 percent offersimilar endorsements for the pre-vious principal.) These resultsare quite consistent with the highregard that most teachers hold fortheir principal, which was notedearlier.

The next most positive apprais-

als go to faculty leaders (more than

two-thirds positive ratings). It isinteresting that these individual.receive somewhat more favorableassessments than some of the keyorganizational structures throughwhich they might work. Only

20

about 50 percent of the teachersindicate that their union represen-tatives, the PPAC, and the CTUhave had a positive impact in thisregard.

A similar appraisal (52 Nrcentpositive) is offered for thc LocalSchool Council. The negativeassessments associated with theLSC (18 percent either negativeor very negative), however, aresomewhat higher than for theprevious categories. This suggeststhe presence of more adversarialrelations between teachers andtheir LSC in a small number ofschools. The proportion of teach-ers offering such negative ratingsis similar to findings from our1991 elementary school survey.

Parents receive lukewarm re-sponses with about as many teach-ers saying that parents have noimpact on educational improve-

ments as saying that they have apositive effect. Slightly more posi-tive comments arc offered aboutoutside projects and agencies, where

almost 50 percent of the teachersoffer positive testimony. Thesenumbers are actually quite highsince such projects are not equallyaccessible to all schools, and .)re-sumably the most positive ratingsare from schools where they arcpre:Eent in a significant degree.

In contrast to the relativelyhigh positive ratings for outsideagencies and projects are the muchmore negative marks given to statepolicy (only 32 percent positive),the subdistricts (30 percent posi-tive), and the central office (27percent positive). About half ofthe teachers indicate that thesethree entities have no impact onlocal educational improvement.These findings are quite telling, in

,

71,4 T.1

4r.

ANL

2 4

that both the central CPS admin-istration and the state departmentof education describe themselvesas providing support and assis-tance to schools. There appears tobe a significant gap between theseoffices' intentions and teachers'experiences. Interestingly, of allthe factors considered, state policyreceives the highest negativeratings (i.e., 27 percent negative orvery negative). We suspect thatthis is primarily a reflection ofteachers' reactions to the statequality review process which is amajor element of state policy thatschools experience directly.

In general, school-based actorstend to receive more positivemarks than those distant from theschools. The extra-school gover-nance apparatussubd stricts,districts, and the statereceivethe strongest criticism. From the

1-111

r


School LeadershipDistribution of School Indicators

Highestrated

schools

Systemwideaverage

Lowestrated

schools

Elementary M High school

LSC Principalcontribution leadership

Teacher SIP

influence implementation

perspective of teachers, muchmore needs to be done by theseexternal units to become moresupportive of local reform.

Comparisons of Elementanand High SchoolsThe differences that we observedearlier between elementary andhigh school teachers on recentchanges and effects of reform alsohold true for the specific compo-nents of local school leadershipconsidered in this section. Highschool teachers are generally lesspositive about their I.SCs, theirprincipal, their own influence ondecision making in their school,and about the implementation of

their School Improvement Plan.In order to characterize the dif-

ferences among schools, we haveagain computed aggregate indica-tors of school performance, basedon the average responses of teach-ers within the schools. We notethat elementary schools vary con-siderably on these school leader-ship indicatorssome are veryhigh and others are quite low.These results are consistent withour 1993 findings on the state ofschool reform. Effective localschool governance has beeninstitutionalized in many but notall elemen' ,ry schools. Swneel emen ta Ty sch ools have been"left behind by reform."

In contrast to the great vari-ability among elementary schools,high schools tend to cluster atthe lower end. This pattern ismost marked for SIP implemen-tation. Even in the most positivehigh schools, the teacher reportsare comparable to the averageelementary school.

in order to illustrate thc con-siderable differences betweenelementary and high schools, wepresent bar graphs on the nextpage that compare the responsesof teachers about their SIP in themost and least positive elementaryand high schools. (The responsesfrom all teachers in all schools isshown as a standard for overallcomparison.) In the bottom quar-ter of the elementary schoolsalmost half of teachers give the SIP

a mixed assessment, over one-thirdare clearly negative, and relativelyfew offer any positive testimony.

In contrast, in the top quarterof the elementary schools, thedistribution shifts considerablytoward the positive end, with amajority of teachers offeringeither positive or very positiveendorsements. Teachers in theseschools see the SIP as central totheir improvement efforts and areconvinced that it will make theschool better over the next fis eyears.

The top quarter in t he highschools, however, looks morelike the bott Onl quarter of theelementary schools. Among toprated high schools, an os erw helm

22

ing majority of teachers still offermixed and negative assessments.Only 37 percent of these highschool teachers provide positivecomments about the SIP and itsrole in local school improvement.

Although the differences be-tween elementary and highschools arc most distinct for SIPimplementation, similar patternsappear for thc other dimensions oflocal school governanceprinci-pal leadership, teacher influence,and LSC effectiveness. In general,it appears that the specific struc-tures created by thc ChicagoSchool Reform Act to promotegreater engagement of. local lead-ership in improvement effortshave not taken as deep root in highschools as in elementary schools.In this sense, school reform hasbeen a weaker "treatment" forhigh schools than for elementaryschools. It does not appear to havehad the same catalyzing force forchange.

Moreover, the pattern observedhere for local school governancealso appears in subsequent sec-tions where we focus on parent in-volvement and professionaldevelopment and community.Thus, the results presented in thissection generalize more broadly. Asignificant proportion of elemen-tary schools appear to be movingforward in very positive ways un-der reform. Successes among thehigh schools, howevertre muchharder to find, regardless of whichspecific aspect of school opera-tions we may choose to consider.

SIP ImplementationTeachers' Responses in High- and Low-rated Schools

Top Quartile Schools80

70

60

50

40

30

20 14%

10 6%

0

53%

31%,

Elementary M High school

27%

43%

Verypositive

Positive Mixedassessment

6%

Negative

20%

All Schools80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Verypositive

Positive Mixedassessment

Negative

Bottom Quartile Schools80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Elementary N High school

Very

positive

Positive Mixedassess lent

Negative

These percentages are based on all participating schooh; they differshghtlyfrom those >eported eaqier, zere based on the probabil-nv sample.

Section IIIParent Involvement

parents play a critical role in

their children's education.They are their children's

first and most important teachers.

Ahiple research evidence docu-ments the importance of sustain-

ing this parental involvement astheir children move into the school

years." Parents' involvement iscrucial both in encouragingchildren's learning at home andsupporting teachers' efforts atschool. Students learn more when

parents take an interest in theirschoolwork and encourage persis-

tent efforts. Similarly, teachers are

more effective when parents rein-

force their endeavors at school. In

contrast, in the absence of such en-

couragement at home and support

at school, student learning suffers.

To understand how studentsand teachers view the role of par-

ems in school life, we developeda number of questions aboutstudent, parent, and teacher rela-tionships. Students were askedabout the conversations they have

with their parents and other adults

with whom th, ... live" regardingschool, their own school woland their plans for the future.Teachers also answered questions

about the direct engagement ofparents in the school, particulark

the instances when parents come to

,iefclar....6mhandm


school to pick up report cards,attend parent conferences andother events, help out in the class-

room, or raise money for schoolneeds.

We v, ere also interested inwhat schools might be doing topromote parent involvementmore actively. Teachers wereasked several questions concern-

ing their beliefs about parents and

their efforts to engage them inschool life.We inquired about how

teachers make parc.its feel com-

fortable, communicate with them,

work to build trust, and let themknow what support is needed toadvance the school mission.

Parents' Involvement inStudents' learning at HomeAbout half the students describetheir parents as very or moder-ately supportive. According tostudents, very supportive parents

always encourage them to workhard, praise them for doing well,check if they have done theirhomework and, most of the time,help with homework. Moderate!)supp 'live parents are similar,excCpL students say their parents

do these things most of the timeinstead of all the time.

Less parental involvementcharacterizes the remaining halfof the students. Forty-two percent

of students' responses suggestlimited support, where parents,or other adults they live with,encourage them most of the timebut check on their homework orhelp with homework only oncein a while. Eight percent of thestudents indicate only minimalsupport. In these cases, parents

encourage them and providepraise once in a while but nevercheck that they are doing theirhomework or help with it.

Parents' Involvement in Students' Learning at HomeReported by 6th, 8th, and 10th Graders

Very supportive 7%

Moderately supportive

Limited support

Minimal support

43%

42%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

9,

24

Selected Questions about Parents' involvementin Students' Learning at Home 6th, 8th, and 10th Graders

How often does a parent orother adult living with you:

Encourage you towork hard in school?

Praise you for doing well?

Check to see if you'vedone your homework?

1111.11=1111211Mi35k 25% 13%

23%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

III All of the time Most of the time N Once in a while 13] Never

Parents more frequently exhort students to workhard than provide praise or check to see that the home-

work is being done. Almost 80 perawt of the students report that their parents encourage hard work most or

all of the time; somewhat fewer, 60percent, say that they regularly receive praise; and fewer yet, 49 percent,

indicate that their parents regularly check homework.

These rather weak reportsfrom about half of the studentsabout their parents' involvementare worrisome. Parents exerciseconsiderable influence on stu-dents' motivations and habits. Agreater engagement of parents andother significant adults at home inchildren's education provides aclear avenue for increasing studentperformance. For manv students,however, this remains an un-tapped resource. Clearly, signifi-cant challenges lie ahead forChicago in this regard.

Parents' Involvementwith the SchoolReports from elementary schoolteachers about parents ins olvi

ment with the school parallelthose from students about theirparents' involvement at home.'Less than half of t he teachers report extensive involvement from

parents; more than half indicatetheir students' parents are onlyweakly engaged. Specifically, only

14 percent of the teachers reporthigh involvement of their stu-dents' parents. For these teachers,nearly all their students' parentsattend parent-teacher conferenceswhen they are requested, most at-tend school eventsind at leastsome volunteer in the classroom.Twent v-nine percent of the teach-ers report moderate involvement,mean ing most of the parents conic

to parent-teacher conferences andabout half attend school events.

The largest group of teachers,47 percent, indicate only limitedinvolvement of parents. Abouthalf of the parents of the studentsthey teach attend parent-teacherconferences, even fewer come toschool events, and none help outas volunteers. Ten percent of theteachers' responses suggest mini-mal involvemen:. Less than halfof the parents of students in theseclasses engage in the most mini-

Parents' Involvement with the SchoolReported by Elementary School Teachers

High involvement

Moderate involvement

Limited involvement

Minimal involvement

14%

29%

10%

47%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

mal form of parental involvement

with the schoolpicking up theirchild's report card.

Teachers' Outreach to ParentsWe now shift attention to theschool's effort to promote greaterparental engagement in theirchildren's schooling. Elementanand high school teachers' overallresponses suggest very strongcommitment to improving parentinvolvement. Forty percent indi-cate efforts at broad outreach ontheir part. These teachers stronglyagree that in their school parentsare greeted warmly, are encour-aged to provide feedback, and areinvited to visit classrooms. Theyalso feel that the school is work-ing to build trusting relationshipswith parents and is collaboratingclosely with parents to meet sw-dents' needs. An additional 50percent of the .teachers may beidentified in the considerable out-reach category. They indicate thattheir school exhibits the abovequalities, although their responsestypically fall into the agree ratherthan strongly agree range. Weclassify the remaining 10 percentof the teachers responses as mod-erate outreach. These teachers areactually quite similar to the oth-ers, except they acknowledge thatthey do not feel their schoolworks closely with parents tomeet students' needs. The latterpractice requires significant timecommitment and effort, and prob-ably for this reason was generallyendorsed less often.


Selected Questions About Parents' Involvementwith the School Reported by Elementary School Teachers

For students you teach this year:

How many parentspicked up report cards

How many parentsvolunteered to help

in the classroom

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Nearly all Most E About halt t. Some None

The CPS asks parents or other adults representing students to pick uptheir student's report card at the school. Tlms, it is no surprise that themost common fOrm of parent involvement is picking up the report card.A little over 70 percent of the teachers report that most or nearly all oftheir students' parents come to school for the report cards; the rest mdi-cate that hall or f.ewer of the parents do so. (Because teachers may notbe aware of the parents who collect the report card in the school office,

their estimates may be too low.) When asked about volunteers in theclassroom, half the teachers indicate that some parents come in to help,and 42 percent said that no parents volunteei:

Teachers' Outreach to ParentsElementary and High School Teachers

Broad outreach

Considerable outreach

Moderate outreach

40%

10%

50%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Selected Questions about Teachers' Outreach to ParentsElementary and High School Teachers

Teachers work at communicat-ing with parents about supportneeded for the school mission

Teachers work closelywith parents to meet

students' needs

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Strongly agree 'I Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

A lmwt 80 pert en! of teachers report communicating alth parents tosolicit their support for the school's mission. Onty 58 percent chum theywork closely with parents to nice! students' needs.

26

We note that these reportsabout teachers' efforts reachingout to parents are quite discrep-ant from the reports about par-ents' efforts to support learningboth at home and at school. Partof this difference results fromthe fact that teachers were therespondents about the school'soutreach effortsmd they natu-rally tend to describe their ownactivities in more positive termsthan others might. It is unfortu-nate that we do not have directreports from parents about howinviting and inclusive the school

is from their perspective. Even so,the reports from many studentsof limited parental support athome does lend at least somecredence to teachers' claims thattheir efforts to engage parents are

not always reciprocated.At a minimum, this pattern of

results indicales that increasingthe involvement of parents in their

children's education merits greaterschool community attention andexternal support. We should notunderestimate the importance ofpositive developments in this area.

In their absence, other school ef-

forts to advance student learningare likely to be frustrated. Con-structive developments here willrequire sustained efforts by schoolleaders, policy makers, the media,community and religious organi-zations, and the parents them-selves. Effective solutions areur likely to be simple. To someextent, parents' ability to supportthcir children's learning is limitedby job demands as one or two par-ents struggle to make ends meetwhile taking care of a family. Atthe same time, it is a question ofschools reaching out for better

strategies to communicate, newways to bridge cultural and lan-guage gaps, and more appropriateactivities that sustain engage-ment."' Fortunately, teachers in-dicate a willingness to do this.How to accomplish this effec-tively is another matter.

Comparisons between Elemen-tary and Secondary SchoolsThere is very' little difference be-tween elementary and secondaryschools in students' reports abouttheir parents' involvement in theirlearning. In general, tenth-gradestudents are just as likely as sixth-

and eighth-grade students to re-port encouragement, interest, andsupport from their parents.

With respect to teachers' out-reach to parents, however, largedifferences emerge betweenelementary and high schools.Average scores on this indicatorfor high schools are significantlylower than those from elementaryschools. Reports from almost allof the high schools resemble thosefrom the lowest quarter of el-ementary schools. In fact, thc top.rated high schools are well belowthe average elementary school.

Although most teachers regis-ter a strong commitment to par-ent outreach, there is much lessinclination among high, schoolteachers. The specialization ofteaching at the high school levelgreatly complicates any such efforts. The typical high schoolteacher may encounter 100 to 150different students each day, which


Parent InvolvementDistribution of School Indicators

Highestrated

schools

Systemwideaverage

Lowestrated

schools

IN Elementary High school

Parents' involvement withstudents learning at home

(student survey(

Teachers'outreach to parents

(teacher survey)

is several times more than most el-

ementary teo.chers. Beyond theselogistical problems, many highschool teachers believe there islittle they can do to stimulate in-terest and involvement of theirstudents' parents.1-

To the extent that such viewsare shared by Chicago's highschool teachers, this poses a sig-nificant challenge to future im-provements in this area.

High school is a critical junc-ture when many Chicago studentsare in the process of dropping out.It is also the time when powerfulpeer influences often work againstthe school's mission. Thus, findingWAN'S to strengthen parents' roles

and forge a real partnership be-

mem them and thc school staff canbe a major support in efforts toadvance students' learning.

More generally, Chicago'sschool reform aims to promotegreater responsiveness by schoolsto parents and the local commu-nity. Parent involvement, not onlyin the governance of affairs of theschool, but also directly in theeducation of their own children, isa key objective in this regard.While many teachers reportimprovements here over the pastthree years (see Section I, "'ftach-ers' Overall Assessment of SchoolImprovement"), the data pre-sented in this section indicate thatmuch more still needs to be done.

