YALE-NEW HAVEN TEACHERS INSTITUTE NUMBER 4, SPRING 1995

On Common GroundStrengthening Teaching through School-University Partnership

Partnerships in Science and TechnologyWILLIAM H. JOHNSON, DR. GEORGE WASHINGTON CARVER, CA. 1945

ON COMMON GROUND2

PThe New High School Reform Movement

artnership between the universitiesand the public schools is not new inAmerican history. Reform of the

schools has often been led by university lead-ers. For example, in 1890, President CharlesW. Eliot of Harvard University, using hisgreat prestige, complained that three-fourths

of the population had no access to second-ary education and he made public schoolreform a major task of the university. Manycolleges at the time had to offer remedialeducation courses. Eliot called for more highschools offering greater access to more stu-dents and higher standards for all highschools.

Almost 80 years later, in 1959, anotherpresident of Harvard became the lead re-former of public school change. JamesBryant Conant ignored both the post-Sput-nik charges that American education hadbecome a wasteland and the counter claimsthat schools were better than ever and neededonly to be given more money to solve alltheir remaining problems. Schools, Conantsaid, would have to offer comprehensive pro-grams, aimed at satisfying those who werepreparing for college as well as those whoneeded “marketable skills” with which toearn a living upon graduation. Social de-mocracy, which seemed to Conant the mod-ern mantle of America’s republican heritage,would best be achieved by having youngpeople from “a wide variety of backgroundsand of great variety of talents mingle withinthe same school.”

Both leaders, Conant and Eliot, as wellas other university reformers of the publicschools, have done a great service in call-ing public attention to problems in elemen-tary and secondary education. They did,however, overlook the actual needs of realchildren. They had tried to reform the sys-tems without dealing directly with theproblems of those served—the students.In the 1950s, Conant had accuratelycharged that the junior high school did notserve those needs. It was, he found, actu-ally a replica of the senior high school.

He reported that these schools cared morefor marching bands than about the actualneeds of young students.

Now in the late 1980s, the Carnegie Cor-poration of New York trained its attentionon those needs. Its report, Turning Points,transformed the junior high school into amiddle school, which tried to make it itsmain purpose to insure all the young ado-lescents would find themselves in schoolsin which they knew the teachers and theteachers knew them.

This would be accomplished by dividingschools into small units of no more than 150students, each of them taught by a team ofeither four or five teachers, representingEnglish, social studies, science, and math-ematics. The team would be entirely respon-sible for the education of this relatively smallgroup of children.

This obviously raised the question: Whathappens to these youngsters once they reachhigh school? Would they be entering largeinstitutions and moving from class to class,taught by different teachers and become es-sentially anonymous units? Adolescents, likeadults, behave at their worst when they areanonymous, when nobody knows or caresfor them.

Carnegie is currently looking at ways toreform the senior high school. While theoutcome of this reform proposal may not bean exact replica of the foundation’s Turning

Points, some of the middle school experi-ence may be helpful in reforming the highschools. Changes will not be easy. Highschools are strongly embedded in the au-tonomy of the separate disciplines. The ideaof interdisciplinary teaming will not bereadily accepted.

This could be a special opportunity for theYale-New Haven Teachers Institute to moveinto the forefront of the new high school re-form movement. As it has pioneered in de-veloping the relationship between univer-sity professors and public school teachers, itmight now be ready to enlarge its experi-ence to the relationship between universityfaculties and high school teachers. Eliot andConant, after all, led the movement to greateraccess by more young people to high schooleducation, and thereby to access to highereducation and to the work force. Now, uni-versities can again show their great strengthin shaping the future of the high schools.

University faculties have already experi-mented with the idea of interdisciplinaryteaching; they could now offer their experi-ence to leading high school instructors anddemonstrate the concept of teaming and acloser relationship between teachers and stu-dents.

As Harvard took the lead in the two previ-ous school reform efforts, Yale now couldhave the opportunity to pioneer in reformsfor the next century’s schools.

About the cover illustration:The artistic achievement of the blackAmerican artist, William H. Johnson(1902-70), has only recently been recog-nized. Born and raised in South Carolina,Johnson studied art in New York. Recog-nition of his talent brought support thatenabled him to continue his studies inFrance. He lived and painted in a largelyExpressionistic style in Europe for most ofthe period 1926-38, primarily inScandanavia with his wife, Holcha Krake,a Danish textile artist. With the approachof World War II Johnson settled in NewYork where his style underwent a radicaltransformation. Influenced by such artistsas Horace Pippin and Jacob Lawrence, hedeveloped a flat, brilliantly colored man-

ner, and turned in subject matter to “paint-ing my people.” In simplified, animatedforms he depicted the everday life of blacksin Harlem and South Carolina. He cre-ated a memorable series of paintings ofblack soldiers and nurses during WorldWar II. As the war ended, Johnson begana series of African-American history calledFighters for Freedom which included thisimage of scenes from the life of Dr. GeorgeWashington Carver. In explaining his newAmerican style, he wrote, “My aim is toexpress in a natural way what I feel, whatis in me, both rhythmically and spiritually,all that which in time has been saved up inmy family of primitiveness and tradition,and which is now concentrated in me.”

—Jules D. Prown

About Partnership

by Fred M. Hechinger

SPRING 1995 3

Credits: Cover Illustration: William H. Johnson. Dr. George Washington Carver. ca. 1945. Oil on fiberboard. 35 1/2” x 28 1/2”. National Museum ofAmerican Art. Gift of the Harmon Foundation. Page 5: Charles Willson Peale. The Artist in His Museum.1822. Oil on canvas. 103 3/4” x 79 7/8”.Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts. Gift of Mrs. Sarah Harrison. Page 9: Josef Albers. Homage to the Square. 1967. Oil on masonite. 24” x 24.” TheJosef Albers Foundation. Page 13: Jacob Lawrence. “In the North the Negro had better educational facilities.” Panel 58 from The Migration Series.

