I did a lot of research into educational methods when I worked at an alternative school from 1999-2001. We prepared for, and then wrote a grant funding transformation of the school towards student-centered learning. I learned a whole lot more from Wayne Jennings and Designs for Learning, as they worked with us the following summer to change the school into a Community Learning Center.
What follows is a graduate school paper of mine gets to many of the reasons why school change initiatives seldom succeed -- and why the broken system is so good at perpetuating itself.
I'll follow up in the coming days with other observations on education; the writing will be less formal :)
Some links relevant to this piece:
The Eight Year Study, the most comprehensive study of educational methods ever done in America. Very few people choose to remember this study because it showed that experimental and nontraditional schools were more effective than standard classrooms.
Subbury Valley School: If a child can't be homeschooled at an early age, this is a pretty good alternative. I would have thrived in an environment like this one.
----
Our schools today greatly resemble those of a generation ago. Since its introduction in schoolhouses across America in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the dominant model of education has been remarkably static. Reform and revolutionary change have failed to fundamentally alter the way education is delivered in America. Successful reform efforts have been transitory, isolated within a larger structure and difficult to sustain. Despite a lack of research to justify the increasing time and resources being expended on education in order to improve this model, our educational institutions have consistently failed to articulate a clear vision of change in the light of past failed reform efforts.
The dominant model in education is based upon a teacher-centered method of delivery with the following characteristics: age segregation, tight curricular requirements, lectures, textbooks, and tests. The current structure of large schools dominated by non-teaching administrators are essential adjuncts to this model. This model continues to dominate educational thought and practice despite evidence that no amount of additional resources can perfect this method of teaching (Ciotti, 1998), meeting its goal of delivering high education standards to all students.
The evidence is clear that other methods of delivering education are more effective in raising student achievement than this traditional model (Jennings & Nathan, 1977). Alfie Kohn discussed the alternatives this way:
"(T)raditional education sometimes provides students with basic skills but rarely a penetrating understanding of what lies behind those skills, how they’re connected, or how they can be thoughtfully applied. By contrast, a non-traditional education … nearly always enhances understanding and often helps with basic skills to boot (Kohn, 1999, p. 233-234)".
In the Eight Year Study, longitudinal research was conducted in the 1930s with the assistance of high schools and colleges across the country. The results of the study, the most comprehensive in the history of educational research, showed that experimental schools and multidisciplinary curriculum greatly improved the success rates of students (Schugurensky, 1995).
There is ample evidence to show that the less traditional the approach, the greater the level of student achievement will be. The Sudbury Valley School, for example, teaches nothing -- its students are entirely self-directed. Yet, their students are among the most successful in the nation (as measured in reading ability, college entrance scores, and career success) irregardless of their socio-economic background (Greenbery, 1992).
These types of programs, collectively, fall under the "progressive" rubric. They emphasize student-directed, multidisciplinary, project-based, flexible and community-oriented methods of learning over teacher-directed, lecture-oriented classes with rigidly defined curricula .
Evidence for the utility of progressive education is incorporated in many teacher certification programs, where progressive and constructivist concepts are shared with emerging teachers. These concepts, however, are rarely incorporated in the classroom (Wagner, 1994). The clash between the educational philosophy taught in college, and that practiced in most classrooms, is hampered by the inability of most schools to adapt to change. Perhaps because of this clash, by the end of five years between 25-50% of all new teachers will leave the profession (Hare & Heap, 2001).
The rigidity of the dominant, teacher-centered mode of education is pervasive and well-rooted. However, there is very little evidence to support this ever-expanding system of large schools, non-teaching administrators, teacher-directed learning, age division and discrete curricular subjects (Kohn, 1999). There is even less evidence to support the continued "super-sizing" of our educational institutions, as the results produced by them continue to grow more and more disappointing (Nathan & Febey, 2001).
In trying to gauge the effectiveness of our schools, John Taylor Gatto compares quotes from scholars of education across 140 years and writes:
"It is hardly unfair to say that the stupidity of 1867, the fruitlessness of 1880, the dullness of 1895, the cannot be reformed of 1910, the absolutely nothing of 1930, and the nothing of 1960 has been continued into the schools of 2000. We pay four times more in real dollars than we did in 1930 and thus we buy even more of what mass schooling dollars always bought (Gatto, 2000-2001, p. 312)."