28

Imani School: An EvolvingProfessional Community

We introduce Ibis next section t has been two Years since I mani Elementary lost its dynamic andimmensely popular principal to retirement. Since then, teachers

ill) a story about "Imani" at the school have been working to adapt to the leadership style

of their new principal and to implement new instructional programs

Elementary School, zz'hich has that they hope will improve their students' achievements. A few have

reacted negatively to the changes. Imani is a small school that is fur-

been zz.orking toward professional ther divided into very small schools-within-a-school, so tensions arequickly felt by all. But most teachers have tabled their differences to

community. over thc last few work together on school development. They have tenaciously held

onto their goal of making their school one of the most successful in

years. As part of the Consortium's the city.A strong orientation to staff development has been at the heart of

three-year study of the Classroom it. Imani's past and present principals have encouraged teachers to con-tinue their education and have offered funds for conferences and work-

Effrcts of Reform. the experiences shops. Imani has been equally active about bringing visiting teachers,consultants, and university faculty into the school to work with staff

in tins school illustrate the long- in their classrooms and in thcir schools-within-a-school. For three

years, Imani teachers have been working with a local university and

term efforts required to bring a members of the Accelerated Schools network to fundamentally changethe expectations placed on their students and themselves.

faculty together and the leadership Through these professional development experiences, teachers havebecome more willing to evaluate their teaching assumptions and prac-

and professional dez.elopinent tices and to experiment with new ideas. This has led to significant

changes in language arts and math instruction, the development of a

necessary to make a school a writing program, training in hands-on science activities, new assess-ment methods, and a teacher-developed curriculum with greater

genuine learning community, emphasis on active student learning. This past Nicar, for example,primary-grade students created herbariums and planted trees as part

"Imani" is a pseudonym for an of their science program; second- and fifth-grade students publishedand sold poetry books as part of a young entrepreneurs program; and

actual school. eighth graders wrote and produced a play. Next year a group of Imaniteachers will join a network of urban educators in implementing aninterdisciplinary curriculum designed by a local,urban education cen-

ter. Staff from the center will work with Imani teachers throughoutthe year to help them implement the curriculum and develop newstudent assessments.

\\Moho', teachers are learning outside the school or working withconsultants inside their own classrooms, most lmani teachers have beenlearning and trying new forms of instruction with their students. Thus,the knowledge base and instructional capacity of the school has been

steadily growing.

32


Determining the best way to coordinate this development has been an ongoing experiment. How doteachers strikc a balance between time spent in classrooms instructing students and time spent in do clop-ment activities with other teachers? Is it best to meet as a whole staff or in small groups?

Imani has tried several strategies in searching for the best mix. Most teachers have found weekly school-within-a-school meetings most helpful. These meetings support teachers to work together to designthematic curriculum units and interdisciplinary assignments, to organize field trips and special assemblies,and to discuss the progress of their students. This year, the English, math, social studies, and science teach-ers in Imani's middle school developed a new instructional unit on the concept and experience of family.They developed lessons, worked to integrate state goals into them, debated how topics would be intro-duced, and learned that working together, while time-consuming, was productive and rewarding.

As part of the unit, students read A Raisin in the Sun and other stories about families, wrote about anddiscussed real-life experiences, and explored the world of adult responsibilities. Students adopted differentjobs and careers and, using their math skills, had to develop and manage a family budget consistent withtheir salary. They also studied human biology, reproduction, and DNA. Developing the lessons, coordi-nating them, and weaving together the best sequence of student tasks and assessments required muchteacher time, deliberation, and, on occasion, compromise. But the process of sharing important ideas anddebating choices benefitted both teachers and students. The new unit was substantive, demanding consid-erably more academic engagement than the drill and practice sheets it replaced; and students clearly foundit interesting.

Imani teachers arc also playing a greater role in school leadership. Imani uses a leadership team involv-ing teacher representatives from each school-within-a-school, plus other interested staff, to articulate theschool's mission and to make many key decisions. This year the group has facilitated a self-analysis processand has worked with the principal and parents to develop their School Improvement Plan.

These interactions have not evolved without conflict. Recently, some teachers began to feel that thesmall school meetings were fragmenting the staff and eroding a sense of unity; thcy wanted more wholestaff meetings. Efforts to accommodate both needs resulted in some frustrating shifts in scheduling. Byspring, increasing tensions led teachers to call a full staff meeting. They asked an external facilitator to helpthem air frustrations and grievances. It was a difficult and often emotional meeting, but teachers workedhard to resolve their conflicts and address the issues that confronted them as a staff. They renewed theircommitment to professional dialogue and tricd to design a better mix of whole- and sub-group meetings.The meeting illustrated an important attribute of the stafftheir persistence. The adage, "if at first youdon't succeed..." is practiced regularly at Imani.

Imani serves one of the most impoverished areas of the city, and the demands placed on teachers haveintensified since reform. Yet the "can do" spirit of the staff has grown alongside new demands. There is nodoubt that an improved base of fiscal and administrative supports, provided by state Chapter 1 funds, hasmotivated teachers to invest themselves in their school and their students. Also, Imani is fortunate in thatit is located in a large building with ample space for student and teacher work. But the centerpiece of theschool's vitality and improvement efforts is its commitment to professional development and building a

professional community that maimains focus on strengthening the school's instructional programs. I maniis not free of problems, and its students still have much to achieve. But its progress is real, and its future isbrighter than it was before.

30

Section IVProfessional Community and Orientation

National educationalreform efforts call formore challenging aca-

demic standards for all students.''Just a decade ago, most Americansmight have beer: satisfied withhigher levels of basic skills andlower drop-out rates; now, allschools arc increasingly beingjudged against "world-class" stan-dards." To attain this will requireprofound changes in teaching. Itis argued that teachers need amuch greater knowledge of sub-ject matter, the mental processesoccurring in the mind of thelearner, and the understandingand experiences that studentsbring to this." It will also requirefundamental change in the natureof the schools as workplaces forteachers. If schools are to be mor 'eff Ttiveictive learning environ-ments for students, they must alsohave this character for teachers.Only if teachers become more col-lectively responsible for studentlearning, is there any possibility ofattaining world-class standards on

a broad scale.

WHAT IS A PROFESSIONALCOMMUNITY?Three core activities characteriieadult behavior in a professionalcommu nit v.2' Regular opportuni-

- -

ties for reflective dialogue engageteachers in conversations thathold practice, pedagogy, and stu-dent learning under scrutiny.Complementing this is a depriva-tization of practice where teach-ers open their classroom doors

and shkare their work with peers.Through these observations andfollow-up discussions, joint prob-lem solving becomes common.This in turn leads to a third keycharacteristicpeer collabora-tion. Through engaging in shared

Reflective Dialogue Elementary and High School Teachers

Frequent

Regular

Occasional

Almost none

12%

30%

16%

42%

%MIN

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Selected Questions about Reflective DialogueElementary and High School Teachers

Teachers talk informallyabout instruction

Faculty meetings usedfor problem solving

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Teachers differ in the extent to which they participate in school-baseddiscussions. About 80 percent agree or strongly agree that teachersengage in infOrmal conversations about instruction. In contrast, only44 percent express the same level of agreement on the utility of formalPculty meetings. The discrepancy in these figures suggests a splitbetween the informal el/m.1s of teachers to improve their practice andthe specific opportunities lOrmally pwvuled by the school. .Schools may

need to invest more time and resources to create useful lOrums forprofessional discourse.

work, teachers can learn fromeach other and continue to de-velop the skills, knowledge, andideas necessary for continuousschool improvement.

Rather than "working torules," teachers' efforts in a pro-fessional community are guidedby a set of shared beliefs and val-ues, central to which is a focus onstudent learning. When such be-liefs and values are broadly held,they create a normative environ-ment that governs adult behaviorin thc school and promotes strongcommitments to student welfareand improved learning.

When these five key featurescombine together, they create adistinctive workplace for teacherswhich we call a professional com-

munity. This section of the reportexamines the prevalence of thesefive features in Chicago elemen-tary and secondary schools. It alsoconsiders teachers' access to pro-fessional support for this develop-ment and three key consequencesfor teachers that are associatedwith it: their orientation towardinnovation, collective responsibil-ity for student learningindschool commitment.

Reflective DialogueStrong professional communitiesare built by teachers who regu-larly engage in conversations withcolleagues about their work.Teachers in these communities usediscussion and critique as tools to

promote self-awareness and tobuild a COM mon core of ideas, val-


ues, and beliefs about effectivepractice, pedagogy, student learn-ing, and thc conditions of goodschooling.

Twelve percent of Chicago'steachers can be characterized asparticipating in frequent or dailyconversations with colleagues.These teachers find faculty meet-ings useful for problem solving.They discuss the managementof classroom behavior, new cur-

riculum, and school goals almostevery day. Another 30 percentparticipate in regular dialoguewith their peers. For these teach-ers, instructional conversationsare occurring on a weekly basis.

In contrast, 42 percent ofteachers perceive faculty meetingsas unproductive and engage inprofessional dialogue only th:Ca-sionally (i.e., about two to threetimes a month). Sixteen percent

Deprivatization Elementary and High School Teachers

Extensive

Moderate

Minimal

None

11%

39%

38%

12%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Selected Questions about DeprivatizationElementary and High School Teachers

How often teachers receivedsuggestions about materials

How often colleagueobserved class

How often someone helpedto teach your class 111111Ack 11%

9% 19%

13% 35%

53%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

11 10 or more 59 O 3-4 Jr 2 Once Never

Afore than half the respondents, 54 percent, report that they receiveuselnl suggestions about materials from their colleagues at least threetimes during the year Because pract ices associated zz'ith higher levels ofdeprivatization, such as allozving oneself to be observed by a peer andteam teaching, require formally structured tinie and demand mutualrecpect and trust, they are less widespread. Only 35 percent of the teach-ers rclun t that acolleague observed /heir class at least three tunes dormg the same period of time. A smaller proportion, 22 percent, reportanother teacher helped to leach their class three times m. 111MT.

32

of teachers report almost noprofessional conversations withcolleagues. These teachers are iso-lated from professional interaction,working alone in their classrooms.

DeprivatizationA professional community alsoencourages teachers to deprivatizetheir practice. Through strategiessuch as team teaching and peercoaching, teachers share andobserve each other's teachingmethods and philosophies. Thisopening up of one's practice toscrutiny also encourages teachersto ask questions about theirpractice and to view it in a moreanalytic fashion.

Fifty percent of teachers indi-cate moderate to extensive levels ofdeprivatization (see top graph onpage 31). These teachers report that

more than five times in the pastyear they received useful sugges-tions from their colleagues. Onthree or more occasions, they vis-ited other teachers' classrooms,and had peers observe them teach.In addition, they invited a col-league to help teach their class atleast once during the year. In open-

ing their practice to others andregularly playing the role of men-tor, advisor, and specialist, theseteachers have advanced their exper-

tise, individually and collectively.In marked contrast, 12 percent

of the teachers never requested,received, or provided assistance totheir colleagues. For these teach-ers, instruction appears to be a soli-

tary endeavor.

Peer Collaboration Elementary and High School Teachers

High

Fairly high

Minimal

None 6%

15%

33%

46%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Selected Questions about Peer CollaborationElementary and High School Teachers

Teachers at this schoolare cordial

Teachers design instructionalprograms together

ol=

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Ninety-one percent of the teachers agree or strongly agree that facultymembers are cordial. Thus, civil relations is a common characteristicof abnost all Chicago schools. When we switch attention, however, toitems that enquire about shared work, the picture appears quite differ-ent. For example, 45 percent of the teachers either disagree or stronglydisagree that teachers collaborate to design instructional programs.This suggests, at best, a very modest level of collegial effort in manyChicago schools.

Peer CollaborationCooperative relations are a criti-cal component of a productiveworkplace. In its simplest form,cordiality and civility characterizethe interactions among staff. Thisis a basic quality necessary tomaintain associated work. In itsmore advanced form, teachers col-laborate on school-wide projectsand are broadly engaged in schoolimprovement efforts. Throughsuch interactions, teachers de-velop deeper understandings ofstudents, each otherind their

profession. Such collaboration canenhance teacher expertise andtheir subsequent contributions toschool improvement.

About 60 percent of the teach-ers characterize the level of col-laboration among faculty as highor fairly high. These teachersreport good collegial ties as fac-ulty work together to make theschool run effectively, coordigateinstruction, and design new pro-grams. About 40 percent of theteachers, however, report minhnalcollegial ties or none. This group


Shared Norms Elementary and High School Teachers

Unanimous 24%

Good

Fragmented 26%

50%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Selected Questions about Shared NormsElementary and High School Teachers

Teachers agree on howstudents should behave

Teachers agree on whatstudents should learn

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

IN Strongly agree II Agree III Disagree Strongly disagree

Teachers express more agreement about the behavior they expect ofstudents than on academic standards and content. While 33 percent ofteachers strongly agree about how students should behave, only 22 per-cent express the same level of agreement regarding what students shouldlearn in school,

of teachers do not have positiverelationships with their colleaguesand do not feel that there is a col-laborative work climate.

Shared NormsThe previous three areas focusedon the core practices which char-acterize professional communi-ties. We now shift our attention tothe school norms, beliefs, and val-ues which underlie these practicesand bring coherence and integra-tion to professional communities.

Almost three-quarters of Chi-cago Public School teachers reportunanimous or good agreementamong the faculty about how stu-dents should behave, what they

should learn, and how hard theyshould work. In contrast, about aquarter indicate a fragmentedfaculty where norms pertaining tostudent behavior and academicstandards are not widely shared.These teachers tend to disagreewith the three questions aboutshared faculty norms concerningbehavior, standards, and learning.Absent such norms, the practicesof professional community areunlikely to flourish, and the qual-ity of student experiences arequite uncertain.

Focus on Student LearningThe core content of the values andbeliefs in a professional commu-

nity is its focus on student learn-ing. Because teachers in thesecommunities strongly believe thatall students can learn, advancingthe education of all students be-comes the central concern. Assuch, teachers consistently evalu-ate choices and make decisions onthe basis of their potential impacton student learning.

Forty-four percent of Chi-cago's teachers report that theirschools have a strong or verystrong focus on the academic andsocial aspects of student learning(see top graph on page 34). Teach-ers in these top two groups agreethat professional actions andorganizational decisions, includ-ing those concerned with theschool schedule and academicstandards, consistently aim tostrengthen student learning.Twenty-eight percent of theteachers report a moderate focuson student learning. These teach-ers indicate that their schoc lsemphasize academic learning butdo not attend to developing stu-dents' social skills. Slightly morethan a quarter of thc teachers per-ceive their school as having ,to

focus or being unsupportive ofstudent learning. This group ofteac hers offers quite negativeassessments of their schools.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOP-MENT: A KEY RESOURCETeachers' access to new ideas iscentral if schools are to functionas learning organizations whereteachers are continuously trying

34

Focus on Student LearningElementary and High School Teachers

Very strong

Strong

Moderate

No focus

0

to improve. Because of rapidchanges in thc knowledge base ineducation, teachers must have

16% access to new ideas and to expert

28%peers. This is crucial if teachers are

to learn how to build and maintain28% a more effective practice. Quality28% professional development oppor-

10 20 30 40 50 60tunities are a key resource in this

Selected Questions about Focus on Student LearningElementary and High School Teachers

School day maximizesinstruction time

School decisions based onwhat's best for students

School works at developingstudents' social skills

le11111111111ES

regard.School-based professional

development provides the majoropportunity for teachers to learntogether how to improve theirpractice. Almost 50 percent ofthe teachers report having partici-pated in internal professionaldevelopment activities at least

Irk five times during the Year. Another28 percent participated about three

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Strongly agree III Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Seventy-two percent of the teachers agree or strongly agree that schools

take steps to maximize instructional time. About two-thirds of the teach-

ers indicate that school decisions are guided by what's best for studentlearning. A smaller proportion of teachers, 57percent, feel that the school

also works at promoting students' social skills.

School-Based Professional Development This YearElementary and Secondary Teachers

80

70

60

50

40

3028%

24% 25%

2012%

10 5% 6%

0

Never Once Twice 3 to 4

times

5 to 9

times

More than9 times

or four times. About one-quarterof the teachers reported that theyparticipated less than three timesa year.

External activities organized byagencies such as the teachers'union, CPS, universities, colleges,and professional groups presentanother avenue for professionaldevelopment. These activities aretypically more de nanding ofteachers because they often requireindividual initiative to arrange and

a time commitment beyond thenormal school day. Not surpris-Mgly, participation in externallyorganized activities is less wide-spread. Some 40 percent of' the

teachers report never having par-ticipated at all. Fifteen percent par-ticipated about three or four timesin the past year, while 13 percentparticipated at least five times.


External Professional Development - This YearElementary and Secondary Teachers

80

70

60

5040%

40

30

20 17%12% 15%

10 6% 7%

0


times5 to 9

timesMore than

9 times

Orientation to InnovationElementary and High School Teachers

Strong tendency 26%

Moderate tendency 48%

No tendency 26%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Selected Questions about InnovationElementary and High School Teachers

Teachers are encouragedto stretch and grow

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


How many teachers areeager to try new ideas

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

111 Nearly all Most le About halt r Some None

Over 70 percent of the teachers agree or strongly agree that they atepersonally encouraged to stretch and grow. When asked about thefaculty's orientation to engage such behavior, hozz.ever, less than 40percent indicate that most or nearly all of their colleagues are eager totry tiez uleas.