1940-41; text and title revised by the artist, 1993. Tempera on gesso on composition board. 12” x 18”. The Museum of Modern Art. New York. Gift of Mrs.David Levy. Page 15: Thomas Eakins. Drawing of Gears. ca. 1860. Pencil on paper. 11 7/16” x 16 7/8”. Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden.Smithsonian Institution. Gift of Joseph H. Hirshhorn. 1966. Photographer Lee Stalsworth. Page 16: Jasper Johns. 0-9. 1959. Encaustic and collage oncanvas. 20 1/8” x 35”. © Jasper Johns/Licensed by VAGA, New York, 1995. Page 21: John Frederick Peto. Nine Books. ca. 1890-1900. Oil on composi-tion board. 15.6 cm. x 23.4 cm. Yale University Art Gallery. Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Charles F. Montgomery, M.A. (Hon.) 1970. Page 24: Diego Rivera.Detroit Industry, North Wall (detail). 1932-1933. Fresco. The Detroit Institute of Arts. Gift of Edsel B. Ford.

15 Obstacles to a TechnologicalRevolutionJohn Merrow

16 A Partnership SupportingComputers in the Schools:Lessons from PortugalStephen C. Ehrmann

18 Artifacts of Technology asan Educational ResourceRobert G. Wheeler

19 Fragmented School Reformand Effective PartnershipsCarlos Mora

Book Review21 Toni Marie Massaro’s

Constitutional Literacy:

A Core Curriculum for

a Multicultural Nation

Robert A. Burt

22 Response to Robert ReichCollaboration Across theCommunity CollegeCarole F. Edmonds

2 About Partnership: The New HighSchool Reform MovementFred M. Hechinger

4 On Common Ground: Science,Technology and TeachingThomas R. Whitaker

6 Educating Students for the21st CenturyBruce M. Alberts and Jan Tuomi

Responses to Alberts and Tuomi 8 Science Kits as Instruction

ToolsSharon Olguin

9 A Central Role for ScienceEducation PartnershipsEloy Rodriguez

10 The National Science Foundationand Systemic ReformJanice Earle and Julia C. Wan

12 Voices from the ClassroomThomas R. Whitaker

Contents

Partnerships in Science and Technology

ON COMMON GROUND4

OBy Thomas R. Whitaker

On Common Ground:

Science, Technology and Teachingn the facing page the Americanpainter and inventor, C. W. Peale,portrays himself lifting the curtain

upon the grand project of his later years, amuseum of natural history. Let us here echohis gesture, in a modest way, by lifting thecurtain upon a number of On Common Ground

devoted to science and technology. Our firstthree numbers have emphasized some broadercontexts of partnerships between schools anduniversities: federal-state relationships, thehistorical perspective, and the world of work.We now engage more closely some of the prob-lems and opportunities that such partnershipsmust confront in the classroom.

The Essays: Some Connections

• How can school-university partnershipscontribute to science education in the el-ementary grades? Bruce M. Alberts and JanTuomi recount how a partnership betweenthe San Francisco public schools and theUniversity of California at San Francisco(UCSF) has led to the replacing of sciencetextbooks with hands-on science materials.They point to several important aspects ofthis program, including dialogue with theschool district leadership, and close work-ing relationships between school teachersand members of the UCSF community. The“key” to this effort, however, has been theidentification of outstanding instructionalmaterials—in effect, science kits. An earlierversion of this essay provoked a very livelydiscussion at the January meeting of theEditorial Board. A number of reservationswere expressed about its approach to sci-ence in the elementary grades. May kitsprovide too “ready-made” and “self-con-tained” an experience? Do they help teach-ers to relate science to other aspects of aholistic elementary school program? Wouldthe students’ inquiry and problem-solvingbe furthered by having them prepare theirown kits, which might also relate to otheraspects of the curriculum? Might the teach-ers then become more deeply involved inthe process of curriculum construction?These questions, of course, raise larger is-sues of curriculum design and professional

development in the elementary schools.The Board thought it useful, therefore, tosolicit some responses to that essay fromother points of view.

• Our first respondent, Sharon Olguin,trains teachers in the Albuquerque PublicSchools/University of New Mexico Col-laborative. She agrees with Alberts andTuomi about the need for an experientialapproach to science instruction. She ar-gues, however, that science kits are tooeasily used in ways that do not signifi-cantly advance the students’ skills in prob-lem-solving and critical evaluation, thatthe kits too often seem to relieve the teach-ers from responsibility for their own con-tinuing education, and that sets of fairlyexpensive and quickly expended materi-als do not constitute the most efficientuse of a school’s limited financial re-sources.

• Our second respondent, Eloy Rodriguez,established the “Kids Investigating andDiscovering Science” program at the Uni-versity of California, Irvine, in partnershipwith the Santa Ana Unified School Dis-trict. The successful science teaching inthat program for low-income Latinoyoungsters, he tells us, depends upon anetwork of interpersonal collaboration.Parents, becoming participatory partners,serve as teaching assistants and home-work mentors. Minority faculty from theuniversity become role models and men-tors, for the school children and also forthe minority graduate and undergraduatestudents who work with the K-12 teach-ers. Through such means, the universitycampus has become “a truly commonground for fostering the love and learn-ing of science.”

• How has the National Science Founda-tion been assisting university-school part-nerships in science, mathematics, andtechnology? Janice Earle and Julia C. Wandescribe how the Statewide Systemic Ini-tiatives Program (SSI) has encouraged thecreation and strengthening of partner-ships. They also point to four states—Montana, Ohio, Connecticut, and Louisi-ana—as examples of SSI programs thatare oriented toward several types of cur-

ricular reform, teacher preparation and de-velopment, and the improvement of teach-ing methods.

• Can smaller and poorer nations teach us agood deal about creative and cost-effec-tive partnerships? Stephen C. Ehrmann ar-gues, on the basis of his experience in Por-tugal, that they surely can. He describesProject Minerva, which was designed tofoster broader use of computing in the Por-tuguese schools. This project involved a“distributed leadership structure,” withthree partners: the Ministry of Education,the universities, and the schools. Each hadits own area of leadership in a reform effortsparked by technological innovation butextending into other areas of the curricu-lum.

• What obstacles do we confront whenseeking to introduce into our own publicschools what is now our society’s centraltool for communicating and creating knowl-edge? In a sobering essay on that ques-tion, John Merrow identifies three majorobstacles: inappropriate teaching methods,stereotyping of students, and obsolete fa-cilities. Unless these are overcome, he ar-gues, the gulf in our society between the“haves” and the “have nots” will grow yetwider—a prospect that should frighten usall.