By investing more and more resources into a system that has proven incapable of substantial change or progress, our schools fail to meet their goal of educating every child.
Schools are not unique in this lack of progress in meeting their stated goals. Other social services, like welfare agencies and hospitals, have been shown to offer their clients little improvement through the addition of money and resources (Illich, 1976). Indeed, the bureaucracies of these social institutions can become so detrimental to progress that the very abolition of the institution itself becomes the most effective way to accomplish the organization’s principal goals.
Measuring the success or failure of an organization, or their ability to meet stated goals, is very difficult. Most measures of change gauge marginal change, and measure only the most tangible of quantifiable variables. In economic terms, only the marginal benefit of a reform or a new program is usually measured. The opportunity costs to other organizations, or to the community at large, are seldom considered.
John McKnight tackles this issue directly, stating that:
"In the fields of social work, developmental disabilities, physical disability, or care of the elderly, no traditions of routinely analyzing possible negative side effects exists. Instead, evaluation usually focuses on whether an intervention "made a difference." The intervention is presumed to help if it has any effect at all, and if it has no measurable effect, it is assumed not to have hurt (McKnight, 1995, 101)."
The problem, according to McKnight, is that these institutions can pre-empt other possibilities from emerging on their own to tackle the problem at hand. They divert resources, and prevent the natural social order from coalescing around a problem in order to solve it. In short, they can be disruptive to community-building and shared problem-solving.
In education, there are opportunity costs in the use of scarce resources that can benefit other needs. There is the collective weight of program upon program, which may be individually justified but collectively disruptive. There is also the time of the students themselves, who are precluded from other activities (both good and bad) while attending school.
There is some evidence to show that our schools may be iatrogenic. Perhaps most important is the inability of many schools to make education an inviting, intrinsically rewarding activity (Gormly, 1981). Most students given a chance, would not volunteer to attend school if all extrinsic rewards and punishments were removed. Other evidence comes from students who are home-schooled, or from students attending free schools or open schools . Home-schooled children and free-schooled children tend to do just as well as, if not better than their traditionally schooled counterparts. They excel, however, in more intangible measures like self-confidence, creativity and work ethic (Gatto, 2000-2001). Less formal schooling does not seem to hamper student success.
There is also some evidence that schools may be responsible for the magnification of certain learning disabilities through their focus on standardization and averages. William Glasser wrote that:
"Very few children come to school failures, none come labeled failures; it is school and school alone which pins the label of failure on children. Most of them have a success identity, regardless of their homes or environments. In school they expect to achieve recognition and, with the faith of the young, they hope also to gain the love and respect of their teachers and classmates. The shattering of this optimistic outlook is the most serious problem of the elementary schools. (Glasser, 1969, p. 26)"
The argument that our schools may be iatrogenic is unsubstantiated, but worthy of additional research. What the evidence does show, however, is how shaky the argument for traditional education is. Traditional teaching practices are difficult to defend against their abolition; they are almost impossible to defend against the proven utility of progressive teaching practices.
Despite this, traditional teaching and traditionally-organized schools remain the dominant force in education. Though alternatives are more prolific than in previous years, they still constitute only a minority of the schools. The majority of schools have changed little since they replaced the "one-room schoolhouse" over a century ago.
Jolene Morris considered the origins of these larger, more centrally managed schools and their effect on learning:
"In the beginning of schools, we had the one-room schoolhouse. Then came the Industrial Revolution and Frederick Taylor. Frederick Taylor was an industrial engineer who invented scientific management, the assembly line, and the current school system. It's efficient for the teacher; it's not designed for the student ... We lost that freedom we had in the one-room schoolhouse where we individualized the learning with the students. Students lost the ability to take responsibility for their own learning (Morris, 2000)."
These centrally-managed organizations were not created to benefit the students, but to deliver education in an efficient and cost-effective manner (Campbell, 1987). Once created, the need for an administrative structure became dominant (Callahan, 1962). The hierarchy of our schools branched upwards, creating a new class of leaders: superintendents, district office personnel, and professional school board members. The hierarchy also branched downwards, encompassing a new flotilla of services within the school: guidance counselors, nurses, psychologists, probation officers, network technicians, athletic directors, janitors and more. The school became a prolific source of jobs, the district a scientifically-managed entity fulfilling an increasing number of critical bureaucratic functions (Weber, 1922). Lost in this expansion was learning and education, which took up an ever-smaller percentage of a school's budget as each "need" was met by yet another paid professional (Gatto, 2000-2001).