KEY CONSEQUENCESFOR TEACHERS:A PROFESSIONALORIENTATIONThe interest in promoting greaterprofessional community among aschool faculty is in response to awide range of observations aboutteachers' work. The research lit-erature documents the reluctanceof teachers to try new classroommethods, their limited commit-ment to engage change beyond theclassroom, and the need for teach-ers to take broader responsibility

for student learning." Schoolenvironments have typicallydiscouraged innovation (evenwhere existing practices are clearly

not working) and promoted a la-borer (rather than professional)mentality. Unless there are signifi-cant changes in teachers' concep-tions of their work and personalcommitments to it, it is hard toenvision major improvements instudent achievement.

For these reasons we decidedto take a closer look at three kevdimensions of teachers' commit-ments: their orientation to inno-vation, commitment to the school,and collective responsibility forstudent learning. Reformingschools as professional communi-ties is explicitly intended to pro-mote each of these because eachis central to advancing studentlearning.2'

Orientation to InnovationA high performing workplace is alearning organization." This

COPY AULABLE

SM. .

36

School Commitment Elementary and High School Tez.hers

Very positive

Positive

Mixed

Negative

24%

28%

13%

35%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Selected Questions about School CommitmentElementary and High School Teachers

Usually look forward toworking each day

Would recommend school toparents seeking place for child

Wouldn't want to work inany other school

.24% 91%

9%

9%

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100


Almost 80 percent of the teachers agree or strongly agree that theyusually look forward to each working day at the school. About 70 per-

cent indicate that the)' would recommend the school to parents seeking

a place for their child, and about 60 percent endorse the statement thatthey wouldn't want to work in any other school. It is noteworthy thatthe most frequently selected category on each item is agree, rather than

strongly agree. This suggests some qualification in teachers' endorse-mentspositive, yet at the same time, some reserve.

means that teachers must be en-couraged to engage new ideas andexperiment with improving theirpractices. Significant changes,however, are unlikely unlessteachers feel supported in theirefforts to advance their profes-

. sional knowledge and to base their

decisions on new knowledge.When a strong tendencv to

innovation exists within a school,most teachers are eager to try new

ideas (see middle graph on page

35). Teachers also strongly agreethat they continually learn, havea "can do" attitude, and that thereis a general climate which encour-ages professional growth. Abouta quarter of the teachers reportthat their schools are like this.

Almost half of the teachers (48

percent) offer more moderatereports in which an openness toimprovement and change is char-acteristic ol some teachers in theirschools. At the other end of the

spectrum, 26 percent indicate thatthere is no tendency to innovationin their schools. These teachersreport both that school-level sup-port for innovation is lacking andthat teachers are generally unwill-

ing to try new ideas.

Commitment to the SchoolHigh performing workplaceselicit the personal commitmentsof staff to the organization and itscore mission. In terms of schools,this means that teachers shouldfeel loyalty to the school, enjoyworking there, and speak well ofthe school to others.

Slightly over one-half of Chi-cago teachers express apositive orvery positive orientation in thisregard. They feel committed totheir current school and offerpositive testimony about it, suchas a willingness to recommend itto parents looking for a place fortheir child. Another third of theteachers offer a more mixedassessment. While they claimloyalty to the school, they mightprefer to teach somewhere elseand would not necessarily recom-mend it to others. The remaining13 percent offer clearly negativeassessments. Teachers in thisgroup did not endorse any ofthe items asked about schoolcommitment.

Collective Rev ansibilityMost significant of all is theextent to which a professionalcommunity promotes sharedresponsibility among the faculty

38

Professional CommunityDistribution of School Indicators

Highestrated

schools

Systemwideaverage

Lowestrated

schools

WM1111010116 =111111101E'ementary schoo:

Reflectivedialogue

Deprivat- Peer

ization collaborationShared Focus onnorms student learning

VIMI10111111

How to Read a Box Plot andWhy We Use ThemThe box plot details the relative frequency of positive and negativeschool reports. Each box (black for elementary schools and grayfor high schools) encloses the middle 50 percent of the schools. Thelines, called "whiskers", extending up and down from the box, showthe range of scores for the top

and bottom quartile schools.These are the highest andlowest performing schoolson each particular scale.Within each profile, thescales arc centered on thesystem-wide average for theschools that participated inthe survey.

Top 25% ofthe schools

Middle 50%of the schools

Bottom 25%of the schools

75th percentile

The median; half ofthe schools are abovethis line; half are below

25th percentile

In substantive terms, these schoollevel differences arc very signifi-cant. We can see this most clearlyby comparing the responses ofteachers in elementary schoolsthat ar:2 in the top and bottomquartiles on peer collaborationand focus on student learning.(Similar differences exist for theother three indicators as well.) Weaiso present results from the topand bottom quartile high schools.Weaknesses in high school profes-

sional community arc quite stark.In the top quartile elementary

schools on peer collaboration,over 50 percenc of teachersreport high or fairly high levels ofcollaboration. In these schools,most teachers are designing pro-grams together and coordinatingwork. In fact, it is appropriate todescribe this behavior as normativepeer collaboration charac-terizes thc faculty as a whole.When individual teachers do notcollaborate in these contexts, theyclearly stand out as atypical.

In contrast, in the bottomquarter of elementary and highschools on peer collaboration,only about 40 percent of thcteachers offer positive reports. Inthese contexts, the majority ofthe teachers indicate minimal orno collaboration among facultymembers. It is appropriate to savthat in these schools teacherswork in isolation from each other.

Similar differences characterizeelementary and high school teach-ers' reporis about the school's

Collective ResponsibilityElementary and High School Teachers

Strong M. 15%Fairly strong 22%

Limited

Very limited 23%

The Consortium on Chicago Scbool Research 37

1MIi

40%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Selected Questions about Collective ResponsibilityElementary and High School Teachers .i

Teachers work together to dowhat is best for students

0 10 20 30 40 5C 60 70 80 90 100

N Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Teachers feel responsiblethat all students learn

Teachers feel responsible to helpeach other do their best

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

MI Nearly all Most About half N Some None

Three-quarters of the respondents agree or strongly agree that teacherswork together to do what is best for students. This appears as a strongendorsement. In response to items that enquire about level of responsi-bility, however, teachers offer more qualified reports. About two-thirdsindicated that most or nearly all of their colleagues feel responsible thatall students learn. Less than half indicate that most or nearly all teach-ers help each other do their best.

to improve the school so that allstudents can learn. When collec-tive responsibility is strong, fac-ulty broadly define theircommitments to both students'academic and social development;they set high standards and helpeach other try to ,utain them.

Oyer a third of the teacherscharacterize the sense of collective

responsibility in thcir faculty aseither fairly strong or strong. Inthese teachers' eyes, most of theircolleagues feel responsible forstandards, mutual support, andschool improvement. Another 40percent provide a more limitedendorsement. They feel that thisorientation is only characteristicof about half of their colleagues.

Even weaker reports of very lim-ited collective responsibility areoffered by about a quarter of theteac:iers. They indicate that onlya minority of the teachers arcreally engaged.

A COMPARISON OFELEMENTARY ANDHIGH SCHOOLSUp to this point, our discussionon professional community hasfocused on thc overall responsesof Chicago Public School teach-ers. Clearly, the character of pro-fessional communities variesamong schools. The differencesbetween elementary and highschools on thc critical elements ofprofessional community and theresulting consequences for profes-sional orientation are especiallystriking.

Analysis of ProfessionalCommunityReports from high schools aresubstantially lower on all aspectsof professional community. Infact, the teacher ratings from anaverage high school are compa-rable to those from the weakestelementary schools. These differ-ences arc especially large for peercollaboration and focus on stu-dent learning.

Another key difference is thewider variability in results fromelementary schools. While the re-ports from some elementaryschools look like those from highschools, many elementary schoolsoffer much more positive profiles.


Peer CollaborationTeachers' Responses in High- and Low-rated Schools11711111


70

60

50 46% 45%

40

30

20

1010%

NI Elementary N High school

54%

32%

High Fairlyhigh

8%

Minimal

0! 4%j2o NENE

None

All Schools80

70

60

50

40

30

20 16%

10

0

45%

33%

6%

High Fairlyhigh

Minima! None

Bottom Quartile Schools Elementary IN High school

80

70

60

50 50%

40 36% 36%

30-0

2010% 12%

10 5%2%

0

High Fairly

high

Minimal None

These percentages are based on all partiaPating schools; they differ

slightly from those reported earlier, which were based on the probabil-ity sample.

40

Focus on Student LearningTeachers' Responses in High- and Lew-rated Schools


70

60

50

20 I40 38%

14%

30

10

12%

0

44%

Elementary High school

32%

20%

Verystrong

Strong Moderate No

focus

All Schools80

70

60

50

40

30

20 15%

10

0

31% 28%26%

Verystrong

Strong Moderate No

focus


70

60

50

40

30 25%

20 15%

10 5%2%

Verystrong

33% 34%37%

49%

Strong Moderate No

focus

These percentages are based on all participating schools; they differslightly from those reported earlio; which were based on the probabil-ity sample.

4 4


Professional OrientationDistribution of School Indicators

Highestrated

schools

Systemwideaverage

Lowestrated

schools


Innovation Commitmentto school

Collectiveresponsibility

focus On student learning. Lessthan half of the teachers in topquartile h;gh schools describetheir schools as strongly focusedon supporting the academic andsocial advancement of students. Inthe top-rated elementary schools,however, over 80 percent reportsuch an intense focus. Again, it isappropriate to describe this orien-tation as normative in the top-rated elementary schools. Incontrast, such norms are very un-common among Chicago's highschools.

Analysis of ProfessionalorientationReports from high schools arealso substantially lower on all

three aspects of professional ori-entation. High school teachersoffer much more negative reportsthan their elementary school col-1.eagues about their orientation toinnovation, commitment to theschool, and collective responsibil-ity for its improvement. Again,teacher ratings from an averagehigh school are comparable tothose from the weakest elemen-tary schools. We illustrate this bycomparing the top and bottomquartile elementary and secondaryschools, respectively, for innova-tion and collective responsibility.

Over 60 percent of teachers :nthe top quarter of element,' cy

schools report an eagerness to trynew ideas, take risks, and engage

change both on the part of theircolleagues as well as themselves(see graphs on page 42). In con-trast, only 19 percent of the highschool teachers in the top quartilereport a similar orientation to-wards innovation. These highschool reports are more like thosefound among the lowest-ratedelementary schools. Thus, while asolid majority of teachers in thehigh-rated elementary schoolsreport a strong orientation to in-novation, the same is true for onlya small portion of high schoolteachers, even in the most positivehigh schools.

The same pattern appears as wescrutinize teacher responses to thcitcm cluster that comprises collec-tive responsibility. Over 70 per-cent of the teachers in the topqual tile elementary schools reportthat most of their colleagues havea strong sense of responsibilityfor helping each other, improvingthe school, and setting high stan-dards for themselves (see graphson page 43). In contrast, in the lowquartile elementary schools, about80 percent of the teachers indicateonly a limited to very limitedsense of responsibility amongtheir colleagues. While sonicteachers in these schools arcclearly concerned and committedto improvement, these sentimentsdo not characterize the over-whelming majority.

Here, too, the reports from thetop quartile high schools lookmuch like the weakest elementaryschools. As for the low-quartile

42

Orientation to InnovationTeachers' Responses in High- and Low-rated Schools

Top Quartile Schools III Elementary III High school

80

70 63%

60 55%

50

40 31%

30 26%

20 19%

10 6%

0

Strong Moderate No

tendency tendency tendency

All Schools80

70

60

50

40

30 26%

20

10

48%

26%

Strongtendency

Moderatetendency

Notendency


70

60

50

40

30

20 15%

10 6%

0

49% 49%

36%

45%

Strong

tendency

Moderatetendency

No

tendency

These percentages are based on all participating schools; they differ

slightly from those reported earliet; which were based on the probabil-

ity sample.

high schools, 44 percent of theteacher responses wcre classifiedas very limited responsibility.As the next Consortium reportwill document, many of theseschools confront daily low stu-dent attendance, poor engagementin learning, and weak academicachievement. These schools alsohave at best only a modest levelof adult resources to redress thesestudent problems. The overall pat-

tern of high school teacher reportscertainly provides reason to pauseand ponder. If these data arc evenclose to being an accurate reflec-tion of daily life in these schools,they imply very poor work envi-ronments with large numbers ofdemoralized staff in many highschools.

Analysis of ProfessionalDevelopmentTeachers in elementary and highschools also report different lev-els of access to professional devel-opment activities. Over40 percentof the teachers in the top quartileelementary schools participatedextensively (more than nine times

a vear) in school-based activities(see page 44). In these schools,professional development is aregular and sustained part of manyteachers' work lives. In the top-rated high schools, about a quar-ter of the teachers reported thesame level of participation. Whilemost teachers in most elementaryand high schools participated atleast two or more times in school-


Collective ResponsibilityTeachers' Responses in High- and Low-rated Schools


70

60

50

40

3031%

20

10 9%

0

43%

Strong

26%

Fairlystrong


43%

21%

Limited

22%

Verylimited

All Schools80

70

60

50

40

30

20 15%

10

23%

38%

24%

Strong Fairlystrong

Bottom Quartile Schools

Limited Verylimited

Elementary High school80

70

60

50 47%42%

40

30

20 14%

10 6% 3%Mamma

Strong Fairly

strongLimited

33%

44%

Verylimited

These percentages are based on all participating schools; they differslightly from those reported earlier, which were based on the probabil-ity sample.

based staff development, it isnoteworthy that 25 percent ofthc teachers in the low-rated highschools participated only onceor never.

In terms of teacher participa-tion in professional developmentactivities outside of schools, thisis one of thc few areas where highschool and elementary schoolteachers look relatively similar.The frequency of these activitiesare only slightly higher in topquartile elementary schools ascompared to the top quartile highschools. The majority of teachersin both the bottom quartileelementary and high schools didnot participate in a single externalstaff development activity overthe course of a full academic year.That is, they did not voluntarilyattend a workshop or course at the

Central Service Center or at theCTU, nor did they take a collegeor university course related toimproving their teaching, nor didthey participate in a network withother teachers outside of theschool, nor did they discuss cur-riculum and instructional matterswith an outside professionalgroup. These teachers appearcompletely isolated from externalprofessional activity.

The differences reported in thissection between elementary andhigh schools arc quite large in bothrelative and substantive terms.Teachers in most high schoolsoffer very negative reports abouttheir colleagues, their work condi-

44

School-based Professional Development - This YearTeachers' Responses in High- and Low-rated Schools

Top80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Quartile Schools

2% 3%

30%23%

Elementary III High school

44%

23% 26% 27%

Never Once Twice 3 to 4times

5 to 9

timesMore than

9 times

All Schools80

70

60

50

40

3028%

24%28%

20

10 4% 5%11%

TI

Never Once Twice 3 to 4times

5 to 9

timesMore than

9 times

Bottom Quartile Schools Elementary High school

80

70

60

50

40 32% 31%

30 22% 19%20 13% 12% 14% 13% 12%

10 7%

1111110

11.111


times

5 to 9

times

More than9 times

111MENThese percentages are based on all participating schools; they differ slightly from those reported earlier,which were based on the probability sample.


External Professional Development - This YearTeachers' Responses in High- and Low-rated Schools


70

60

50

40 34%

30 25%

20 15% 2%

10

0

Never Once

23%16% 15% 17%

Twice 3 to 4

times

III Elementary High school

9% 8%

5 to 9

times

12%.61%

More than9 times

All Schools80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

40%

16% 15% 15%

7% 7%

Never Once Twice 3 to 4 5 to 9 More thantimes times 9 times

Bottom Quartile Schools Elementary High school

80

70

60 52% 52%50

40

30

20

10

15% 17%14% 12% 11% 10%

4% 4%simmism

4% 5%=NEMNever Once Twice 3 to 4

times5 to 9

timesMore than

9 times

These percentages are based on all participating schools; they differ slightly from those reported earlie);which were based on the probability sample.

46

tions, and professional orientation.With peer influences among stu-dents particularly strong and nega-tive during this developmentalperiod, adults need a special soli-darity if they are to create engag-ing learning environments forstudents. However, many highschool teachers appear alienatedfrom their colleagues and onlyweakly tied to the school and itsimprovement. Absent strong ties

among the adults, it is a dauntingtask ahead for the system to createmore effective high schools.