• Teachers also need to be alert to techno-logical resources beyond the walls of theclassroom. Robert Wheeler suggests howthey can make use of artifacts in their lo-calities as means of conveying the excite-ment of scientific inquiry. Wheeler’s em-phasis on links that connect science, tech-nological invention, and economic pro-cesses in the larger society also illustratesthe broadly interdisciplinary focus that hehas found useful when leading a seminaron “Electricity,” in the Yale-New HavenTeachers Institute, for teachers drawn fromseveral different fields.

• Two other essayists in this number of On

Common Ground address more generalproblems of curricular reform—and eachis concerned with the coherence of oureducational efforts. Carlos Mora, who di-rects the Partnership for Minority StudentAchievement in New Haven, reminds us

SPRING 1995 5

of the dangers of fragmented reform ef-forts and suggests that “empowerment”and “constructive accountability” may pro-vide a basis for better coordination andmore fruitful decision-making. Carole F.Edmonds, Dean of Arts and Sciences atKellogg Community College in Battle Creek,Michigan, is responding to Robert Reich’sessay in our last number, on the role of thecommunity colleges in providing newpaths to the middle class. She calls atten-tion to the need for more collaborationamong the quite various programs within

the community college—and she de-scribes how her college has met this chal-lenge.

• Our regular columnist, Fred Hechinger, de-livers a related challenge to Yale—and byimplication to all universities. Can univer-sity faculties that have experimented withinterdisciplinary teaching now offer theirexperience to leading high school instruc-tors and demonstrate the concept of suchteam teaching? If so, they may move intothe forefront of the new high school re-form movement.

• We also inaugurate in this number two “de-partments” that, we hope, will make at leastoccasional appearances in these pages.One is a place for book reviews. Toni MarieMassaro’s Constitutional Literacy: A

Core Curriculum for a Multicultural Na-

tion spells out one way of balancing thedemands of unity and diversity in ourschool curricula by “teaching the con-flicts” in the area of constitutional law. (Thephrase, and the pedagogical approach towhich it refers, comes from the work ofGerald Graff, Professor of English at theUniversity of Chicago.) Massaro’s book ishere reviewed by Robert A. Burt, from theLaw School at Yale, who has led seminarson constitutional law for the Yale-New Ha-ven Teachers Institute, and whose ownrecent book is entitled The Constitution in

Conflict.

• The other department, “Voices from theClassroom,” will provide space for a vari-ety of contributions from the schools. Onthis occasion, we offer excerpts from aconversation with three classroom teach-ers who have recently joined our Editorial

Board: Sharon Floyd, Sharon Olguin, andPatricia King. They speak of their experi-ences in collaborative projects, and theyexpress their views on the potential use-fulness of On Common Ground.

The Images: Some Perspectives

The images in this number complement theessays in a variety of ways. Several ofthem quite explicitly provide artistic and his-

torical perspectives on certain aspects ofscience, technology and teaching.

C. W. Peale’s The Artist in His Museum, onthis page, celebrates the artist’s own remark-ably various career, which had taken him frompainting (he was the most notable portraitpainter of the American Revolution) and in-vention (he designed a truss bridge, for ex-ample, and a fireplace that consumed its ownsmoke) on to the study of natural history.He became an avid collector of birds,

CHARLES WILLSON PEALE, THE ARTIST IN HIS MUSEUM, 1822

(continued on page 13)

ON COMMON GROUND6

The accelerating impact of scienceand technology on the lives ofAmericans makes a basic under-

standing of science and mathematics an es-sential part of any education for the 21stcentury. In the 1980s researchers alarmedthe nation with reports on the low level ofscientific and technical literacy among highschool graduates. In response, Americansbegan new education initiatives, such as the1989 summit with former President Bushand the nation’s governors outlining educa-tion goals for the nation, many state and lo-cal education coalitions, the National Sci-ence Foundation’s systemic reform initia-tives, and the production of new instructionalmaterials and benchmarks for science lit-eracy. In addition, later this year, the Na-tional Science Education Standards will bepublished by the National Research Council.

Despite this progress, science is still greatlyundervalued in our schools. Science is toooften treated as an optional activity, ratherthan as a core subject. Moreover, the natureof classroom science must change. Scienceeducators must move away from the mind-less memorization of science terms nowplaguing many classrooms. Classroomsshould offer children experiential opportu-nities to learn basic scientific concepts andto develop and carry out systematic processesfor solving scientific problems. Further, sci-ence education must start during the earlyyears of schooling, when children still dis-play their natural curiosity and excitementfor learning. We must highlight science asan inquiry activity and cease the drill androte learning approaches that have causedso many of our students to lose interest inschool science.

Teacher-Scientist Partnerships

The scientific, engineering and medicalcommunities have not contributed a great

Bruce M. Alberts is President of the National

Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C. Jan

Tuomi is Director of Regional Initiatives in

Science Education (RISE) at the National Re-

search Council in Washington, D.C.

deal to school reform. However, a numberof individuals have demonstrated the poten-tial to help catalyze widespread improvementin science classrooms by building partner-ships with their colleagues in K-12 educa-tion. Through partnerships, these profes-sionals learn about obstacles to improvingscience education in America’s classrooms,and they learn how to best apply their var-ied talents toward creating lasting change.

On the basis of our own experience in part-nerships between scientists and engineersand K-12 educators, we recommend focus-ing partnership activities on teacher profes-sional development activities that supportthe implementation of a modular sciencecurriculum. We have worked to establishsuch a partnership between the Universityof California San Francisco (UCSF) and theSan Francisco Unified School District(SFUSD) over the last five years.

San Francisco is a city rich in science andtechnology resources. At UCSF, scientists,doctors and graduate students carry out cut-ting-edge research and apply scientificknowledge and new technologies to wide-spread societal challenges. Many UCSFemployees have children in the SFUSD, andso are familiar with the quality and quantityof science education their children receivein the city’s public schools. Many of theseparents had voiced concern over the years,but few had found effective pathways to in-volvement that could significantly improvescience instruction or resources.