Each of these non-teaching professionals has slightly different priorities, and a different purpose. A guidance counselor may view salability to potential employers as the goal of education, while an art teacher may see aesthetic creativity as the only true mark of an educated citizen. The goals of professionals conflict; the more professionals there are in a school, the larger the potential for conflict.
Adding to this is the inherent conflict between school administrators who are trained to view the ideology of the marketplace as paramount, and teachers who tend to view education as a lofty and ineffable calling. Line-item budgets and true believers seldom mix well.
The public also seems to prefer the stability of schools – or, rather, the lack of suspicious change (Meier, 1995). Schools often serve as a form of subsidized day-care for families. Predictable, timely extracurricular activities keep the community supportive. Successful students also like stability -- change means mastering a new set of strategies to maximize performance. Ironically, many unsuccessful students fear change because the expectations placed on them are so low that they can get by on inertia alone (Sizer, 1985). Our society is very comfortable with the rituals of school. Report cards, algebra class, study hall, summer vacation, detention, Mrs. Johnson's typing class, grammar drills, and test after test after test. It worked for us -- it's got to work for Johnny.
The lack of incentive for change may also be explained by the career track of most professional teachers, and how little incentive exists to adapt to the demands of outside actors. Tenured teachers are professionals in the strictest sense of the words, owing more loyalty to their profession than to the demands of their manager (Wilson, 2000). Thus, their jobs as professionals may be threatened by new techniques and practices through decreasing autonomy (Glanz, 1991).
In education, most incentives favor the status quo. Thus observed John Taylor Gatto, who wrote that, "An insufficient incentive exists to change things much, otherwise things would change." This must be true, for overwhelming evidence has shown that the status quo is in need of substantial remedy for over fifty years now.
In 1950, John Holt observed that:
"Schools should be a place where children learn what they most want to know, instead of what we think they ought to know. The child who wants to know something remembers it and uses it once he has it; the child who learns something to please or appease someone else forgets it when the need for pleasing or the danger of not appeasing is past. This is why children quickly forget all but a small part of what they learn in school. It is of no use or interest to them; they do not want, or expect, or even intend to remember it (Holt, 1950, p. 289)."
Holt reasoned that student behavior was a perfectly rational result of the process of education. He added that, "we adults destroy most of the intellectual and creative capacity of children by the things we do to them or make them do." (Holt, 1950, p. 274). Holt argued that schools, by their insistence that a base core of knowledge was essential to teach to every child, fought against human nature.
He also argued for a radical change in the way schools were organized, but found that asking teachers to do things that were "so obviously beyond their power" was counterproductive (Holt, 1950, p. 277). Instead, he asked teachers to make small changes in the classroom through a process of trial and error -- and to continue practices that proved effective. This effort, too, failed. The teachers he spoke to were too fearful to seek out their own answers, relying on the expertise of professionals above their own personal judgment.
John Holt was not the only person to see this disconnect. Many efforts to reform schools have been made over the years, and almost all of them have failed (Temes, 2001). Perhaps the most celebrated effort at reform has been the Essential School movement, which identified the structural barriers to student learning in the typical American school.
The founder of the Essential Schools group, Ted Sizer, identified several ways in which the bureaucracy of education gets in the way of change: It creates a drive towards monolithic rules and structures that ignore the reality of local conditions, it forces accountability through the use of easily measurable data, it creates a series of norms that do not allow for individual variation in students, it isolates students and teaches through the sheer numbers necessary to sustain specialized licenses, and "stifles initiative at its base" (Sizer, 1985, p. 209).
Despite evidence that our system of education is failing on nearly every level to increase the capabilities of its students and the reality that alternative models exist to replace the current system, nothing is really changing. The majority of schools look very similar to those we had a generation ago.
The primary attempt to reform education in America is a call for accountability through standardization of curriculum and testing, reducing the level of human judgment in the classroom. The goal is to provide more quantitative ways to measure the effectiveness of learning and teaching, creating a standardized, nationalized curriculum in order to set a minimum standard of knowledge for all students (Sykes, 1995). Then, by testing students regularly to see what students have learned, the effectiveness of individual schools and teachers can be measured (Sacks, 1999).