In contrast, the situation inelementary schools appears muchmore hopeful. The overall pictureis considerably more positive,and many Chicago elementaryschools arc moving forward quitenicely on their own initiative.Some, however, are not. In fact,the differences between the high-

-.11111.1r.""

Sok

and low-performing elementaryschools is like a "world apart" onmost of the measures consideredin this section. Reports from theworst elementary schools arc justas troubling as from the highschools. These schools, too, arelikely to need external interven-tion if reform is to have a chanceof taking root.

S:5

We conclude this section with a

look at "Hoffmann" High School.

The experiences in this school

illustrate the problems confronting

Chicago as the city seeks dramatic

improvement in its high schools.

As part of the Consortium's three-

year study of the Classroom Effects

of Reform, this school illustrates

the complex problems of high

school reform. None of the routine

answersincompetent teachers,

a need for more money or better

programsreally work here.

"Hoffmann" is a pseudonym for an

actual school.


Hoffmann High School:An Organization Overwhelmed

Hoffmann High School resides in a big, stately-looking build-ing in a quiet neighborhood. The school offers a broadarray of courses to students from all walks of life. White,

Latino, African-American, and Asian families all send their childrento Hoffmann for a good education. Making it work has proved farmore difficult than anyone thought.

Like most Chicago high schools, Hoffmann is burdened with arange of disturbing but sadly familiar statistics. Nearly half the stu-dents attending Hoffmann come from low-income families. Over 20percent of the student body is absent each day. Nearly 40 percent ofninth- and tenth-grade students arc failing courses, many of them twoor more. By twelfth grade, nearly half have dropped out. Enrollmentswings, state and city policy shifts, changes in district leadership, andthe ongoing funding crises have fueled a pervasive sense of instabilityat the school. Still, Hoffmann is considered one of the better publichigh schools in Chicagoa troubling indicator of the low expecta-tions and standards that now exist across the city.

While Hoffmann may be better than some schools, there is littleevidence that it is a better school than it was in 1989 when Chicago'sreform sought to trigger, among other things, an infusion of parentinvolvement, school restructuring, and teacher professionalism. Thegreat majority of Hoffmann's administrators and teachers arrive at workeach day and do the best they can, but the number and complexity ofthe problems they face constantly overwhelm any efforts to set a newcourse and work for change. For example, in spite of the intense frus-trations about insufficient parental support, strong outreach andinvolvement programs do not exist.

The organization of the school day and the instructional programremain fragmented and impersonal. Every day 2,000 teachers and stu-dents, many of them strangers to each othcr, shuttle themselves througha series of class periods. Nor are the conditions of teachers' work atthe school more collaborative or professional than they were six yearsago. These factors and others are contributing to a growing reformgap between Chicago's elementary schools and its high schools.

Consider, for example, the state of teachers' development and corn-munity at Hoffmann in comparison to that developing at Imani, theelementary school profiled earlier in this report. At Imani administra-tors and teachers regularly meet to critique and develop their instruc-tional programs and practices. The process is often difficult but it isalso rewarding. A tradition of professional development and commu-nity is emerging. The same cannot be said of Hoffmann.

48

In short, there is very little teacher development and community at Hoffmann, and morale among thestaff is low. One basic problem is little or no progress in developing conditions that boost morale andmotivate professional efforts and standards. Just like factory workers, Hoffmann teachers punch a timeclock at the beginning and end of each day (the system is used for payroll). But it's a system that expressesno trust and makes no distinctions between teachers who are working hard and teachers who are hardlyworking. It's a demoralizing way to begin and end each day.

The state of basic working conditions at Hoffmann is terrible. The building and.grounds are dirty as arcclassrooms and bathrooms. Teachers are assigned too many students and too much paperwork. Most haveno work spaces or assigned classrooms, and they receive almost no clerical or technical assistance. Eachday, time is wasted wandering the building looking for supplies, making photocopies, or searching forsomeone to unlock the book closet. And Hoffmann teachers lack a critical requirement of successfulschoolscommon planning periods in which to work with colleagues.

Not surprisingly, the most active teacher group at Hoffmann is a problems and grievances committeethat tries to improve basic services such as security, cleaning, parking, and student rules. Hoffmann doesnot have an active PPAC, teacher senate, teacher council, or any other significant teacher group exploringteacher and school development or working to strengthen academic standards. Subject departments arenot strong organizing units, either. Most department staffs meet only to disseminate news and informationfrom the school's administration. Without any reliable structures where teachers regularly pool thcirtalents and confront the problems they face, it is easy to sec how Hoffmann has become stuck.

A few teachers at Hoffmann are working together to build new programs. For example, a group ofteachers and an administrator developed a small school-within-a-school that is positively affecting theattendance and grades of its students. And many of Hoffmann's new teachers arc looking for ways to formsupportive working relationships with each other. But significant schoolwide efforts to improve have beenfrustrated by a general unwillingness to rethink the structures, procedures, and support systems of theschool. Five years ago Hoffmann teachers voted to explore the redesign ideas of the Coalition of EssentialSchools; five years of funding were attached. But essential supports, such as common planning periods,were never provided. As a result, only a few teachers volunteered to engage in the effort; many who didhave left the school. Now, there is little evidence that the initiative ever existed.

Despite negative work conditions, some teachers at Hoffmann still accomplish amazing things, butthey do so in isolation from the rest of the school. Working with one's department, debating newideas, serving on committees, or attending staff meetings or in-services are often seen as a waste of energy."I've been there and I've done that and nothing comes of it. I just teach my courses and my kids," explainsone teacher.

A retreat behind classroom doors, or behind tenure and seniority rules, is an understandable strategyin a school with over two thousand students, one hundred teachers, fourteen departments, seven bellschedulesmd specialized programs for low achieving students, college-bound students, ROTC students,bilingual students, work-study students, plus a dozen others. But, in the end, it simply punts problemsaround and around the organization and pits teachers against one another. A good example is the school'srelationship with young teachers. Many Hoffmann teachers are generous about sponsoring student teach-ers. But if these same individuals are hired by the school, they immediately find themselves loaded downwith all the most difficult courses because assignments are made according to seniority rather than acommitment to "share the load."


More teachers might be willing to put new ideas to the test and to work for change if they were morecertain of administrative and community support. But they are not at all certain of this, and there is goodreason why. High schools arc more controlled and constrained by district and state regulations, and thesize and complexity of our high schools are straining school administrators beyond capacity. In improvingelementary schools, strong principals have focused their energies and attention on the day-to-day work-ings of their school. High school administrators, however, face far more external pressures and demands;their attentions are scattered outward to community and district concerns. Much of thc remaining energiesare quickly frustrated by a steady stream of small crises: a security problem, a plumbing breakdown, anangry school neighbor. Amidst these chronic demands, the big and small efforts of teachers get lost in themaelstrom of the organization.

The legacy of failed initiatives and weak supports at Hoffmann and dozens of other Chicago highschools presents profound problems that defy simple solutions. It is not simply bad programs or people orprocesses but rather the overall institutional structure that is to blame. Until some fundamental rethinkingof the purpose and organization of our high schools takes place, it is difficult to see how most will besignificantly improved by reform.

50

Section VProgram Coherence:The Antidote to the "Christmas Tree School"

1n the Consortium's 1993report, A View from theElementary Schools, we

noted that many Chicago elemen-tary schools have unfocused pro-gram initiatives. While theseschools may be acquiring newinstructional materials, such ascomputers, and may be addingdesirable new programs, such asmusic and art, there is littlesustained attention to improvingbasic school operations. Themainstay of these schools' im-provement efforts does not focuson the more effective engagementof teachers with students aroundcore subject matter. Althoughthe peripheral changes are positivedevelopments, there is little rea-son to believe that broad-basedimprovements in student learningwill occur in these schools.

A more complex form of thisproblem occurs in some Chicagoelementary schools which havebecome well-known showcasesbecause of the myriad of programs

that they boast for students andsometimes for parents as well.Frequently, however, these pro-grams are uncoordinated and mayeven be philosophically inconsis-tent with one another. While prin-

cipals in these schools areaggressively reaching out to bring

these new, often highly touted,resources into their schools, muchless attention focuses on thequality with which these newefforts are implemented and howthey coordinate with core instruc-tional programs to create betterlearning experiences for students.

We described such places inour report as "Christmas TreeSchools." The new, special pro-grams added to these schools arclike dazzling ornaments hung on

a tree at Christmas. The basicschool operations, however, muchlike the Christmas tree itself,might remain unattended. With somuch cffort focused on the acqui-sition of the new programs to"decorate the tree," less time andenergy is left to make the wholeschool work better.

We asked four questions ofelementary teachers about thedegree of program coherence andcoordination in their school. In

Questions about Program CoherenceElementary School Teachers

Once we start a program, we follow

up to make sure it is working

You can see real continuity from one

program to another in this school

12%

13%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 100

Many special programs

come and go in this school

We have so many different programs

that I cannot keep track of them

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Strongly agree I Agree "[Disagree Strongly disagree

About 60 percent of the teachers agree or strongly agree that theyfollow up during the implementation of new programs. However, only4 5 percent agree or strongly agree that they can see real continuity across

stbool's programs. Similarly, about 45 percent of the teachers endorsethe statement that they cannot keep track of all the programs in theschool and that many pmgrams come and go.

elementary schools where teach-ers consistently offer negativereports on these items, unfocusedimprovement efforts, includingthe "Christmas Tree" phenom-enon, appear to be occurring.

Half of the elementary schoolteachers report moderate to stronglevels of program coherence.These teachers tend to agree withpositive items about implementa-tion and program continuityand disagree with the statementsabout too many programs totrack and programs coming andgoing.

We classified the responsesfrom 36 percent of the teachers,who answered these four items,as moderately incoherent. Theseteachers indicate that they areknowledgeable about the variousspecial programs in the school, butthey do not feel that, the schoolfollows up to make sure that eachprogram is working or that theycan see real continuity across thevarious programs. Fourteen per-cent describe their school as veryincoherent. They do not seeimplementation follow-thoughand program continuity, and theyendorse the statement about somany programs coming and go-ing that they cannot keep track ofthem all. These teachers experi-ence their schools as highly frag-mented work environmentswhose overall organiz.ation appar-ently does not make much senseto them.

Obviously, teachers withinthe same school will have many


Program C,oherence Elementary School Teachers

Strong coherence

Moderate coherence

Moderate incoherence

Very incoherent

12%

38%

36%

14%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

different perceptions regardingthc nature of the school. Wc areparticularly interested in identify-ing the kinds of schools whereteachers agree that there is seriousattention to program coherenceand coordination. What relations,if any, exist between a high levelof program coherence and thevarious indicators of school gov-ernance, parental involvement,and professional community con-sidered in the last three sections?

While most of thc school indi-cators, introduced in the earliersections of this report, are relatedin a positive fashion to programcoherence, four major findingsstand out." Elementary schoolteachers are more likely to reportprogram coherence where:

A broad base of teachers havebeen involved in the schoolimprovement planning processand endorse the SIP as central tothe school's improvement. Insuch places, both the process ofgenerating the document andcontinued references to it focuseslocal attention. It can also disci-pline local efforts, helping schoolsto resist the incoherence that tends

to be foisted on them by newinitiatives fro.n outside the school.

Strong norms, focused on stu-dent learning, characterize theprofessional work of teachers.In schools with high levels ofcollective responsibility amongthe faculty, program quality iseverybody's job. A programis good, not iust because it "looksgood." but because it clearly helpsstudents.

Principals closely monitor pro-gram quality. This managerialdimension of principal leadershipcomplements the communal di-mension captured in our earliermeasure of facilitative, inclusiveleadership. From the communalside, principals advance coherenceby promoting broad engagementaround the SIP and supporting aprofessional community wheremany teachers feel personallyresponsible for these matters. Asmanagers, they can also advancethis aim by their direct actions, such

as through close monitoring ofclassroom instruction and, whereiiecessary, making critical decisions

to advance the school's mission.''.

52

Program coherence is easier toachieve in small schools. Theseresults arc not surprising giventhat larger schools tend to havemore programs to coordinate,making coherence harder toachieve. Such contexts are alsomore difficult for principals tomanage, as their atteroon is oftendistracted away f. Jrn monitoringprogram qual.t.y. it is also harderto maintain thc collective engage-ment of the faculty in these largerenterprises.27 (Further detailsabout the positive effects of smallelementary schools are offered inthe next section.)

With the exception of SIPimplementation, none of theother facets of local school gover-nance (LSC effectiveness, teacherinfluence, or facilitative principalleadership) were directly relatedto program coherence in ouranalyses." This does not meanthat they do not play an impor-tant role. Their role, however,appears to Ge indirect. Programcoherence is difficult to legislateas it depends on a myriad of day-to-day efforts by school staff,much of which can be neithereasily regulated nor closelysupervised. Effective local gover-nance, however, can create theconditions under which programcoherence is more likely tooccur--such as by supportingprincipal leadership, creating aclimate conducive to cooperativeadult efforts around such matters,and encouraging teacher initia-tives in this regard.

34"

Finally, it is important to rec-ognize that the problems of pro-gram coherence are not new toChicago's schools. In charting theprogress of school reform, wehave focused our analyses onlocal school decision making andthe coherence of their initiatives.These local efforts, however, sitwithin a much larger context andhistory. For several decades, vari-ous interests have sought to makeschools more responsive to avariety of concerns (e.g., schooldesegregation, education of thehandicapped, bilingual education,student rights, gifted programs,etc.). Each has advanced specificprograms, rules and regulations,and other requirements. I low toeffectively integrate and coordi-nate these various external initia-

56

vir

tives, however, fell to the localschool. While each of these exter-nal initiatives was motivated by agood cause, the cumulative effectof this external activity was tomake schools more complex andproblematic organizations.29 Thisis just another part of the basecontcxt that school reform inChicago must address. To be clear,

wc have no evidence which sug-gests that reform has exacerbatedthese problems. To the contrary,the additional resources and au-thority provided by reform havebeen used by at least some schools

to attack these concerns. Accord-ing to teachers, however, muchmore still needs to be done.

Letaiialwrsadm....,15.611,XCM - -


Section VIThe Progress of Reform inDifferent Elementary School Communities

We should expectdiverse outcomesunder any school

reform that involves a decentrali-zation of authority and wherelocal initiative is the primarycatalyst for change. At the outsetof reform in Chicago, school com-

munities varied substantially intheir capacity to capitalize on theopportunities provided by re-form. Some schools had a historyof cooperative relations amongstaff and thc local community and,not surprisingly, were able tomove forward quickly. In otherschools, thc base conditions for

reform consisted of weak facultiesmarred by distrust, negative com-munity relations, and seriousproblems with safety and order.Clearly, restructuring was a morechallenging task here, and manyof these schools have struggled toengage reform."

How reform progresses indifferent kinds of school commu-nities around the city continues asa core concern. Thus, this sectionexamines the characteristics ofelementary schools that appearto be moving forward and thoseexperiencing difficulty. Where arcproductive adult efforts occurring

in local school governance, paren-tal involvement, and professionalcommunity development? Whereare they not?

As in A View from the Elemen-

tary Schools, we focus our analy-sis on elementary schools that areclearly in need of improvement,where average achievement priorto reform was below nationalnorms!' Eighty-five percent ofChicago elementary schools fallinto this category. The 1994teacher survey includes data from210 of these schools.

Analysis DetailsIn our analysis of all participating elementary schools, we considered the effects of standard schooldescriptors, such as percent of low-income students, racial/ethnic composition, and pre-reform achieve-ment level. In addition, we drew.on census data to characterize both the school neighborhood and studentpopulation in terms of the concentration of poverty, education and employment levels, and residentialstability. We also examined key structural characteristics of schools including size, enrollment rates frominside and outside of their attendance area, and student stability, i.e., the proportion of students whoremain in the school from one year to the next.

We searched for patterns between these various school community descriptors and the individualmeasures of school governance, parent involvementmd professional community and orientation, whichwere considered in the first three sections of this report. The general findings, presented ;n this section,emerged repeatedly across the various school performance indicators. This led us to aggregate theindividual measures into an overall composite indicator of cooperative adult effort toward schoolimprovement. Schools that are high on this overall indicator combine effective local school governance,good parental involvementmd positive professional community and orientation. We have summarizedthe results from both the analyses of the individual measures and the composite indicator.

54

Overall PatternsIn general, schools with produc-tive adult activity focused onschool improvement" are broadlydistributed among the variouscommunities of the city. Four gen-eral patterns, however, haveemerged:"

Small elementary schoolswhere enrollment is less than350 studentshave consistentlymore positive reports on mostmeasures of school leadership,parental involvement, and pro-fessional community and orien-tation. In comparing the 30highest- and 30 lowest-ratedschools on a composite indicatorof cooperative adult effort towardschool improvement, there are sixtimes as many small schools in thetop group as in the bottomgroup."