San Francisco Schools

In 1990, most elementary teachers taughtlittle or no science; instead, the focus of theiractivities was on reading and math. Class-rooms received only textbooks from theschool district. Some teachers collected sci-ence activities from workshops or summerinstitutes, and produced their own materi-als. While many active programs existed toimprove elementary science education, theseefforts did not reach the city’s classrooms ina consistent and equitable way. Most im-portantly, valuable programs were neversuccessfully integrated into the infrastruc-

ture of the school district.Today, after four years of intense partner-

ship activity between the school district andthe scientific community, the school dis-trict supplies every school with four sciencemodules per grade-level per year. They alsosend materials from a district materials cen-ter that refurbishes materials for eachteacher’s use. All teachers have had an in-troduction to the new hands-on curriculumand to strategies for using the units success-fully.

Why are the teachers paying more atten-tion to science as an integral part of the class-room experience? First, the teachers nowreceive the kinds of resources needed toimplement a successful science lesson, in-cluding materials, teachers’ manuals, les-son plans, and suggestions for curriculumintegration. Grade-level meetings addressongoing implementation concerns and pro-vide mentoring for less experienced teach-ers. Finally, district principals and parentsactively support the teachers in their work.

Scientists from UCSF and other commu-nity institutions contribute to the effort pri-marily by participating in the teachers’ pro-fessional development activities. Approxi-mately twenty scientists, for example,worked with teachers to plan about 30 daysof staff development activities per year. Sci-entists acted as examples of authentic sci-entific inquiry, sources of content knowledgeand research expertise, and liaisons to sci-ence university labs and clinics. They alsohelped design extensions to the curriculumand worked with the district in developingtheir long-term strategic plan for scienceeducation. Equally important, the scientistsbecame active advocates of high quality sci-ence education in their community.

Lessons Learned

How did this transformation take place? Willit last? How would we advise others to goabout setting up a partnership between sci-entists and educators? We believe that thefollowing ingredients greatly improve thelikelihood of success in science educationpartnerships.

By Bruce M. Alberts and Jan Tuomi

Educating Students for the 21st Century

SPRING 1995 7

Start in Elementary Schools

The natural response of a scientist who wantsto help improve science teaching in ourschools is to concentrate at the high schoollevel. Here, the science is taught in the aca-demic disciplines that scientists are usedto—biology, chemistry, physics, earth sci-ences. Many of us with experience in schoolsystems have come to the conclusion thatthe major revolution called for in scienceeducation is best accomplished by startingin what at first seemed to us to be a veryalien world—the elementary school. Theadvantages of focusing our limited resourceson elementary science include the fact thatmany of our best teachers are found in theseschools. Moreover, elementary teacherswork with the same group of students allday; this allows them to schedule the timerequired for a meaningful science inquiryexperience. At this level, engaging scienceexplorations will foster positive student at-titudes toward science from the start of thestudents’ academic careers.

Engage District Administration

It is critical for partnership participants toengage the school district leadership in adialogue about their current science curricu-lum and future plans. Ultimately, it is thedistrict managers and school principals whomust provide the professional support teach-ers need to experiment with new instruc-tional techniques. The success of our part-nership has depended on our ability to fos-ter enthusiastic support from school districtadministrators.

Instructional Materials are Key

Identifying the best instructional materialsavailable is critical to the success or failureof any partnership. If instructional materi-als are ill-conceived, shallow or incomplete,professional development activities orga-nized around these materials are likely to besimilarly flawed. Well-developed instruc-tional materials often inspire the same levelof fascinated inquiry in teacher workshops

that they do in the classroom, and help pro-vide models for teachers of well-designedscience lessons. Materials that have beencarefully field-tested will help newcomersavoid common pitfalls in materials manage-ment and instruction, which helps maintainteacher enthusiasm for the effort as a whole.Currently, research-based curricula exist thathave been tested extensively in diverse class-rooms. These curricula are designed to fos-ter conceptual understanding over a periodof several weeks. SFUSD adopted the fol-lowing two programs: Full Option Science

System and Insights.Beyond identifying specific curriculum

units, partnership participants must developa common vision of science teaching andlearning. The National Science EducationStandards will provide a valuable new toolto help develop this vision, build local con-sensus, and guide plans to align teaching,learning and assessment. This overall visionhelps keep activities focused on improvingscience education through the difficult peri-ods that come with any long-term effort.

Provide for the ProfessionalDevelopment of Teachers

To foster excellence in science learning,merely advocating specific curricular unitsis not enough to support reform. The part-nership effort must also provide professionaldevelopment that helps teachers understandscientific inquiry. As teachers begin work-ing with the curriculum units, they expandtheir repertoire of instructional strategies andgain deeper insight into their students’ con-ceptual development. The teachers learn toenjoy—not fear—science teaching, and be-come more adept with using a variety ofhands-on materials. Teachers are quicklyinspired by their students’ positive reactionsto hands-on science. Soon, the teachers areready to explore more in-depth studies ofscientific inquiry, the role of the teacher asfacilitator, curriculum integration, and stu-dent assessment. With mastery of sciencecontent and pedagogy, teachers may developindividual, student-centered innovations toenhance commercial curriculum kits.

The long-term goal of a professional devel-opment program should be to reach all teach-ers in the region—a goal that requires a well-planned, step-by-step dissemination plan. Ourstrategy for building this capacity was to pre-pare a core group of lead teachers. These teach-ers provide feedback from principals and theircolleagues on what works in the schools.

Build a Regional Infrastructure

To ensure lasting change, the school districtmust supply classroom materials and con-tinual professional development. This re-quires reallocating resources to design andimplement a materials distribution system,to provide release time for teachers to workand plan with colleagues, and to build theinfrastructure needed to support ongoing im-provement of science education.

To support science education improve-ment, community stakeholders need to be-come informed about the goals and activi-ties of area partnerships. Moreover, theymight need to change their on-going pro-grams to avoid duplication of effort and op-timize the use of resources.

Create Long-term CommunitySupport

Strategic efforts in school districts often fail dueto the transitional nature of school district em-ployment: superintendents often have a shorttenure, school board members and state politi-cians fail at reelection, and local school districtemployees change jobs. Local technical pro-fessionals, who are knowledgeable about thestate of science education in their local area,can provide the stable platform needed for acontinuous improvement process.