The premise behind this system of accountability is that these test results will ensure quality instruction by providing the public with irrefutable evidence as to the amount of learning taking place in each classroom. According to Deborah Meier, however, this sort of system is too crude to measure genuine learning or ability. She writes that:
"We need standards held by real people who matter in the lives of our young. School, family, and community must forge their own, in dialogue with and in response to the larger world of which they are a part. There will always be tensions; but if the decisive, authoritative voice always comes from anonymous outsiders, then kids cannot learn what it takes to develop their own voice (Meier, 2000)."
Despite our cultural penchant for attaching numbers to things, our drive towards further standardization of the curriculum will not result in positive gains for students (Kohn, 1999). All attempts since the dawn of professional management to standardize learning have failed (Gatto, 2000-2001).
In response to this demand for accountability, our schools have in turn demanded more resources to educate their students. These resources have primarily come through local bond referenda to ensure funding for popular programs and services, and through non-profit foundations and state governments to fund new initiatives. Despite these increased resources, however, education remains static and the benefit to students remains largely marginal (Berliner & Biddle, 1995). Some non-profits have even turned their back on public schools, after being discouraged by the lack of progress in previous years (Temes, 2001).
Substantial change and experimentation is occurring in education, but it is largely a marginal affair: traditional, teacher-centered learning still accounts for the overwhelming majority of schools. There is a minority trend towards smaller schools, teacher managed schools, alternative schools, charter schools and open schools within the country (Nathan & Febey, 2001). These schools demonstrate an immense variety of programs and options for students, but the dominant model still pervades deeply even in this minority of alternatives. Where it does exist, however, progressive education has proven to work (Kohn, 1999).
Progressive education theorist John Dewey taught that students engaged in "moving ideas" take more interest in their studies, learn more fully the import of their lessons, and become better people. Dewey believed that the teacher’s task is to "keep alive the sacred spark of wonder and to fan the flame that already glows. His problem is to protect the spirit of inquiry, to keep it from becoming blasé from over excitement, wooden from routine, fossilized through dogmatic instruction, or dissipated by random exercise upon trivial things." ( Dewey, 1991).
Dewey believed that the practice of learning through doing, the self-discovery of research, and the act of weighing contradictory evidence dispelled the certitude of knowledge and instilled a healthy spirit of introspective moralism in its practitioners. Dewey’s vision of progressive education was that the student, not the teacher, belonged at the core of learning.
These methods of teaching have been proven to work, as "few other educational approaches have documented such a direct, positive effect on student achievement" (Barr & Parrett, 1997). The difficulty, however, is that students "won't all learn the same things." (Quinn, 2000). This variation is difficult to account for in a Taylorized school environment.
Larry Cuban discussed the policy implications of research into progressive education this way:
"Were policymakers deeply interested in pursuing forms of schooling that aimed at cultivating the intellectual, social, and economic powers of individual children while creating democratic communities in schools, they would see that current classroom organization discourages students from learning from one another, limits the growth of independent reasoning and problem solving, restricts opportunities for student decision-making at the classroom and school level, and largely ignores the contributions that the community can make to the students and that students can make to the community (Cuban, 1993, p.278)."
If the results are so obviously biased in one direction, then why the lack of change? Perhaps because learning in itself is not the true mission of our schools -- but learning certain things is. (Glenn, 1988). Defining who learns what is a constant battle, and thus curriculum choices are among the most difficult decisions at most schools.
Besides community expectations over curriculum and course content, perhaps there is another factor at work here: job stability. If students were judged based on competence and graduated based on accomplishment, then what would prevent a self-taught student from "testing out" of a school early? With students flows revenue -- and with revenue flows employment. Changes in the way education is delivered threaten this structure, by placing the responsibility of learning back on the student. This changes the role of education practitioners and experts, who have a vested interest in the current system.
True reform, then, requires something more substantial. Herbert Wagner identified three key elements to successful reform:
"There are three essential, interrelated components to a successful school improvement process: establishing clear academic goals based on developing and assessing students’ competencies rather than on “covering” subjects; creating a caring community with explicit core values; and encouraging many forms of collaboration between teachers and students, parents, and community members. When one or more of these parts is missing, change is thwarted. And when all three are strong, schools can and do transform themselves – though such systemic change is neither quick nor easy (Wagner, 1994, p. 181)."