Some differences have emergedamong schools based on racialand ethnic composition. Onaverage, integrated schools (i.e.,over 30 percent white studentenrollment) have the most posi-tive reports, followed by pre-dominantly Hispanic schools.Negative reports, especially withregard to parent involvement andprofessional orientation, aresomewhat more likely from pre-dominately African-Americanschools and mixed minorityschools." It is important to em-phasize, however, that a widerange of positive and negative re-

School LeadershipDistribution of School Indicators: Elementary Schools

Highestrated

schools

Systemwideaverage

Lowestrated

schools

S M L S M L S M L S M L

LSC Principal SIP Teacher

contribution leadership implementation influence

Parent InvoivementDistribution of School Indicators: Elementary Schools

Highestrated

schools

Systemwideaverage

Lowestrated

schools

S M I S M

Parent involvementwith school

Outreachto parents

S Small schools (350 and under) M Medium-sized schools (351 to 1001 1 Large schools (over 1001


Professipnal CommunityDistribution of School Indicators: Elementary Schools

Highestrated

schools

Systemwideaverage

Lowestrated

schools

S M S M L

Reflective Deprivatizationdialogue

S M L

Peer

collaboration

S M L 5 M L

Shared Focus onnorms student learning

Professional OrientationDistribution of School Indicators: Elementary Schools

Highestrated

schools

Systemwideaverage

Lowestrated

schools

1.

S M S M I S M

Orientation Collective Commitmentto innovation responsibility to school

ports can be found within eachof the four racial/ethnic compo-sition groups. The box plots,which illustrate the variabilityamong schools within these vari-ous racial/ethnic compositiongroups, clearly document this (seepages 56 and 57).

The highest-rated elementaryschools serve a slightly moreadvantaged population. Thesedifferences, however, are notlarge. For example, 74 percent ofthe students in the top 30 schoolson the composite indicator ofcooperative adult effort are fromlow income families. Among thebottom 30 schools, 79 percent arefrom low income families. Simi-

S Small schools (350 and under) M Medium-sized schools (351 to 1091 I. Large schools (over 1001 lar small differences emerge tor

56

School LeadershipDistribution of School Indicators: Elementary School

Highestrated

schools

Systemwideaverage

.10

Lowestrated

schools

AA MINTY HISP INT

LSC

contribution

AA MINTY HISP INT

Principalleadership

AA MINTY HISP INT

SIP

implementation

AA MINTY HISP INT

Teacherinfluence

most of the other soeioecononuccharacteristics of students andschool communities.

Elementary schools with stablestudent populations also tend toreceive somewhat more positivereports. Although the averageeffects here are also not largeand are, in fact, comparable to thefigures for percent low income,these relations are significant forselected measures, including par-ent involvement, peer collabora-tion, focus on student learning,orientation towatil innovation,and school Commitment. All 01

these desirable characteristics areless likely in Sc.100.I 5; servinghighly mobile populations.'"

Parent InvolvementDistribution of School Indicators: Elementary Schools

Highestrated

schools

Systemwideaverage

Lowestrated

schools

AA MINIY HISP INT

Parent involvementwith school

AA Mii,iTY ITISP 041

Outreachto parents

AA Over 85% African-American MINTI 70% or more mixed-minority groupsHISP Over 85% Hispann, INT Over 30% White

G


Professional CommunityDistribution of School Indicators: Elementary Schools

Highestrated

schools

Systemwideaverage

Lowestrated

schools

AA MINTY HISP INT AA MINTY HISP INT

Reflective Deprivatizationdialogue

AA MINTY HISP INT

Peer

collaboration

AA MINTY HISP INT AA MINTY HISP INT

Shared Focus onnorms student learning

Professional OrientationDistribution of School Indicators: Elementary Schools

Highestrated

schools

Systemwideaverage

Lowestrated

schools

AA MINTY HISP INT AA MINIS HIST INT

Orientation Collectiveto innovation responsibility

AA MINTY HISP INT

Commitmentto school

AA Over 85% African.American MINTY 70% or more mixedminority groupsHISP Over 85% Hispanic INT Over 30% White

ii

The collective effect of these lastthree factors introduces somegeographic differentiation inhow reform is progressing. Thisis the first evidence that hasemerged to date of such cluster-ing effects. We have plotted theapproximate geographic locationsof the top 30 and bottom 30schools on the composite indica-tor of cooperative adult efforttoward school improvement. Thehighest-rated schools are broadlydistributed around this city. I n thissense, positive experienc!s withreform are quite equitabl.. distrib-

uted. The clumping of low-ratedschools on the West side, Southcentral, and Northeast sides fol-lows the basic racial composition

p.utern mentioned in the first

58

point. Even so, it is importantto note that there are numerousoccasions where a low-ratedschool sits almost next door toa high-rated school. In theseinstances, such pairs of schoolsappear indistinguishable, in termsof basic school and communitysocioeconomic characteristics, aswell as pre-reform achievementlevels. Yet, teachers inside themreport that reform is proceedingin very different ways.

In searching for othcr possibleexplanations of what distinguisheshigh-rated elementary schools

from low-rated elementaryschools, we returned to someobservations notcd earlier in thisreport. In commenting on theprogress of their improvement ef-

forts, teachers gave relatively lowmarks to the basic social relation-ships among studcnts, teachers,and parents that support studentlearning. This is troublesome since

both effective local school gover-nance and sustained attention toschool improvement would seemto demand a broad base of respectand trust among local participants.Might differences among schools

Lowest- and Highest-rated Schools onCooperative Adult Effort towards School Improvement

Lowest schools

Highest schools

in the quality of these basic socialrelationships be a key to their suc-

cess or problems?

Racial and Ethnic Tensionsamong School StaffIt was suggested in our stake-holder consultations, during thedevelopment of the teacher andstuient surveys, that racial andethnic tensions among thc staffmight bc a significant barrier toschool reform." Based on this ad-vice, we asked teachers whether"Racial and ethnic differencesamong staff members create ten-sions in this school."

In the vast majority of elemen-tary schools, only a small segmentof teachers indicate that they agreeor strongly agree with this state-ment. In over 60 percent ofChicago's schools, less than aquarter of the teachers endorsedthis statement. In about tO percent

of the schools, however, morethan half of the teachers claim thisis true. Thus, although the preva-lence of tensions is not widespreadacross the system, it is pervasivein some schools.

The reports about perceivedracial and ethnic tensions dependsignificantly on both the race/ethnicity of the teacher and theracial/ethnic mix of the schoolfaculty. Teachers in the minorityin a particular school are morelikely to report racial and ethnictensions than teachers who aremembers of the majority groupwithin that school. This pattern

tends to occur regardless of who

actually forms the majority groupin the school. For example, inschools with primarily African-American faculty, Hispanic teach-

ers are much more likely to report

racial/ethnic tensions than theirAfrican-American counterparts(63 percent versus 15 percent).


Similarly in schools with prima-rily white faculty, only 16 percentof the white teachers report diffi-culties, but 34 percent of African-

American teachers do.

Again, the good news is thatracial/ethnic tensions among thefaculty are not widespread across

the system. The bad ncws, how-

Prevalence of Racial and Ethnic Tensionsamong Faculty in Elementary Schools

Proportion of Faculty Who ReportRacial/Ethnic Tensions among Staff

No teachers report tensions

Up to one-quarter report tensions

One-quarter to one-half report tensions

Half to three-quarters report tensions

Over three-quarters report tensions

Percentof Schools

21

41

27

9

2

Reported Racial and Ethnic Tension among Staffby Race and Race/Ethnic Mix of the Faculty Elementary Schools

ever, is that when tensions dooccur in a school, serious prob-lems accompany them. In suchplaces, teachers offer much poorer

effectiveness ratings for localschool governance, SIP imple-mentation, parent involvement,and the level of professional com-

munity and orientation.These results suggest that the

presence of racial/ethnic tensions

within a faculty undermines pro-

ductive work relationships in theschool and with the communityand creates a barrier to schoolimprovement. Our analyses dem-onstrate that teachers' reportsabout these problems arc a pow-

erful predictor of the progress ofreform in a school community.They differentiate the overall rat-ings of school performance more

substantially than the combinedinfluence of all of the other school

and student background charac-teristics discussed above.' In the

80

70 63%

60

50

40 34%

30 28%

20 15%

10

0

24%

42% 40%

MI African-American III Hispanic II Others White

34%27% 28%

18% 16%

46%

33%28% 27%

Primarily African-American faculty (over65% African-American)

Primarily African-Americanand white faculty (75% ormore African-American

and white)

Primarily white faculty(over 65% white)

Racial Composition of the Faculty

Racially mixed faculty(less than 75% African-

American and white)

63

60

top 30 schools on the compositeindicator of cooperative adulteffort toward school improve-ment, less than 5 percent of theteachers perceive racial/ethnictensions. In contrast, seven timesas many teachers (35 percent)report them in the bottom 30schools.

Because of the significance ofthis factor for predicting thcprogress of improvement effortsin a school community, we tooka closer look at the kinds ofschools where such tensions arcmore prevalent. In general, theseproblems are more likely to occurin larger schools and in schoolswith racially/ethnically diversefaculties. In big schools, it is muchharder to maintain good commu-nication and informal personalrelations.' The absence of theseconditions tends to breed socialmisunderstandings and amplifiestheir effects. Similarly, an ethni-cally diverse faculty offers mul-tiple potential points for conflictsto emerge. Since no one groupconstitutes a clear majority, all ofthe groups in these contexts reportfeeling a bit like the minoritymembers.

Also not surprising, teachersspend less time and are less in-volved in improvement activitiesin schools with high levels ofracial and ethnic conflict." Basi-cally, teachers try to avoid theconflict by not engaging theircolleagues. While this individualbehavior is perfectly reasonableunder the circumstances, it cleark

does not bode well for sustaininga broad-based improvementeffort. It seems very unlikelythat signific.ant reform can occurin such places if these basic prob-lems in social relations remainunaddressed.

The Importance of Social TrustThe problem of racial/ethnictensions in some schools is symp-tomatic of a larger issue affectingmany urban schoolsan absenceof social trust. A long history ofautocratic control (and in manycases outright abuse of authority)has made many teachers fearfuland distrustful of social involve-

rnent. Similarly, parents andcommunity members have in thepast had little agency with regardto school affairs. They were oftenalienated from the local schoolprofessionals On whose goodefforts and intentions they hadto rely for their children's learn-ing. In the most basic terms,schools were uncoupled from theparents and communities thatthey were intended to serve, lead-ing to serious social misunder-standing and sometimes outrightconflict. With this weak socialfoundation, it is argued that sig-nificant improvements in studentlearning are unlikely to occur.4'

Selected Questions about the Qualityof Relations among Teachers Elementary Schools

Teachers respect other teachers who

take the lead in school improvement

Teachers in this school

trust each other

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Strongly agree IIII Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Selected Questions about the Quality of Relationsbetween Teachers and Parents Elementary Schools

Teachers feel good aboutparents' support for their work

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Nearly all Most About half Pi Some None

Teachers respectstudents parents

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

To a great extent Some !Little Not at all

64

We included in the teacher sur-vey 13 different items that focusedon various aspects of the basic so-cial relations among local schoolprofessionals and parents. We en-quired about the degree to whichqualities, such as respect and trust,characterized these interactions.

As noted earlier in thc sectionon professional community, over90 percent agree or strongly agreethat most of their colleagues arecordial. This indicates that thereis a modicum of civility amongteachers in almost all schools.When we turn to questions aboutrespect and trust, however, thereports become more guarded.For example, 20 percent of theteachers do not feel that teacherswho take the lead in school im-provement activities arc respected.About 40 percent of the teachersdisagree or strongly disagree withthe statement that "Teachers inthis school trust each other."

In terms of the teacher-parentrelations, teachers offer quitepositive views about thcir ownorientation. Over 80 percent, forexample, indicate considerablerespect for students' parents.However, teachers do not perceiveparental support in return. In lessthan half of the surveys do teach-ers report that most of their col-leagues feel good about parents'support for their work."

Obviously there is more to thisstory which, unfortunately, wecannot detail because we do nothave information about how par-ents perceive teachers' efforts.


Even so, the existing data clearlyindicate .considerable uneaseamong teachers regarding theirrelationships with parents.

Spurred on by the specificfindings about racial and ethnictensions, we undertook a set ofanalyses to examine whether thequality of the basic relationshipsin a school constitute a more gen-eral condition necessary for im-provement. Following the sameprocedures used throughout thisreport, we aggregated teachers'responses about the relationsamong teachers and betweenteachers and parents to create twomeasures for each school (one forrelations among teachers and asecond for teacher-parent rela-tions). A detailed research reporton this topic is in preparation andwill be released later this fall.'The basic results are clear, how-ever. Social trust is a highly sig-nificant factor. In fact, it maywell bc that social trust is the keyfactor associated with improvingschools.

Teachers in the top 30 schoolson the composite index generallysense a great deal of respect fromother teachers, indicating thatthey respect other teachers whotake the lead in school improve-ment efforts and feel comfortableexpressing their worries and con-cerns with colleagues. In contrast,in the bottom 30 schools, teach-ers explicitly state that they do nottrust each other. They believe thatonly about half of the teachers inthe school really care about each

63

other, vnd they perceive limitedrespect from their colleagues.

Similarly, in tcrms of parent-teacher trust, the typical teacherin the top 30 schools reports agreat deal of respect from theirstudents' parents, indicates thatmost teachers in the school reallycare about the local community,and most teachers feel good aboutparent support. In the bottom 30schools, the responses are muchless enthusiastic. Teachers per-ceive much less respect from par-ents and report that only abouthalf of their colleagues really careabout the local community andfeel supported by parents.

The pattern of results foundhere lends credence to the argu-ment that racial tensions amongteachers are one particular mani-festation of a more endemicschool problema lack of trustamong the key local participantscharged with school' improve-mentfaculty and parents. It isnot surprising in a context likeChicago that social cleavagesmanifest themselves along raciallines. Our results, however, sug-gest that they also occur for manyother reasons.

The Stability of School ChangeReform in Chicago calls forschools to become more effectivelearning environments that areresponsive to their local commu-nities.4' The original legislationdid not envision that this couldbe accomplished just by addingnew programs and other marginal

62

improvements. Rather, funda-mental organizational change wasrequired. Such school changetakes time to occt.. and requiresa sustained, stable broad baseof local involvement. In itsabsence, positive first steps canquickly dissipate."

For this reason, we also exam-ined the stability of school im-provement reports, comparingcurrent results to those in our1993 state of school reform report.

These two studies have commondata from 155 elementar schoolswith pre-reform achievement lev-els below national norms. For thissubset of schools, we had infor-mation on the level of systemicchange in each school in 1991-92based on a composite measure thatincluded items about supportiveprincipal leadership, school-corn-mu nity relations, professionalcommunity formation, strategiceducational planning, and teach-

ers' commitment to change. (Thisindex of systemic restructuringwas based on data from both the1991 teacher and 1992 principalsurveys.) We compared this to thecurrent reports on cooperativeadult efforts toward schoolimprovement.

In general, there is consider-able consistency between theseearlier school reports and our cur-rent information. Schools withpositive reports in 1991-92 gen-erally remained positive in 1994.4'

This is encouraging because therehas been substantial turnoveramong principals and teachers inthe interim, resulting from twoyears of a systemwide early retire-ment initiative.49 Such personnelinstability could easily underminean emerging change process.

We discern four distinct pat-terns in these data. The first groupis characterized by sustainedimprovement. These schools had

Stability of School Improvement Reports 1992 to 1994

VERY

POSITIVE

VERY

NEGATIVE

Emergingchange

.

Sustainedimprovement

.

:. ' ..

.. : ,0.. .,

o ...

.8. .

Untouchedby reform

Failingback

VERY NEGATIVE

Systemic Restructuring 1991-92

positive reports in 1992 and con-tinue to be positive now. We ob-serve emerging change in a secondgroup of schools. These schoolsoffer much more positive reportsnow than three years ago. Thethird group of schools are fallingback. Thesc schools offered quitepositive reports about reformthree years ago, but this is nolonger the case. Thc final groupwe characterize as untouched byreform. Negative reports arc of-fered by these schools on bothoccasions. To date, these schoolshave been unable to take advan-tage of the improvement oppor-tunities provided by reform.