Local efforts will not succeed without sup-port from a community that values science edu-cation. Scientists can provide this kind of sup-portive voice. United in our conviction thatchildren need quality science education to leadproductive and satisfying lives, we must do ourbest to give them the chance to succeed.

Responses to Bruce M. Alberts and Jan Tuomi’s

article appear on pages eight and nine.

ON COMMON GROUND8

Responses to Alberts and TuomiThis style of instruction appears to be based

on ease of gathering and convenience of stor-ing materials. Complexity of the materialsis therefore compromised. If the teacher doesnothing to enhance the kit’s implementa-tion with additional materials and resources,the children fail to develop the skills neces-sary for becoming problem solvers and criti-cal evaluators. Their thinking maintainsitself at the comprehension level. This cer-tainly moves us no closer to reaching thestandards set forth in the Goals 2000 legis-lation.

An additional concern is the financial costfor developing kits. Most of the suppliesincluded with the kits are consumable andfairly expensive, and the cost of the kits tothe schools is inflated in order to pay some-one to purchase, compile, replenish, store

(in some situations) and dis-tribute the kits. This additionalexpense reduces the dollaramount that could have beenspent on the purchase of non-consumable items. When pur-chased, non-consumable itemssuch as books, microscopes,flasks, dissecting tools, etc., be-come available for all childrento use in the future. A yearly

addition of further resources for science in-struction could prove more beneficial andmove the learner and teacher to a more com-plex understanding of science as a discipline.

I agree that an experiential approach toscience instruction begun in the elementaryclassroom is necessary. As teachers we canalso take advantage of the notion that chil-dren are natural scientists and have it serveas an invitation to develop a rich environ-ment for science instruction.

I question the practice of using sciencekits in isolation because they assume thatthe teacher has neither knowledge of thecontent nor desire to become more in-formed. It leads me to wonder: if the re-sponsibility for replenishing kits were re-turned to teachers, would their use serveas a model for expanding science andmaking it an integral part of the curricu-lum, or would science instruction againreceive less emphasis?

lum is the only way their students will beexposed to science concepts. They embracethe idea willingly and allow someone elseto assume the responsibility for science in-struction. The materials are simply placedin the room and children are given time toexplore them.

All too often this is believed to be scienceinstruction. The children’s natural curios-ity and innate interest in science leads themto explore the materials and come to someunderstandings. The teacher is comfortablethat science is being taught and is releasedfrom the responsibility of developing abroader understanding of science as a disci-pline.

This approach raises many questions. Iwill address some of them here. It is truethat science kits offer opportunities for

hands-on experiences; frequently, however,there is no connection made to their rel-evance in the bigger scheme of children’sexperiences. Attention is not paid to thedevelopment of science concepts or to theprocesses necessary to solve problems sys-tematically using the scientific process. Thislack of connectedness means that the learnermay have had a fun experience but quicklymoves on to something new. Each eventoccurs in isolation.

The teacher, assuming the kit will do theteaching, has no investment in furtheringthe learner’s understanding. This is espe-cially true if the teacher has not developedknowledge about the concept being pre-sented in the kit. Adopting this approachmeans that the teacher has no responsibilityto continued learning. Science instruction,although no longer presented as the memo-rization of scientific terms, has been reducedto its simplest form.

Science Kits asInstruction Tools

cross the country many school dis-tricts have moved toward the adop-tion of science kits as an approach

for teaching science. Implementation of sci-ence kits as tools for instruction is seen as ameans for more inclusion of science in thecurriculum. The issue of science kits forinstructional purposes was a focus for dis-cussion at a recent board meeting for On

Common Ground. The group shared a com-mon belief about the importance of scienceinstruction and children’s natural curiosityabout their world. Discussion, however, wascentered around the ways in which sciencekits are being developed andimplemented.

Children are instinctively cu-rious and always on a quest forfinding answers to their ques-tions. Given that they naturallywant to learn, it is my beliefthat the elementary classroomis the obvious place to intro-duce the scientific processesthat will help them understandtheir world. This is a philosophical beliefthat I hold to be important. However, myexperiences have led me to some conclusionsthat differ with those expressed in the ar-ticle, “Educating Students for the 21st Cen-tury,” written by Bruce M. Roberts and JanTuomi. Science kits have been adopted bymany of the schools in the AlbuquerquePublic School district where I am employed.They are often seen as replacement for thescience curriculum. The kits are designedto teach a particular concept and are provi-sioned with the necessary materials forimplementation. As a way of facilitatingimplementation, the kits are also deliveredto the classroom teacher’s door. The teachersimply has to use the kit to teach science.For many teachers this ready-made curricu-

ABy Sharon Olguin

If the teacher does nothing to enhancethe kit’s implementation, children fail

to develop the skills necessary forbecoming problem solvers.

Sharon Olguin is a Clinical Supervisor for

the Albuquerque Public School/University of

New Mexico Career Development Program.

SPRING 1995 9

Iwant to add a number of conclusionsabout effective science education part-nerships to the excellent article by Bruce

M. Alberts and Jan Tuomi. The conclusionsderive from my very rewarding experience es-tablishing the “Kids Investigating and Discov-ering Science” (KIDS) programat the University of California,Irvine (UCI).

I targeted the Santa Ana Uni-fied School District which hasan enrollment of over 49,000students of whom 92 percentare minority and 64 percent arelimited-English proficient—thegreatest concentration of suchstudents in California.

With colleagues at UCI, I be-gan the KIDS program fiveyears ago to provide Latinochildren from low-income fami-lies with an engaging and chal-lenging university-based sci-ence “camp.” The focus of theprogram was project-basedlearning on topics at the fore-front of biology, especiallyfield biology. We wanted thechildren to be able to actuallybelieve themselves to beyoung scientists. They worewhite laboratory coats andworked side-by-side with teachers, researchfaculty, undergraduate and graduate stu-dents. In this respect, this was truly anintergenerational model of teaching and learn-ing. We made our laboratories and field re-search sites places where children from kin-dergarten through middle school could dis-cover and investigate the mysteries of sci-ence. The campus became a place in whichlow-income children could pose, investigateand answer fundamental questions on such

By Eloy Rodriguez

mous impact on the children’s learning andinterest in science. A clear indicator of suc-cess was the students’ improvement in theirgrades at their “normal” school (a term stu-dents used to separate KIDS-UCI from theirschool) and comments from the parents indi-cating that the students were more involvedin their studies.