The difficulty of creating change in a system is echoed by educators who worked on the Community Learning Center model. The CLC design specifications states that “For a fundamental change in education to be lasting and effective, it must be a transformation that pervades all aspects of the organization” (Designs for Learning, 2000, p. 9). The design specifications go on to say that within an existing organization, it is not only change that is difficult – but also sustainability. Sustaining the momentum of change is even more difficult than initiating the original change.
In order to reform our schools and make them more active centers of learning for students, there are primarily two ways to assist in creating the conditions necessary for this change to take place. The first way is to focus on the reform of existing schools, creating an collegial atmosphere of open communication and dialogue, leading to a renewal of shared mission and values (Wagner, 1994). The other is to ripen conditions for the creation of new charter schools and contract schools, where the mission is specified by contract and the collegiality is assisted by the small size of the institution (Designs for Learning, 2000).
Of these two routes towards change, the most likely source of change is through the creation of new contract and charter schools. Although there is a growing recognition that small, site-administered schools are critical to the success of students, efforts aimed at creating smaller schools within an existing larger structure are strongly resisted in many districts. The process of “chopping up” a building to create smaller schools is a fairly disruptive experience, and it requires stronger leadership and more resources than most districts can currently muster up. Creating new charter and contract schools, on the other hand, creates rather immediate change. Charters and contract schools that do not meet their goals are disbanded.
There are many things that can be done to assist in the incorporation of research into progressive education principles into all of these schools, which will also assist in the education of students. The first, and perhaps most important thing is to stop increasing the regulations on our schools. The progressive increase in paperwork, testing, and restrictions on curriculum are stifling innovation (Sizer, 1985). Another important change would be to allow for more experimental schools within the charter school and contract school movement. As these schools are contractually obligated to achieve certain goals or face disillusion, they are already being held to higher standards than most schools are. Allowing for change and experimentation within the auspices of an existing contract is an excellent way to test out the validity of novel educational practices. If these practices are not beneficial to students, they will be closed either due to lack of students or a failure to meet their contractual obligations.
For existing school districts, the transition to smaller schools with local school-based management can be seen as a decades-long process. Just as it took a generation to transition from the one-room schoolhouse to the centrally-managed district, it will take time to change existing districts into smaller, self-autonomous places of learning.
All of these changes require some degree of long-term planning. They presuppose a system of smaller schools within a larger system of choice. Within this system, revenues should follow the students, allowing for parental choice in which schools should remain open and fully-funded. These changes also presuppose a tolerance for diversity within the structure. A diversity of educational practices, within a system of choice, would do much more to benefit student learning than any new regulations from the Department of Education.
Change within the structure of education in America has always been difficult, but it can be accomplished with a serious view towards what has worked and what has not worked in the past. In education, the will to create change has come mainly through crisis; change itself has come only to those institutions willing to enact comprehensive, system-wide reform. For the most part, however, change has come only through the creation of new schools and new institutions. In the case of new schools, and existing schools, the greatest thing that our society can do to assist in the creation of stronger centers of learning is to accept that the future of education will be different than that which they grew up with. The “standard model” of one teacher, thirty students and a podium is going to change -- at least in some schools. With this change will come new measures of accountability, and new methods of teaching. It is only through these types of changes that our schools will begin to meet the expectations that we set for them.
Appendix A
Traditional Education:
Defined by teacher-centered instruction (lectures, tests), age-separated classrooms, professional administrative oversight and strict curricular-based instruction.
Direct Instruction:
A “back to the basics” approach where facts and skills are repeatedly drilled and tested to ensure retention by students.
Alternative School:
Defined by some degree of deviation from traditional education. Alternative schools may be very similar to traditional schools, or significantly more student-centered (with students choosing the curriculum).
Progressive Education:
A philosophy of learning that places more value on higher thinking skills and creativity than on skills and facts. A belief that active, student-centered learning creates more effective educational opportunities for students.
Constructivist Education:
A practice of education whereby students construct knowledge actively, rather than being passive recipients of information.