Neighborhood characteristicsand student background do notexplain much of the differencesamong th;:se four groups. Schoolscategorized as either falling backor untouched by reform are a bitmore likely to be located incommunities with a greater con-centration of poverty and a lowerpercentage of homeowner resi-dences. However, the untouchedschools are also located in neigh-borhoods with somewhat higherlevels of household education andemployment. There is no differ-ence among the four groups ineither the percent of low-incomestudents enrolled or the pre-reform achievement levels. In fact,

the groups are quite similar inthese two regards.

The stability of the studentpopul.uion does vary across thefour groups. Mobility is some-what lower in the schools with

sustained improvement, 31 per-cent, as contrasted with theuntouched schools that have amobility rate of 37 percent. Thispattern is consistent with thefindings mentioned earlier in thereport. It appcars harder to main-tain a broad-based change effortwhen the tics between staff andthe parents and studcnts areunstable.

Similarly, there are differencesin the incidence of principal turn-over. The untouched schools arclikely to have had multiple tran-sitions (i.e., more than two prin-cipals) since reform. In contrast,the yustained improvementschools have had more stableleadership. For example, there

44^.'


has been a 20 percent turnoveramong principals in the sustainedimprovement schools over the lasttwo years. In the untouchedschools, however, the turnoverrate has been 42 percent. In short,schools that arc moving forwardappear to have effective leadershipand are holding on to it.

The biggest differences amongthc four groups arc in terms of thequality of the basic social relationsin the school and with the c( m-munitv. The levels of trust arehighest in sustained improvementschools, followed bv the emerg-ing change schools. The trustreports arc much lower in schoolsthat arc falling back, and evenlower in the schools untouched by

T

6 7

reform. Accompanying this aresignificant differences among theschool groups in the prevalence ofracial and ethnic tension amongthc faculty. Such reports are farfewer in emerging change schoolsand in those with sustainedimprovement.

These results on the stability ofschool improvement efforts areconsistent with the findingsrcported earlier in this section.The social fabric woven amongmembers of a school communityis foundational for school im-provement. Sustaining organiza-tional change is highly unlikely inschools marred by distrust anddisrespect, both within the staffand between the staff and parents.

111

I t

64

Conclusion

We have sought in this

report to provide abetter understanding

of how teachers comprehend theconditions in their schools andthe current state of reform. Effortsto advance school improvement,whether at the district or indi-vidual school level, must takethese perceptions into account.Quite simply, as we argued in our1991 report, Charting Reform:The Teachers' Turn,': significantprogress is unlikely to occur un-less teachers continue to engagethe reform.

There is widespread consensusacross thc city that we must seesubstantial improvements in stu-dent learning. Whatever otherpositive outcomes may accrue,Chicago school reform willultimately be judged a failure ifit does not achieve this goal. Wediscern no disagreement aboutthis aim, but there is considerableuncertainty about how best toattain it. It would be much sim-pler if there were just one prob-lem with Chicago's schools andOne Obvious solution. In fact, theissues are numerous and the spe-cific problems needing redresss ary across school communitieswithin the env.

In general terms, it is clearthat a broad set of developmentsmust occur if Chicago is to havea chance of reaching its ultimategoal. The basic climate of schoolsmust become more orientedtoward student learning. Adults--teachers, parents, and communitymembersmust work togethermore cooperatively to engagestudents in this learning. Andthe capacities of teachers, theirknowledge of the subjects theyteach, and their teaching practices,must be strengthened. Past re-search has shown that highly col-laborative working relationshipsamong teachers and other staff andcoordinated efforts betweenschool staff and parents lead toworthy learning experiences forstudents and improved studentperformance.'' It is for these rea-sons that this report has examinedthe prevalence of these practices in

Chicago elementary and highschools.

Current Status of ReformTeachers offer a highly variedpicture of the progress of reformacross the (Thicago Public Schools.Many elementary schools appearto be moving forward in verypositive ways. The adults in these

schools are sustaining cooperativeefforts focused on advancingstudent learning. In the best ofthese sites, effective local schoolgovernance couples with goodparental involvement and a strongprofessional orientation amongthc faculty.

Not ail elementary schools,however, share these characteris-tics. Some are marred by distrustamong the faculty and betweenteachers and parents; these schoolsare struggling. They have neithera viable local school governancenor an effective school improve-ment process. The reports fromteachers presented here reinforcethe conclusions offered in our1993 report, A Vic: from the El-ementary Schools." Some schoolcommunities have been unable totake advantage of the opportuni-ties provided by reform.

Consequently. Chicago needsan accountability system that iscapable of identifying the schoolcommunities that have been"untouched by reform" and anorganizational capacity to junlpstart the reform process in theseplaces. Without such externalintervention, it It; very unhkekthat these schools will Inipro\ e ifleft to their own des ices.

This pattern of highly variedresults among the elementaryschools is not unexpected. TheChicago School Reform Act of1988 provided both resources andauthority to local school commu-nities to initiate improvementefforts. The productive use ofthese resources and authority,however, depended primarily onlocal action. Little external sup-port and assistance was providedby the school system during thefirst five years of rcform. In fact,in the minds of many critics, thecentral office was hostile toreform. Teacher survey reportsprovide some support for thisview. Of the various agents exter-nal to thc school who might offerassistance with school improve-ment, outside projects and theCTU receive much more positiveratings than the subdistricts, thedistrict, or the state.

This points to importantunfinished business in Chicago'sreform. A major function of a

central office in a decentralizedschool system is to support school

development. Some schools aremoving forward nicely on theirown. These schools would liketo see more administrativeautonomy to expedite their localimprovement efforts. Otherschools, as noted above, aredeeply troubled. They need exter-nal intervention to initiate areform process and to developlocal leadership to carry this for-ward. Another large group of


schools remains in the middle."Local actors arc committed toimprovement, and considerableeffort is being expended. None-theless, these schools are strug-gling and need sustained externalsupport.

Five years into reform, thebasic structure and orientation ofthe central office has yet to change

to take into account the highlyvaried developments occurringwithin CPS elementary schools."A major restructuring of thecentral office is needed to makereform work not just in someschools but more broadly acrossthe system.

As we turn attention towardthe high schools, teacher reportsare more homogenous and gener-ally less optimistic than thoseof their elementary school col-leagues. Five years into reform,teachers in most Chicago highschools -cport a set of schoolcondit io. ich are not condu-cive to major improvements instudent learning.

This overall pattern of weakand often outright negativereports from high school teachershas profound implications. Ratherthan directing attention towardone or two major issuesif onlythe LSC were more effective, or if

the schools had better leadership,or parental involvement weregreater, or teachers were morecommittedthese teacher reportssignal an overall institutionalfailure. As we directly observed at

69

Hoffmann High, hardly anyoneassociated with the school feelsparticularly good about its opera-tions. Even when people workhard and have some tangibleresources to work with, positiveconsequences do not necessarilyfollow. These field-based observa-tions at Hoffmann arc highly con-sistent with what teachers aretell:ng us more generally throughthese surveys. Chicago's highschools arc not productive workenvironments for teachers and, asthe next report will document,they are not productive environ-ments for students either.

On balance, this pattern ofresults, although perhaps betterdocumented here, is not peculiarto Chicago. Observations aboutthe overall failure of urban highschools led, for example, to a char-ter high school movement inPhiladelphia several years ago andmore recently to the reconstitu-tion of several New York Cityhigh schools into a larger numberof smaller new schools." In men-tioning these two cases, our intentis not to advocate for a particularreform strategy. Rather, we onlywish to point out that when otherdistricts have confronted highschool failure on the same massivescale as we are witnessing in Chi-cago, they have turned towardwholesale change in these institu-tions. Without efforts of thisscope, it is unclear whether thebenefits of Chicago's reform thatwe are observing in a large num-

66

ber of elementary schools willever broadly materialize amonghigh schools.

Improving theOperation of SchoolsThere arc two well establishedways to think about schoolsasformal organizations, like a cor-poration or business, and as a fam-

ily or small community.'" Eachperspective tells us somethingimportant about schools. In fact,

good schools have a strong blend-

ing of the best of both.Looking at schools as a formal

organization directs our analysis

to the quality of instructionalmaterials available and the capac-

ity of staff to use these produc-tively to advance student learning.

It also encourages us to askwhether the overall organizationof the school as a workplace foradults promotes the most effective

use of these resources to advance

student learning.Viewed through this lens,

teacher reports about recentimprovements in their teachingeffectiveness and the quality ofinstructional mate .als are encour-

aging. These are precisely thekinds of developments that areneeded to advance student learn-

ing. At the same time, the gapbetween teachers' views of theirimproving ef feeds eness andtheir lack of impact on studentachievement is of great concern

and merits more scrutiny. What-ever teachers ma v be observing

and counting as improvements,apparently they do not regularlytranslate into enhanced student

learning.It is for this reason that this

report has also given considerable

attention to the evolution of pro-fessional community in schoolsand how this expands the capabili-

ties of teachers and orients themto takc greater responsibility forstudent learning. Our analysis has

focused on whether schools arechanging in ways that arc likely to

produce greater teacher produc-tivity. Our next report picks upthis concern and probes moredeeply into the nature of class-room practices used by teachers

and how students are engaging this

instruction. Taken together, these

factorsthe nature of classroominstruction, the appropriateness of

materials, and the organization of

professional activity to promotemore effective teachingare theimmediate and most direct instru-

ments of student learning. Clearly,

continued and much strongerefforts on improving the techni-cal core of schooling, that is, howteachers interact with studentsaround subject matter, will beneeded it higher and more sophis

ticated levels of student learning

are to occur.

When we refocus and thinkabout schools as small communi-

ties, which educate in a myriad of

ways through their everyday in-teractions, we begin to understand

why the quality of social relations

is so central to the overall vitality

of the school. Quite simply, posi-tive relations within the facultyand with parents and studentsare foundational to the academic

mission of the school. Theyundergird both the level of teacher

commitment to school and stu-dent engagement in learning. It is

for these reasons why teachers'reports about the negative charac-

ter of these relationships in mosthigh schools and some elementary

schools is so troubling. In acontext where teachers distrustone another and do not feel sup-ported by parents, the cooperative

efforts needed to advance student

achievement are unlikely toemerge and are even less likely to .

he sustained.

For several decades, federaland state policy, along with judi-cial mandates, have deliberatelysought to uncouple schools fromtheir communities. While theseinitiatives were often well in-tended (such as to redress a his-

tory of segregation), they had theperverse effect of distancing local

school professionals from the par-

ems and communities they weresupposed to serve. A key strength

in Chicago's conception of reform

is its explicit recognition of thisproblem and its adoption of a set

of structures and policies thatdirectly attempts to promote areintegration of schools into their

cornm unities. Clearly, this hashappened successfully in someplaces, but not others. If reform

is to continue to make headway,more attention is needed here,too. This entails more than theredistribution of authority andresources to schools. It willrequire moving beyond a mindsetof blaming one another to devel-oping intensive partnershipsbetween schools, parents, com-munity organizations, and outsideprofessional groups to providethe best education possible tochildren and youth.

Valuing Principal LeadershipThe Chicago School Reform Actof 1988 dramatically changed therole of principals in Chicago.While removing their tenure, italso substantially increased theresources and authority availableto them. It encouraged principalsto be more accountable to localconstituents and deliberatelyweakened central control overthem. By changing the system ofsanctions and incentives thatinfluenced their work, reformbanked on a transformed prin-cipalship as a significant site ofleadership for change.

Thus, it is noteworthy thatmost teachers hold their principalsin high regard and typically seethem as the most important localactors advancing school improve-ment (even more than facultycolleagues). "Good principals"function, in part, as communalleaders. By being inclusive andfacilitativ e, they encourage par-ticipation of staff, parentsthd


the local community in schoolimprovement. They also functionas effective managers, making sure

that there is follow-through onnew initiatives, that there is aconcern for quality in everythingthe school does, and that there iscoherence to its overall improve-ment efforts. It is a complex anddemanding role, and those who doit well deserve acknowledgmentand reward.57 The danger here isthat, because principals are notlarge in number nor politicallypowerful (as teachers arc), theirissues and concerns will go unat-tended. This would be veryunwise for a reform that reliesheavily on principal leadership tocatalyze change and sustainimprovement efforts. Principalsraised a number of concerns in our

1992 study of their changingrole; most of these still remainunaddressed."

Advantages of Smaller SchoolsThe findings presented in thisreport complement results fromearlier Consortium studies.Reform is progressing better insmall schools for several reasons.Small schools are easier to man-age. They tend to have fewerprograms, and staff are morelikely to engage in common en-deavors. As a result, coordinatingwork imposes fewer demands,and program quality is easier tomonitor. Similarly, communica-tion flows readily through directpersonal relations among mem-

7 '

bers of the school community. Inlarge organizations, this person-alism tends to b..eak down which,in turn, increases the likelihood ofmiscommunication and distrust, acondition which characterizesmany Chicago schools.

The findings presented in thcreport on school sizc complementand extend a now large body ofresearch evidence that smallerschools can be more productivework places for both adults andstudents." In these more intimateenvironments, teachers are morelikely to report greater satisfactionwith their work, higher levels ofmorale, and greater commitment.Problems of student misconduct,class cutting, absenteeism, anddropping out are all less prevalent.In general, smaller schools tend topromote more personal environ-ments and a greater commonalityof students' academic and socialexperiences. All of these factorshelp to engage students in learn-ing, keep them in schools, andpromote academic achievement.

To be sure, small size is nota panacea. One can find smallschools that are just as bad as anvlarge school. Smaller size, how-ever, is an important facilitativefactor when adults are predis-posed to advance improvementefforts. From a system perspec-tive, encouraging the developmentof small schools is one importantelement in a larger array of strate-gics that would help create con-ditions that foster improvement.

68

CommentaryCharting Reform: Chicago Teachers Take Stock

Ruben CarriedoAssistant Superintendent for Planning, Assessment and Accountability, San Diego Schools

This report verifies once again that school reform is alive and well in Chicago and making a difference for some schools' efforts to improve. The latest in a series of studies undertaken by the Consortium on Chicago School Research, it focuses on the voice of teachers nearly nine thousand

elementary and high school teachers in the nation's second largest school district. Their response to acomprehensive survey assessing attitudes about school leadership, parent involvement, professional com-munity and orientation, and program coherence provides a rich description of the presence or absence ofthese central components of school improvement in their schools.

When asked to assess the changes that have occurred since the enactment of the Chicago School ReformAct, overall, teachers indicate a positive response. The analysis is broken out by elementary, high school,and total group, allowing the reader to see dramatic differences that exist between the two levels of schools.Of particular interest are two small but poignant case studies of an elementary and high school. The formeris used as ap example where a number of positive factors provide strong evidence that school improvementis occur g. The latter case is used to illustrate a school where reform efforts are still struggling.

The study provides a comprehensive set of data and their related analyses. The findings can be of greatvalue to other states, districts, and schools committed to improving student learning. These are the signifi-cant themes that emerge.

Teachers are most positive about changes in their teaching effectiveness, professional opportuni-ties, commitment to school, and collegialityareas over which they appear to have more direct control.They are less positive about relations among teachers, studcnts, parents, and support for student learning.

School reform in Chicago has produced a new style of leadership, one in which the Local SchoolCouncil (LSC), the principal, and teachers share power and authority. It is worth noting the continuedimportance of the principal. The principal is described as "the single most important actor in promotingreform at the building level."

Although the data from students and tr:achers recognize the importance of parent involvement inchildren's education, its effective implementation in schools is yet to be realized in Chicago.

Elementary schools teachers report a more positive response to the presence of professional com-munity in their work places and lives than their high school counterparts. The analysis highlights thestriking finding that the "teacher ratings from an average high school (on professional community) arecomparable to those from the weakest elementary school."

Teachers are more likely to report "program coherence" when: a) teachers have been involved in theschool improvement planning process; b) teachers espouse norms focused on student learning; c) princi-pals closely monitor program quality; and d) schools are small.

72


The study raises several important questions for reform advocates in Chicago and other education lead-ers across the country. First is there sufficient evidence after five years that systemic change can improveschools in a large, urban district? Second, how should we understand the large group of teachers whoreport themselves in the middle, somewhere between espousing and not espousing reform? And third, isthe job doable, given the scope of what needs to be done?

The response to these three questions is simple: "yes," it's a good start," and " yes," First, the studydocuments where reform efforts are working and making a positive difference in the lives of school chil-dren. These efforts should be acknowledged, studied, and facilitated in other classrooms, schools, districts,and states. Second, it may be less important to focus on the middle group of teachers than upon theircolleagues who are actively engaged in reform. It seems far more compelling to emphasize the group ofteachers who report "very positive-to-positive" attitndes about change efforts to improve achools. Thesearc the leaders who emerge in any group: the innovator, the risk taker, the change agent. The more signifi-cant question is whether or not they arc sufficient in number to sustain productive change. These datafrom Chicago tcachcrs suggest they are. Finally, the data do make more explicit the scope of work thatmust be accomplished to improve student achievement. The task is daunting but doable if teachers andschool communities arc given the appropriate support, including time.