Our basic goal for the KIDS program hasbeen to foster the development of a genera-tion of youngsters who learn to think andunderstand the importance of education in

order to go to college and pur-sue a career in the sciences.KIDS is a year round sciencepartnership between UCI andthe Santa Ana Unified SchoolDistrict. In the summer, chil-dren from the Santa Anaschools come to the campuswhere they become part of aresearch university. The ef-fects of this approach havebeen profound. OutstandingSanta Ana teachers who haveworked with us in designingand carrying out the programare the children’s teachers dur-ing the academic year. Theytell us such things as “TheKIDS students . . . value learn-ing about science and see it asvery important, fun and chal-lenging” . . . “Both boys andgirls have begun to see them-selves as scientists” . . . “I amconstantly confronted by theKIDS students with their ques-

tion of ‘when can we go to UCI to study morescience?’”

Distinguished minority faculty serve as rolemodels and mentors to the school childrenand to minority graduate and undergraduatestudents who work alongside K-12 teachersin the program. The KIDS children typicallyhave their first minority scientist role modelsin the University faculty and students. Fac-ulty visit the children’s schools during theacademic year, and undergraduates serve astutors at KIDS schools, continuing to serve assignificant role models.

A Central Role forScience EducationPartnerships

topics as function, adaptation, evolution,gravity, sound, inertia, force, velocity and ac-celeration in an environmental framework withenthusiastic parents, compassionate studentassistants and gifted bilingual teachers fromthe school district. Bilingualism was crucial forthe success of this program since the majorityof KIDS students and parents only spoke Span-ish.

But the true partnership was that of theKIDS program and the parents. This beliefsprung from my own experience. My educa-

tional success in a poor south Texas schoolwas largely due to my mother’s active in-volvement in PTA and teacher/parent con-ferences. Therefore, the program emphasizedand insisted that parents be made participa-tory partners in this unique endeavor.

University faculty, graduate and under-graduate students, parents, teachers and prin-cipals all consider KIDS to be a great suc-cess. Evaluation data show this to be true.We have seen that a partnership betweenthe campus and K-12 schools can enable mi-nority children to experience the joy and ex-citement of science and can have an enor-

Eloy Rodriguez is James A. Perkins Pro-

fessor of Environmental Studies at Cornell

University. (continued on page 14)

JOSEPH ALBERS, HOMAGE TO THE SQUARE, 1967

ON COMMON GROUND10

transforming school curriculum, classroominstruction, and teacher education, and byincreasing parental support so that ALL stu-dents have opportunities suited to their needsto learn science, mathematics, and technol-ogy education. This includes benchmarksfor curriculum, assessment, professional de-velopment, management and governance,policies, partnerships, articulation, andevaluation which have been developed bythe states to guide this effort.

What Strategies are States Using to

Implement SSI?

One key SSI strategy is the creation orstrengthening of partnerships. Successfulsystemic reform requires the collaborationof educators at all levels, state and localpolicymakers, business and industry, par-ents, and the community at large.

Strong connections and articulation be-tween K-12 and higher education are criti-cal elements in SMT education reform. Thecrucial roles that higher education can playin K-12 reform fall into three categories: (1)the professional community from the disci-plines can provide up-to-date content exper-tise in the development of curriculum frame-works, instructional materials, and standardsimplementation; (2) the science and math-ematics education researchers can provideknowledge on pedagogy and developmen-tally appropriate concepts in curriculum andinstruction; and (3) science and mathemat-ics educators are key players in teacher pre-service and in-service development. Thefollowing examples illustrate how four SSIstates are creating partnerships for reform.

Expertise in Curriculum, Instruc-

tional Materials, and Standards

Montana’s SSI is a partnership of the Mon-tana Council of Teachers of Mathematics,the University of Montana and MontanaState, and the Department of Public Instruc-tion. The SSI’s primary area of focus hasbeen the development of a 9-12 mathemat-ics curriculum that uses an integrated, in-

Tterdisciplinary approach. Integrated math-ematics means integration across mathemat-ics topics, integration with other disciplines(arts and sciences), and integration withtechnology. This initiative is led by twomathematics professors, one from each ofthe two major state universities, workingcollaboratively with a team of high schoolmathematics teachers. Teaching modulesfor grades 9 and 10 have been created, field-tested, revised, and reviewed by national ex-perts. This curriculum has been used in morethan a quarter of the state’s ninth grade class-rooms to date. Tenth-grade materials arenow being piloted and revised, and the elev-enth- and twelfth-grade materials are beingwritten.

The Montana SSI goal is that this curricu-lum will change mathematics in a majorityof the state’s high schools. Eventually, thiscurriculum will be commercially availablenationwide.

Montana is also revising teacher certifi-cation standards for mathematics, to alignthem with the changes in the mathematicscurriculum promoted by the SSI.

Mathematics and Science Pedagogy

A cornerstone of Ohio’s SSI is a program ofintensive, six-week summer institutes formiddle school teachers that focus on inquiryteaching. Courses are offered in Physics,Life Science, and Mathematics by Inquiry,supplemented by academic year professionaldevelopment seminars. The summer insti-tutes are developed and conducted by highereducation faculty at Miami University andOhio State University. To date, almost 700middle school teachers have participated inthe program. Observers in these teachers’classrooms describe less use of texts, andhigh rates of questioning, use of student jour-nals, active teaching, checking for under-standing, and letting students analyze find-ings rather than having teachers explaineverything.

Recent reports show that other universi-ties (11 institutions of higher education inpartnership with the Ohio SSI) have math-

By Janice Earle and Julia C. Wan

The National Science Foundation’s(NSF) Statewide Systemic Initiatives(SSI) Program represents a new fed-

eral strategy for NSF. Previously, NSFfunded individual program components butthese components did not address issues ofsystemic reform such as comprehensiveness,scale and sustainability. A primary operat-ing assumption in systemic programs is thata tighter and more coherent alignment ofstate policies and resources will produceimproved instruction in science and math-ematics with subsequent improvements instudent achievement. In order to createalignment, several of the significant com-ponents of the system must be examined andmodified. For example, the SSI states haveworked with curriculum through creating orrevising state curriculum frameworks thatare based on national standards, and creat-ing or disseminating new materials. Somestates are revising assessment and account-ability programs. All SSI states are work-ing on professional development programsfor teachers and administrators. Others fo-cus on policy alignment through changes inteacher certification, state graduation re-quirements, and pre-service education pro-grams.