Open School:
A school where curriculum is generated on an irregular basis, depending on the availability of learning opportunities and the interests of those involved. Marked by a strong appreciation for community resources and immense flexibility.
Free School:
A school where students are entirely self-motivated, directed by teachers only when the students initiate the conversation.
Charter School:
A school defined by charter to meet specific goals. A charter school is its own district/administration, and can be dissolved if it fails to meet its goals.
Home School:
A school based in the home. Privately organized and paid for by individual parents.
References
Barr, R. & Parrett, W. (1997). How to Create Alternative, Magnet, and Charter Schools That Work. Bloomington, Indiana: National Educational Service.
Berliner, D. & Biddle, B. (1995). The Manufactured Crisis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Callahan, R. (1962). Education and the Cult of Efficiency. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Campbell, I. (1987). A History of Thought and Practice in Educational Administration. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Ciotti, P. (1998). America’s Most Costly Education Failure. Retrieved on: November 30, 2001. Located at: http://www.cato.org/dailys/4-29-98.html
Clinchy, E. (1994). Higher Education: The Albatross Around the Neck of Our Public Schools. Phi Delta Kappan, June 1994.
Cuban, L. (1993). How Teachers Taught: Constancy and Change in American Classrooms, 1890-1990. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Designs for Learning (2000). Community Learning Center Specifications.
Dewey, J. (1991). How We Think. New York: Prometheus Books.
Follett, M. (1926). The Giving of Orders. In J. Shafritz; A. Hyde (Ed.), Classics of Public Administration (pp.37-43). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Glanz, J. (1991). Bureaucracy and Professionalism: The Evolution of Public School Supervision. Cranberry, NJ: Associated University Press.
Glasser, W. (1969). Schools Without Failure. New York: Harper & Row.
Glenn, C. (1988). The Myth of the Common School. Boston, MA: The University of Massachusetts Press.
Gormly, J. (1981). Comprehensive Assessment of Educational Systems. In S. Anderson (Ed.), Managing Effectiveness (pp 69-82). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Gatto, J. (2000-01). The Underground History of American Education. Oxford, NY: The Oxford Village Press.
Holt, J. (1950). How Children Fail. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.
Jennings, W. & Nathan, J. (1977). Startling/Disturbing Research on School Program Effectiveness. Phi Delta Kappan, March, 1977.
Kanigel, R. (1997). The One Best Way. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Kohn, A. (1999). The Schools Our Children Deserve. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Light, P. (1999). The New Public Service. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Meier, D. (1995). The Power of Their Ideas: Lessons From a Small School in Harlem. Boston, MA: Beacon Press Books.
Meier, D. (2000). Will Standards Save Public Education? Boston: Beacon Press.
Morris, J. (2000). Reach the Reluctant: Strategies to Win the Participation of Late Adopters. Retrieved on November 30, 2001. Located at: http://www.ucet.org/pmcurrent.hml
Nathan J. & Febey, K. (2001). Smaller, Safter, Saner Successful Schools. Retrieved on November 5, 2001. Located at: http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/school-change/reform.htm
Quinn, D. (2001). Schooling: The Hidden Agenda. Retrieved on October 17, 2001. Located at: http://www.ishmael.org/Education/Writings/unschooling.shtml
Sacks, P. (1999). Standardized Minds. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.
Schugurensky, D. (1995). The Eight Year Study Begins. Retrieved on November 30, 2001. Located at: http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~daniel_schugurensky/assignment1/1930eight.html
Seiber, C. (2001). Louisiana Student Aces College Without Prior Schooling. Retrieved on September 30, 2001. Located at: http://newsfinder.arinet.com/fpweb/fp.dll/$azoffbeat/htm/x_dv.htm/…/X5yKxSmVyGONY1X
Sizer, T. (1985). Horace’s Compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School. New York NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Sykes, J. (1995). Dumbing Down Our Kids: Why America’s Children Feel Good About Themselves But Can’t Read, Write, or Add. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Temes, P. (2001). The End of School Reform. Education Week. Available at: http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=29temes.h20&keywords=reform
Wagner, H. (1994). How Schools Change: Lessons From Three Communities. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Weber, M. (1922). Bureaucracy. In J. Shafritz; A. Hyde (Ed.), Classics of Public Administration (pp.37-43). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Wilson, J. (2000). Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It. United States: Basic Books.
Posts