Charles PayneProfessor of African American Studies, Northwestern University

Given the complexity of the topics, this is a highly readable account of school reform efforts inChicago. Detailing the differences between elementary and high school teachers' responses isvery useful, and thc portraits of Imani and Hoffman are realistic illustrations of such differences.

One note of caution concerns the response rate. Although researchers report a teacher response rate of 54percent and 63 percent respectively for elementary and high school teachers, we need to be concernedabout the variation in response rates across schools and the fact that some schools had response rates muchlower than the overall average. For some schools, it is not clear that we can readily generalize these resultsto the faculty as a whole.

Based on the survey alone, it is difficult to assess the pattern where teachers see positive changes inthemselves and negat;ve ones in their students. This could be further explored by examining test scores ofschools where teachers reported the greatest amount of change and professional development.

Much of what I have seen since school reform began would strongly support the report's cmtentionthat the quality of program implementation is frequently poor. It has not been my ex perience that teachersarc very good judges of whether follow-up is taking place.

The discussion of social relations is especially valuable. It provides a different perspective on the discus-sion of "best practices," which as far a know, has pretty much taken place without much real consider-ation of the social conditions of implementation. As Comerimong others, has said, simply importing anidea or classr(mm strategy I hat has worked in one place into a school with a damaged social mfrast rut:luremay be of little value, unless you take those conditions into account.

73

70

Undergirding the whole report is a certain model of educational reform, something we can call a profes-

sional community, a pedagogically progressive model. While I am committed to that model of change

myself, I do not consider the empirical support for it is as strong as some of your language implies. What

much of that research does is identify sonic practice as being associated with success and then abstract the

practice from the social context; et voila, we have a "best practice" The problem is that without a clearer

sense of the process by which the practice is put into place, the correlation between practice and outcome

can be misleading. Frir example, I am committed to peer collaboration, but given the social reality of

many schools, forcing more collaboration may generate more conflict, which schools may not have the

ability to handle.The report pays little attention to the possibility that, in certain situations, other models of change may

make more sense. There may be a place for top-down, direct instruction models. Given the quality of

social relationships in Chicago schools and the paucity of instructional leadership in many buildings, some

of the more structured models may be easier to implement. The professional community model may

require a threshold level of professional skill which may not exist in all schools. I think sonic of the best

principals in the city are effective precisely because they blend collegial and autocratic behaviors.

In future studies, it would be beneficial to learn more about instructional leadership of the principals or

vice-principals. This is a key issue in school improvement. Teachers may be doing more of the right things

but without leadership to give the;:- fsfforts focus, the impact may be minimal. Just like we get "Christmas

Tree Schools," we get "Christmas Tree Teachers." We need to know more about how teachers and their

instructional leaders actually interact.

Betty MalenProfessor of Educational Policy, Planning and Administration, University of Maryland

This latest installment in the ongoing effort to "chart" responses to Chicago school reform drawsprimarily on teacher surveys, lt extends earlier reports by foreshadowing findings from student

surveys. These extensions are commendable, but they do not overcome a major deficit in the data

base, notably the absence of information from parents/community residents. Such an omission is serious

because: (a) the reform relies heavily on the premise that governance adjustments, namely the influence of

parents and community residents, will engender school improvements; (b) the basis for depictions and

interpretations of parent-comniunitv involvement is thin; and, (c) the ability to correct or corroborateperceptions of "effects" across stakeholder groups and to interpret reciprocal relationships gets compro-

mised. This observation does not diminish the importance of reporting teacher responses. Rather, it under-

scores the importance of including othLrs' responses when a major intent of and mechanism for reform is

the activation of parents and the integration of school and community.The "teachers' assessment" provides a predictably "mixed" review of the Chicago school reform. Per-

ceptions of school improvement, school leadership (exerised by local governim, councils, professionaladvisory committees, and building principals), parent invols ement, and "professional community are

both encouraging and disconcerting. Such varied responses ale not surprising, I or there are credible bodies


of evidence that suggest: elementary schools may be more receptive to "planned change" ventures of vari-ous sorts than secondary schools; policy will penetrate practice in uneven, undependable ways; and eventhe most carefully crafted and conscientiously implemented "innovations" may not substantially enhancethe quality of life and learning in schools.

The mixed review illustrates knotty "generic" pt oblems that plague education reform initiatives andsuggest that we have tough issues to untangle. This commentary focuses on three matters that might beinformed by further analysis of extant data and future research.

Explaining the High-Impact, Low-Impact, No-Impact Pattern. One of the most perplexing ques-tions in education policy is why policy overturr.s engender potentially promising developments in selectsettings but fairly modest changes or negative effects in education systems. Insofar as the teacher surveyresponses constitute accurate and comparable indications of the actual "effects" of reform, there is consid-erable variance in reform "effects" both within and across sites. Documenting the varied reactions is animportant first step. Beyond this, it will be essential to distill the reasons for the varied responses andunderstand how webs of factors such as individual dispositions, school cultures, local leadership, institu-tional features, and contextual factors interact to mediate policy impact. Portions of the report attempt toidentify factors that may be shaping reform effects. This preliminary analysis could be bolstered by com-parative case studies that illuminate how sets of factors interact to mediate the impact of reform in schools.

Developing the Institutional Interventions. Another perplexing question is how the broader policysystem might invoke school improvement, especially when the reform strategy heralds local initiative.Efforts to "intervene" in local affairs can be seen as undermining the spirit of the reform or overturning thelocal authority for reform. Yet decades of policy implementation research make it clear that local unitsrequire supports of various sorts. This report documents the need to reassess the capacity of sites toaddress the myriad of demands confronting them and to examine the adequacy of the various resourcesprovided in tcrms of the multiple claims made upon them.

Creating Social Contracts. Perhaps the most complicated, arguably urgent questions in educationpolicy relate to how policy might create conditions that foster the development of social cultures andsocial contracts that support respectful treatment of all persons and equitable educational opportunitiesfor all students. This report suggests issues of race, ethnicity, and income, as well as issues of school size,student mobility, leadership stability, professional develor.ment, program coherence, and workplace con-ditions, warrant additional attention.

Charting what changes have occurred since a particular reform has been enacted, let alone because thatpolicy has been adopted, is exceedingly difficult, but vitally important, in any context. That challenge isespecially daunting in a system that is as complex as the Chicago Public Schools. Amidst these conditions,the Consortium's published studies have "taken the pulse" of reform, provided pertinent information tomultiple audiences, subjected interpretations to public scrutiny, and precipitated questions that are at leastas important as the mid-course assessments offered. Such efforts signal a commitment to the ideals ofinformed, public deliberation that this "friendly critic," to borrow Lee Cronbach's term-ippreci.,tes andapplauds. Hopefully these comments and the insights of others will serve to advance those efforts.

73

72

Endnotes'In order to ensure that we couldaccurately describe how teachersand students across the city viewedreform, the survey design included aprobabihty sample of 80 elementaryand 31 high schools. We focused ourinitial attention during data collectionon obtaining the participation of theseschools. Among the high schools, 30,or 96 percent, participated, with anaverage response rate of 64 pci cent forstudents and 63 percent for teachers.Among the elementary sample, 64schools, or 80 percent, participated inthe surveys. Within these schools, theaverage response rate for studentswas 83 percent and 54 percent forteachers. We undertook a series ofanalyses for possible nonresponsebias among teachers, students, andschools in terms of basic backgroundcharacteristics. We found few signifi-cant differences leading us to con-clude that the probability sample isrepresentative of teachers and stu-dents across the Chicago PublicSchools. For more cotnplete techni-cal documentation, sec the TechnicalAppendix, which is available onrequest from the Consortium.

:Th receive a report, a school had toobtain a response rate of at least 42percent among the teachers and 50percent among the students. Amongthe schools that received reports, theresponse rate for elementary schoolteachers was 58 percent and for stu-dents was 85 percent. For highschools, both the teacher and studentresponse rates were 65 percent.

'Later, when we examine differencesin average scale scores across distinctkinds of schools, we will see larger,systematic differences between el-ementary and high schools. This isdue primarily to much greater variabilit y among elementary schools,with a portion of them scoring highon many of the measures.

'The scale results used throughoutthis report a-e similar to those pre i

(rusk used I the Consortium in itsreports to iodis idual schools that par-ticipated in the survey; see Sebring et

al. (1995). For further technical detailsabout each scale, see the User'sManual for the 1994 Student andTeacher Surveys (Forthcoming).

'See Wehlage, Rutter, Smith, Lesko,and Fernandez (1989).

'On questions regarding influence,teachers selected one response fromthe following: "none," "2," "3," and"A great deal." We have imputed titleson the graphs for "2" and "3."

-Only the 76 percent of teachers whoindicated that they were somewhat orvery knowledgeable about the I,SCanswered these questions. Therema;ning 24 percent who said theywere nnt at all knowledgeableskipped this set of questions.

'See, for examp'.:, the section "ACloser Look at the Experiences ofActively Restructuring Schools" inBryk, Easton, Kerbow, Rollow, andSebring (1993).

"See, for example, the analysis of LSCdecision making in Easton, Flinspach,O'Connor, Paul, Qualls, and Ryan(1993). Local school professionalstended to dominate LSC discussionson curriculum and instruction issues.Moreover, most of the real planningon their initiatives appears to occuroutside of the I.SC in various teachercommittees or by the principal act-ing alone.

''See our earlier analysis in Bryk et al.(1993). For more general research onthe importance of principal leader-ship, see Purkey and Smith (1983),Louis and Miles (1990), Sergiovanni(19921, and Deal and Peterson (1994).

'The selection of these items wasbased on a growing body of researchon the characteristics of high per-forming organi/ations in an educa-tional context. See, tor example,Fullan (1991), I .ouis and Miles ( I

and Sergiovanni (1994). In terms ofmore general orkanizational research,see Senge (19901 and 1 awler 1992).

'See, tor example, the central role otteachers in improving urban highschools, Nleier (1995) . More gener-

ally, see Fine (1994), Guskey andI luberman (1995), Sizer (1992)mdWesley (1991).

Sce, for example, Lee. Bryk, andSmith (1993a).

'4In phrasing questions about inter-actions with parents, we were carefulto mention "parents and other adultsliving with you."

"These questions were asked ofelementary school teachers only. Wedid not ask these questions of highschool teachers because some of thepractices do not apply to high schoolsand because the high school teacherquestionnaire was already quite long(due to extra questions about class-room teaching and instruction in highschool subjects). Although we did notask these questions of high schoolteachers, the reader should not inferthat we view parental participation inhigh schools as unimportant. In fact,our view is just the opposite.

'There is a growing body of researchon effective parent involvement prac-tices. Epstein (1995) provides an cx-cellent synthesis of these develop-ments.

' -Sec Goodlad (1984) and Boyer(1983). These studies document highschool teachers' frustration with thelack of parental interest and supportand their sense of futility about in-fluencing this.

'See, for example, PL I03-227, Goals2000: Educate America Act (1994).Requirements of high standards forall are written into the recent reauthorization of 'tale I. They are alsoreflected in documents of variousstandards-setting groups such as theNational Council of Teachers ofNlathematics (NCINI). A descriptionof NCTN1 and other standards-set-ting groups, as well as a historical andpolitical account ot the Loncept anddevelopment of national educationalstandards in America can be found inRas th..1.1 (1995).

'Recent efforts to develop a newassessment sy stem in Kentucky helpmake concrete implications here.

The proficiency standards which theyhave established are benchmarked ata score of 100. The typical Kentuckyschool is now scoring between 30 and40. They have set a 20-year timetableto move all schools to these new pro-ficiency standards.

"This is the staff development com-ponent laid out, for example, in Smithand O'Day (1990).

The literature on developing teacherprofessionalism is growing very rap-idly. See, for example, the extensivework by Lieberman and Darling-I lammond (1989). Much researchnow is also focusing on how to orga-nize schools better to promote higherlevels of professional practice. See, forexample, McLaughlin (1995), Littleaud McLaughlin (1993)md Rowan(1990). The specific conception ofprofessional community used in thisanalysis has been developed by thefederally funded Center on Organi-zation and Restructuring of Schoolsat the University of Wisconsin-Madi-son. For further details see Kruse,Louis, and Bryk (1994).

"See Cohen (1989), Guthrie (1990),Cuban (1990), Sarason (1990)mdPerkins (1992).

''The research on teacher profession-alism is relatively new. Empiricalstudies supporting these contentionsare just now beginning to appear. See,1 or example, Smylie, Lazarus, andBrownlee-Conyers (1995), Lee andSmith (1995), Marks and I.Ouis(1995).

"See Senge (1990) for a basic discus-sion of the need for high performingorganizational workplaces. In thecontext of school restructuring, seeI.ouis (1992).

'All (4 the measures presented in thelast three sectii ins has e statisticallysignificant torrelations with theschool indicator (i.e., the mean of theteacher repons) for pr(sgrarn Coher-ence. This suggests that an "organizational ss ndi ome" ma:s be operatise.That is, effective local school gm et-mince, parental invols einem, pt.( des-

The Consortium on Clficago School Research 73

sional communitymd program co-herence all tend to occur together. Atleast, that is how teachers in Chicagoperceive their schools. The four ma-jor findings presented in this sectionarc the stable findings from a stepwiseregression analysis. Specifically, thestatistically significant predictors in aschool-level regression analysis onprogram coherence were: SIP imple-mentation, focus on student learning,collective responsibility, school size,and principal's instructional manage-ment.

The measure of the principal'sinstructional management is a com-plement to the principal leadershipmeasure, which captures facilitatise,inclusive leadership and is describedin Section II. Instructional manage-ment focuses on the principal's moni-toring of instructional quality andmaking decisions consistent withthis. The variable employed in theanalysis is a school level average ofteachers' responses to two items thattap this idea.

The findings from these statisticalanalyses are consistent with the fieldobservations from the "Experiencesof Actively Restructuring Schools"(EARS) in Bryk et al. (1993). Wefound that the principals in EARSschools were inclusive and facilitativeleaders, but they were also stewardsol an emerging school vision. Notevery idea or person could be Sup-ported, if the commitments under-girding the school visions were to beadvanced.

'The negative effects of large schoolsi/e on student and teacher engage-ment ha\ e been well documented.See I.ee et 11. (1993b) lor a compre-hensis e rex iew of this research.

Once SIP implementation, focus onstudent learning, collective responsi-bility, school size, and principal'sinstructional management wereincluded in the model, none 01 I Ile

remaining measures had statisticallssignificant relations \x i t h pi ogramcoherence. This means that the elle( tsol the other school fit. I ors it C 1101st

77

likely indirect. For example, theyfoster higher levels of professionalcommunity or more rigorous SIPimplementation, which, in turn, con-tribute to program coherence. This isalmost certainly the case for princi-pal leadership (facilitative, inclusive)which had a high correlation (.55)with program coherence. Once thefocus on student learning and collec-tive responsibility measures wereincluded in the model, the directeffect of this factor became trivial.This suggests that a principal influ-ences coherence by encouragingmore teachers to take such mattersseriously.

This problem was docurhemed, forexample, in research on high schoolsin the 1980s. See, for example, Powell.Cohen, and Farrar (1985). It is alsoa central element in the Smith andO'Day (1990) critique of schoolgo% ernance that led them to endorse"systemic reform."

i:These basic 1 indings were describedin Bryk et al. (1993). For a more dy7tailed analysis see Chapter 5 of Bryk,Easton, Kerbow, Rollow, and Sebring(Forthcoming).

Because the results reported in theearlier sections indicate considerablehomogeneity among die high schoolson the sarious indicators reportedhere, Nse limited our analysis toelementary schools. Any investiga-tion of successful reform in highschools would be more a matter ofindividual case studies than a statisti-cal analysis.

'Specificall our omnibus measureincludes: I.SC contribution, principalleadership, teacher influence, SIPimplementation, parents ins olxmem xx ith school, teachers' outreachto parents, reflective dialogue,deprivadiation. peer collaboration,shared norms, locus on student learn-ing, iii ientation to innovation, t. ollec

lespousibila, and school Lommitment. The school means for the 14measures ss ere standardi/cd and an,,xerall mean calculated.

-..mtieseleet..........sess,..eamtaa+CreirneNmeta...,`...1.AmexaseMtuesnarrteteeetacefaxesee.w.es...,est.o...-_,e4 s. n

74

'For descriptive purposes, we oftenrefer to the differences observed in thetop and bottom 30 schools. The iden-tification of "overall pattern' wasbased on regression analyses that usedall 210 schools. To provide a moreconcrete illustration of the regressionresults, we resorted to the top/bot-tom 30 comparisons. All results re-ported here generalize to the fullsample of schools.