A primary goal of the SSI is high qualityscience, mathematics, and technology(SMT) education for ALL students. Thismeans making the education “systems” moreequitable in terms of learning opportunitiesand in terms of who takes (and succeeds in)advanced science and mathematics courses.The under-participation of certain groups ofstudents in advanced science, mathematics,and technology education is well docu-mented. The SSI seeks to effect change instudent participation and performance by

The National Science Foundation andSystemic Reform

Janice Earle is Program Director of the

Statewide Systemic Initiatives Program at

the National Science Foundation. Julia C.

Wan, who previously held that position, is

now the Director of the Center for Excel-

lence in Science and Mathematics Educa-

tion at the California State University at

Fullerton.

SPRING 1995 11

schools and to modify courses at the under-graduate level. The Institutes of HigherEducation (IHEs) that train over 90 percentof the state’s teachers have restructured stu-dent teaching experiences, provided re-sources for a mathematics and science re-source center, and institutionalized co-teach-

ing. Another program at Wesleyan Univer-sity provides intensive professional devel-opment to middle school mathematics andscience teachers. Half of the teachers in thisprogram come from Connecticut’s high pov-erty, high need districts.

Another example of a strong K-12 andhigher education partnership in systemic re-form is the Louisiana Statewide SystemicInitiative. The Louisiana Board of Regentsfor Higher Education is the lead institutionfor the Initiative, which had professional de-velopment of grades 4-8 science and math-ematics teachers as a major focus.

The professional development model isbased on: (1) specifically designed coursecontent with emphasis on reasoning, inves-tigating, and practical understanding of con-cepts; (2) recruitment of 30 mathematicsand/or science teachers in pairs from schoolsfor each workshop or institute; (3) summerand/or academic-year institutes providing120-180 hours of concentrated, integratedexposure to grade-level relevant content andmethods; (4) academic-year follow-up ac-tivities including classroom visits and day-long workshops; (5) $300 allotment perteacher for classroom materials; (6) gradu-ate credit for successful participation in theproject; and (7) stipends of $60 per day forprogram participants.

The Louisiana professional development

ematics and science faculty attending theinquiry courses with middle school teach-ers.

These universities are now attempting toimplement inquiry courses in their own in-stitutions. These courses are aimed at fu-ture teachers. Faculty have struggled withimplementing theseideas in their institu-tions, and commentparticularly on the di-lemma of “breadth ver-sus depth” (hands-onapproaches mean youcover less content, butthe content is better un-derstood by students).While these courses arenow electives, they are undergoing an ap-proval review process, and it is anticipatedthat the inquiry courses in mathematics,physics and life sciences will be availablefor all pre-service teachers.

Teacher Pre-service and In-service

Connecticut and Louisiana are examples ofSSI states that have strengthened pre-ser-vice and in-service delivery as part of thestates’ systemic reform plan.

Connecticut has increasingly focused oninstitutions of higher education, beginningmodestly in 1991 to foster “dialogues” be-tween those in the K-12 system and in insti-tutions of higher education. Out of thesedialogues grew partnerships to establish “co-teaching” in over 20 locations. Co-teach-ing involves having K-12 teachers work incolleges and universities co-teaching meth-ods courses. Mathematics and science pro-fessors become actively engaged in elemen-tary and secondary schools.

Following the dialogues, a grants programwas instituted. Currently, Southern Con-necticut State University, Quinnipiac Col-lege, Connecticut College, Western Con-necticut State University, St. Joseph College,Central Connecticut State University, andthe University of Connecticut have all re-ceived funds to work closely with K-12

Successful systemic reform requires thecollaboration of educators at all levels, state and

local policymakers, business and industry,parents, and the community at large.

activities described above are jointly plannedand implemented by mathematicians/scien-tists, mathematics/science educators, andteacher leaders as site coordinators. Site co-ordinators are the bridge connecting sum-mer workshops and classroom instruction.They are chosen from K-12 and higher edu-

cation for their extensiveclassroom experienceand knowledge of cur-riculum and assessment.

Louisiana SSI profes-sional developmentprojects are awardedcompetitively to univer-sities, based on recom-mendations of out-of-state expert panels. In the

past three years seventy-four projects, involv-ing most of the private and public universi-ties in Louisiana, have been implementedand over 2,400 classroom teachers have par-ticipated in these intensive, in-depth teacherin-service activities.

Summary

Although the SSIs are still in the middle ofimplementing their initiatives, we take noteof the following preliminary observations onthe contributions of strong K-12 and highereducation partnerships:

1. The partnerships strengthen K-12 pro-grams because they bring the expertise offaculty in mathematics, science and peda-gogy to the reform efforts;

2. Teacher preparation and developmentprograms are improved because of the per-spective and active involvement of K-12teachers;

3. Mathematics and science professorshave become more reflective of their ownteaching practices and are using new peda-gogy with their students;

4. The synergy of the partnerships has ac-celerated each state’s progress toward re-form, through providing a common visionand agenda for improvement and develop-ing strategies that will make the reform sus-tainable.

ON COMMON GROUND12

We are delighted to announce thatour Editorial Board now includesthree more classroom teachers.

Sharon Floyd, an English teacher fromSaginaw High School in Saginaw, Michi-gan has worked on projects with the Uni-versity of Michigan’s Center for EducationalImprovement through Collaboration.Patricia King, a guidance counselor andteacher from New Hanover-Upper FrederickElementary School in Boyertown, Pennsyl-vania, has been active in collaborativeprojects in the Lehigh Valley. Sharon Olguinis a clinical supervisor for the Career De-velopment Program of the AlbuquerquePublic Schools/University of New MexicoCollaborative.