"Among the top 30 schools, 20 per-cent were small schools. In contrast,onl. 3 percent of the bottom 30 weresmall schools. For the entire CPS, 17percent of the schools arc classifiedas small.

"Among the top 30 Echools, 47 per-cent were predominantly African-American. This number rises to 57percent among the bottom 30 schools.Although predominantly African-A merican schools are over- rep re-seined in the bottom group, a sub-stantial proportion of these schoolsstill appear among the top 30. Formixed minority schools, 37 percentwere in the bottom group versus 30percent in thc top. Among all elemen-tary schools in Chicago, 50 percentare primarily A frican-Amerkan, 24percent are mixed minority, 18 per-cent are integrated, and 8 percent areprimarily 1 Iispanic.

'Although student mobility is amajor issue for most urban schools,this topic has received scant attentionin the research literature. For adescriptive report on trends in mo-bilit by school, see Kerbow (1995).The Consortium is also sponsoring amore detailedmalytic report on thistopic by Kerbow, which will be fot th-coming later this ear.

'We are indebted to Donn Bade forsuggesting an investigation of thismatter. I lis comments during a stake-holder meeting led us to include thisitem in the survey.

"The entire set of student hackground, school structural teatut es,and denutgraphic factors acctnint forabimt 10 pet cent of the variance in thecomposite measure of cooperatk e

adult effort. When the percent ofteachers reporting raciallethnic ten-sions in the faculty is added last to theregression model, the explained vari-nce jumps to 20 percent.

"For a review of the research litera-ture on this point see Lee et al.(1993b).

"Regression analyses indicated thatthe relationship between a compos-ite measure of teacher involvement inthe PPAC. LSC, and other commit-tees and the presence of racial andethnic tensions Was significant andnegative.

"'Comer (1980) provides a seminalanalysis on the misalignment of val-ues and expectations between poorparents and urban school profession-als. Closer to hotne, this animus to-ward local school professionals wasmanifest in the testimony offered atcommunity forums during the mobi-lization for school reform in 1988. SeeWong and Rollow (1990). For a fur-ther discussion of these issues in thecontext of Chicago reform, see Chap-ter 3 of Bryk et al. (Forthcoming).

'In a well functioning school, wewould expect that most of the teach-ers would feel good in this regard. Thesurvey question that we asked on thispoint enquired about teachers' col-leagues rather than themselves. Thus,there is some ambiguity in interpret-ing these responses. Being generousin our interpretation of how teachersresponded to the question, we mighteven include the "about half" cat-egory in judging a school to be "wellfunctioning" in this regard. Even so,a third of the teachers' responses arcstill outside this band.

''See Schneider and Brvk (1995).

-"The proportion of variance ex-plained in our analyses of the COMpositc index of cooperative adultef forts jumps to ocr 50 percent whenmeasures of teach er-teacher trustand teacher-paren trust are addedto the model. The iiiect of the racialconflict indicato also becomesinsignificant.

"See, for example, the list of objec-tives in the Chicago School ReformAct of 1988, PA 85-1418.

"See, for example, Comer's account(1980) of his school developmenteffort in New. I laven Also see Louisand Miles (1990) on m 4ormed urbanhigh schools.

4Tor a case-study account of a failedinstructional reform effort in a Chi-cago school, see Rollow and Bra(1994).

'The correlation between the 1991/92 index of systemic restructuring andthe 1994 index of cooperative adultefforts is 0.5. Since there are errors ofmeasurement associated with bothindices, the underlying latent rela-tionship is probably stronger thanthis.

'There was a turnover of 41 percentof elementary school principals be-tween May 1, 1992 and November I,1994. Also, 37 percent of elementaryteachers were new to their schoolsbetween Spring 1991 and Spring 1994.

"Easton, Bra, Driscoll, Kotsakis,Sebring, and van der Ploeg (1991).

.lBarth (1991), Epstein (1995), Fullan(1991), Lou is and Miles (1990),Perkins (1992), and Sizer (1992).

Bryk et al. (1993).

wl'he teacher survey data presentedin this report do not provide suff icientevidence to estimate the proportionof schools in e It'll category. Our bestinformation on this is still from 4ViCiV from the Elementary Schools.We found that between a third to 40percent of the elementary schoolswere engaged in systemic restructur-ing, another third to 40 percent weremoving in this direction but strug-glingmd approximately 25 percentwere left behind b ref orm.

''A little over a ear ago, the CPSbegan the T. I. M. F. Project andPathways to .4ebtez.ement. Thesetwo endeavors focus on a restructuring of central office operationsand %don)! support. V'Itile the workon these projects is still ongoing,they promise a radk al change if

carried to completion. Recent legis-lative changes in the Chicago SchoolReform Act also hold promise inthis regard.

"Reconstitution generally involvesclosing a high school for a yearbefore reopening it as a set of newschools. Under three separa:c orga-nizations, 50 new-model high schoolswill be opened over a three-yearperiod. Six small high schools openedin collaboration with the Center for

Thc Consortium on Chicago School Research 75

Collaborative Education have beenextensively documented. See Darling-lammond, Ancess, McGregor, and

Zuckerman (1995).

(1965) articulates this basicdistinction. For a review of the litera-ture on schools as formal organiza-tions and as "small societies" see Leeet al (1993b).

'-This conclusion is based both on thedata presented in report and our1993 study of the principalship in

actively restructuring schools.

"Sec Bennett, Bryk, Easton, Kerbow,Luppescu, and Sebring (1992); alsothe conclusions in Bryk et al. (1993).Other supporting evidence can befound in Oberman and Wallin (1995)(Forthcoming), a study of individu-als who have recently ;eft the princi-palship in Chicago.

"For a recent review of the literaturein this area see Lee et al (1993b).

BibliographyBarth, R.S. (1991). Improving schools

from within. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Bennett, A.L., Bryk, A.S., Easton,J.Q., Kerbow, D., Luppescu, S.,Sebring, RA. (1992). Charting re-form: The prinaPals' perspective.Chicago: Consortium on ChicagoSchool Research.

C.E. (1965). The school as aformal organization. In J.G.March (Ed.), Handbook of orga-nizations. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Boyer, E.L. (1983). High School. NewYork: Harper and Row.

Bryk, A.S., Easton, J.Q., Kerbow, D.,Rollow, S.G.md Sebring, P.A.(1993). A view from the elemen-tary schools:The state of rcfiwm inChicago. Chicago: Consortium onChicago School Research.

Bryk, A.S., Easton, J.Q., Kerbow, D.,Rollow, S.G., and Sebring, RA.(Forthcoming). Democratic par-ticipation and organizationalC./hinge: The Chicago school expe-rience. Boulder, CO: WestviewPress.

Cohen, D.K.. (19F9). Teaching prac-tice: Plus ca change. In P.W. Jack-son (Ed.), Contributing to educa-tional change: Perspectives onrewarch and practice (pp. 27-84).Berkeley, CA: N1cCutchan.

Comer, J.1'. (I 980) School power:Implications of an interventionproiect. New York: 'Hie Free Press.

Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again,and again, and again. EducationalResearcher, 19(1), 3-13.

Darling-Hammond, L.. (1989).Teacher professionalism: Why andhow? In Ann Lieberman (Ed.),Schools as collaborative cultures:Creating the future now. NewYork: Palmer Press.

Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J.,McGregor, K.Ind Zuckerman, D.(1995). The coalition campus schoolproject: Inching toward systemicchange in New York City. Paperpresented at the meeting of theAmerican Education ResearchAssociation.

Deal, I.E., and Peterson. K.D. (1994).The leadership parachix: Balancinglogic and artistry in schools. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Easton, J.Q., Bryk, A.S., Driscoll,M.E., Kotsakis, J.G., Sebring, RA.,and van der Ploeg, A.J. (1991).Charting reform: The teachers'turn. Chicago: Consortium onChicago School Research.

Easton, J.Q., Flinspach, S.L.,O'Connor, C., Paul, M., Qualls, J.,and Ryan, S.1. (1993). Loco/schoolgovernance: The third year Chi-cago school reform. Chicago: Chi-cago Panel on Public SchoolPolicy and Finance.

Epstein, J.". (1995). School/familcommunity partnerships: Caringtor the children we share. PhiDelta kappan, 76, 701 13.

Fine, M. (Ed.). (1994). Charteringurban school reform: Reflectionson public high schools in the midstof change. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Fullan, M.G. (1991). The nez,. mean-ing of educational change. NewYork: Teachers College Press.

Goodlad, F. (1984). A place calledschool: Prospects for the future.New York: McGraw Hill.

Guskey, T.R., and Huberman, NI.(Eds.). (1995). Professional devel-opment in education. New York:Teachers College Press.

Guthrie, J.W. (Ed.). (Fall, 1990).Instructional policy and practice[Special issue]. Educational Evalu-ation and Policy Analysis, 12(3).

Kerbow, I). (1995). Pervasive studentmobility: A moving target forschool improvement. Unpublishedmanuscript, The Center for SchoolImprovement at the Universit ofChicago and The Chicago Panelon School Policy,

Kruse, S., I.ouis, K.S.md Bryk, A.S.(1994). Budding prqessional cum-Milnit y in schools. Nladison, \\-1:Center on Organization and Re-structuring of Schools.

E.E. (1992). I qtrinate advan-tas.!e: High involvement orgain/a-t ion. San Francisco: Josse BassPublishers.

76

Lee, V., Bryk, A.S., and Smith, J.(1993a). Education of older ado-lescents. In L. Darling-I lammond(Ed.), Rez.iew of Research in Edu-cation (pp. 171-268). Washington,D.C.: The American EducationalResearch Association.

Lee, V., Brvk, A.S., and Smith, J.(1993b). The Organization of effec-tive secondary schools. In L. Dar-hog-Hammond (Ed.), Review ofResearch in Education. Washing-ton, D.C.: The American Educa-tional Research Association.

Lee, V.Ind Smith, J. (1995). Collec-tive responsibility.fOr learning andits effects on gains in achievementand engagement for early second-ary school students. Madison, \VI:Center on Organization and Re-structuring of Schools.

Little, J.W., and McLaughlin, M AV.(Eds.). (1993). Teachers' work: In-dividuals, colleagues, and contexts.New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Louis, K.S. (1992). Restructuring andthe problem of teachers' work. InA. I.ieberman (Ed.), The changingcontexts of teaching [91st year-book), (pp. 138-156). Chicago:National Society tor the Stud ofEducation.

l.ouis, K.S., and Miles, M.B. (1994Improvnig the urban high school:1Vhat zairks and zz.hv. New York:Teachers College Press.

NI arks. 11.,and I.ouis, K.S. (1995,April ). Does teacher empouTr-ment affect the classroom? The im-plUatUms of teacher empowerment

r teacher's instructional practicein siudent academic perfmmance.Paper presented at the meetingof the American EducationalResearch Association.

McLaughlin, NI. (1995). Strategic sitesf or teachers' professional develop-ment. In P.R Crimmett, and J.1'.Neuield (Is.), (lie struggle fmauthenticit): Teacher developmentin a (hanging Cdn(ational «on ext.New York: Teachers CollegePi ess.

Meier, D. (1995). The power of theirideas. Princeton, NJ: GirouxFarrar Strauss.

(.)berman, G.1..Ind Wallin, P.(Forthcoming). A report on prmcipal turnover in Chicago PublicSchools. Chicago: Chicago PublicSchools.

Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools:Better thinking and learning forevery child. New York:Free Press.

Powell, A.G., Cohen, D., and Farrar,E. (1985). The shopping mall highschool: Winners and losers in theeducational marketplace. Boston:Houghton-Mifflin.

Purkey, S., and Smith, M. (1983). Ef-fective schools: A review. Elemen-tary School Journal, 83, 427-452.

Ravita, D. (1995). National stan-dards in American education: Acitizen's guide. Washington, D.C.:The Brookings Institution.

Rollow, S.G. and Bryk, A.S. (1994).Catalyzing professional commu-nity in a school reform left behind.In K.S. I.ouis and S.D. Kruse(Eds.), Prol'essionalism and com-munity: Perspectives on refOrmingurban schools (pp. 105-132). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Corsvin Press,Inc.

Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment andcontrol: Alternative strategies forthe organizational design ofschools. In C. Cazden (Ed.), Re-view of research in education.Washington, D.C.: AmericanEducational It( search Association.

Sarason, S.B. (1990). The predictablefortune of educational refOrm. SanI.rancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schneider, B., and Brvk, A.S. (1995,Nlay). Trust as a moral resource:Constructive /ff.-

ban school communit les. Paperpresented at the meeting of theInvitational Confel ence on SocialCapital, 1 Iniversit v of WisconsinN1adisoh, Nladison,

0

Sebring, P.A., Bryk, A.S., Luppcscu,S., and Thum, Y. (1995). Chartingreform in Prairie School: Results ofstudent and teacher surveys. Chi-cago: Consortium on ChicagoSchool Research.

Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth disci-pline: The art and practice of learn-ing organization. New York:Doubleday Currency.

Sergiovanni, T.J. (1992). Moral lead-ership: Getting to the heart ofschool improvement. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Scrgiovanni, T.J. (1994). Buildingcommunity in schools. San Fran-cisco: Josscy-Bass Publishers.

Sizer, T.R. (1992). Horace's school:Redesigning the American highschool Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Smith, M., and O'Day, J. (1990). Sys-temic school reform. Politics ofeducation yearbook. Washington,D.C.: Palmer Press.

Smdie, M.A., Lazarus, V., Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1995, April). Instruc-tional outcomes of school basedparticipative decision making. Pa-per presented at the meeting of theAmerican Educational ResearchAssociation.

User's manual for the 1994 studentand teacher surveys. (Forthcom-ing). Chicago: Consortium onChicago School Research.

Wehlage, G.G., Rutter, R.A., Smith,G.A., Lesko, N., and Fernandez,R.R. (1989). Reducing the risk:Schools as communities of support.London: The Fahner Press.

We slt-' RA. (I 991). Teachers wholead: The rhetoric of rehrm andthe realities of practice. New York:Teachers College Press.

Wong, K., and Rollow, S.C. (1990).A case stud of the recent Chicagoschool reform. A dnunitrator'sNotebook INlidwest Administra-tion Center, Unis ersits otcago 3-1 (5.6).

Directors

Penny Bender Sebring

Chair of the Steering Committee

Anthony S. Bryk

University of Chicago

Albert L. Bennett

Roosevelt University

Johe Q. Easton

Chicago Public Schools

Mark A. Smylie

U:iiversity of Illinois at Chicago

Steering Committee

Larry A. Braskamp

University of Illinois at Chicago

Michael E. Carl

Northeastern Illinois University

Brenda H. Heffner

Illinois State Board of Education

G. Alfred Hess, Jr.

Chicago Panel on School Policy

John K. Holton

Harvard School of Public Health

James H. Lewis

Chicago Urban League

Rachel W. Lindsey

Chicago State University

Angela Perez Miller

Latino Institute

Donald R. Moore

Designs for Change

Jeri Nowakowski

North Central Regional

Educational Laboratory

William K. Rice, Jr.

Chicago Public Schools

Barbara A. Sizemore

DePaul University

Linda S.Tafel

National-Louis University

Deborah M. Lynch Walsh

Chicago Teachers Union

Charting Reform:Chicago Teachers Take StockA Report Sponsored by theConsortium on Chicago School Research

Mission

The Consortium on Chicago School Research is an independent federation of Chicago-

area organizations that conducts research activities designed to advance school

improvement in Chicago's public schools and to assess the progress of school reform.

The Consortium aims CO encourage:

Broad access to the research agenda-setting process;

Collection and reporting of systematic information on the condition of education in

the Chicago blic Schools;

High standards of quality in research design, data collection, and analysis; and

Wide dissemination and discussion of research findings.

Researchers from many different settings who are interested in schooling and its

improvement conic together under the umbrella of the Consortium. Its deliberate

multi-partisan membership includes faculty from area universities, research staff

from the Chicago Public Schools and the Chicago Teachers Union, researchtrs in

education advocacy groups, representatives of the Illinois State Board of Education

and the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, as well as other interested

individuals and organizations.

The Consortium views research not just as a technical operation of gathering data and

publishing reports, but as a form of community education. Thc Consortium does not

argue a particular policy position. Rather, it believes that good policy results from a

genuine competition of ideas informed by the best evidence that can he obtained. The

Consortium works to produce such evidence and to ensure that the competition of ideas

remains vital.

Consortium on Chicago School Research

5835 South Kimbark Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60637 (312) 702-3364

document resume ed 390 948 author sebring, … · bets ann smith wrote the two case descriptions....

Documents