During the January meeting of the Edito-rial Board in Santa Fe, we asked these teach-ers to say something about their experiencein collaborative projects and about the po-tential usefulness of On Common Ground.Here are some excerpts from our conversa-tion:

MANUEL GÓMEZ: What for you hasbeen the value of working in cooperationwith university colleagues, or other col-leagues in the community, or fellow teach-ers?

SHARON FLOYD: Working in collabo-rative projects has given me confidence todeal with an emerging curriculum. Rightnow I’m involved in a project titled “Writefor your life,” which deals with health is-sues that students face. My curriculumemerges from the topic that interested mystudents most, teen violence. That’s a na-tionwide issue that has impacted on all ourlives in one way or another. In such a col-laborative project we don’t try to make theissue fit the material that we already had.With the support of the university, we framethe issue and then find the material. Col-laborative projects have also taught me thatits OK to be different, to try something in anon-traditional way. I might do the samething three different ways trying to reach allmy students. They have also introduced meto team teaching, and to working with peoplefrom outside the school. That’s another plus.We have also, because of collaboration, be-

By Thomas R. Whitaker

Voices from the Classroomgun to work with writing across the curricu-lum in science and math, and other peopleon our staff now look to us to help them gen-erate writing in various classrooms.

PATRICIA KING: As the guidance coun-selor, I had the job of setting up an effectiveinstructional support team in our buildingand deciding how we were going to run it.With a lot of help from the principal andour wonderful reading specialist, we satdown and tried to decide how to proceed.We decided that we were all in it togetherand we moved along. Some of the otherschools in our district moved more quickly,through administrative decisions. But wechose to move more slowly and bring every-body on board as we went. And by far themost valuable experience for us was havingElaine Moe from Lehigh come in to workwith us and make suggestions. The wayideas are presented to the teachers can makeall the difference as to how effective a projectwill be. And so can the support of the schooladministration.

SHARON OLGUIN: My experience withcollaboration began with my work on mymaster’s degree in a collaborative program.What I discovered then was that I neverwanted not to be part of some collaboration.Teaching in itself is isolating, but in collabo-rative relationships you can have continueddialogue about curricular issues, and aboutchildren and their needs. Collaborative ex-periences have also given me greater au-tonomy, and a feeling of empowerment.They have helped me toward my goal ofbeing a reflective practitioner and lifelonglearner. My present work involves respond-ing on a weekly basis to our interns’ jour-nals, and I’m continually impressed by theircommitment to teaching and their under-standing of, or questions about, pedagogyand philosophical beliefs. This process ismutually enriching. I have also assumedthe role of being a messenger to the generalpublic, helping them to understand thechanging nature of education today.

MANUEL GÓMEZ: You speak of expe-riencing greater autonomy as a result of col-laborative activity. Can you explain thatparadox? Perhaps if traditionalist teachers,or those who are fearful of collaboration,

could see how greater autonomy can result,they might be more eager to engage in suchefforts.

SHARON OLGUIN: Dr. Auger from ouruniversity has looked at that issue in thisway: He suggests that as children we’re de-pendent on our parents, and as we grow upwe become independent, and then in ourfurther experiences we move toward inter-dependence. We share that paradigm withour students. As they move into teaching,they’re dependent on us as the deliverers ofinformation, and they move to independenceas they can deliver instruction on their own,but the ultimate goal is that move towardsinterdependence which is really very free-ing.

PATRICIA KING: Also important hereis the leadership within the school, the tonethe principal sets. If the principal reallybelieves in collaboration and in empower-ing teachers to be active participants in theirschool, that starts to come about. If it’s nur-tured and valued, teachers begin to buy intoit. But another problem is that often we’renot given the time to collaborate with oneanother or with anyone else.

SHARON FLOYD: I agree. Many peopledon’t want to become involved because ofthe time factor. They view it as a separateplanning session when you’re already teach-ing three or four English classes. But be-cause this is something that you’re collabo-rating on, then they want released time.When we started out we had released timeto collaborate. But it didn’t last. Right nowwe have a project that is not working in ourschool with collaboration that’s supposed tobe going on between an English teacher anda history teacher, but because they don’t havereleased time they refuse to do it.

JAY ROBINSON: I guess this does get toa question I wonder if you’d comment on.Much of the argument for collaboration restson the assumption that teacher voices willthen be given more strength in the kinds ofdiscussions that really count. I’m thinkingparticularly about discussions that wouldlead to real structural change in the schools.Do you feel that’s happening?

SHARON OLGUIN: I think in part inour district that it is happening. We have

SPRING 1995 13

JACOB LAWRENCE, PANEL 58, THE MIGRATION SERIES, 1940-41

many principals like Charles Serns who arereally listening to their teachers, and askingthem what their needs are and what kindsof change would benefit their students, andtrying to respond to that. I don’t know thatit extends itself beyond a particular schoolsite and its administrator, however.

PATRICIA KING: You know, I sit hereand think Albuquerque, New Mexico, andEast Greenville, Pennsylvania, are very farapart but we’re so very close in other ways.I would say the same thing. We move to-ward site-based management. There aresome wonderful things going on, and myelementary school is a good example. Wehave a very supportive principal who lis-tens to the teachers, goes to the central ad-ministration and fights for his teachers andtheir ideas and what we need in our schoolto make special education, for instance, moreeffective. But in some other places the prin-cipal may work less well with the teachers.

JAMES VIVIAN: Could you commenton ways in which On Common Ground canserve teachers, or ways in which it can givea stronger voice to some of the mattersyou’ve been raising here?

SHARON OLGUIN: I was struck by theglobal view of collaboration. I realized thatmy vision of collaboration had been very nar-row—limited to my school district and theuniversity. But in reading the articles I re-ally appreciated being given a perspectivethat is broad and interdisciplinary. I alsowant to comment on the inclusion of the art,and the connections to art that are broughtforth in the articles. This periodical is a pow-erful voice moving towards what we need—to look at art as a tool for continued learn-ing. We’re finding that art is always thefirst thing that’s done away with becausethere isn’t any funding, and I’ve recentlydeveloped a very different understandingabout art. One of the students I supervisedwas an artist, who was integrating art intohis classroom—a classroom with six differ-ent cultures and lots of low esteem. What Isaw happen through his use of art as an in-structional tool was a great improvement intheir self esteem and also a real control andunderstanding in the field of art.

JAMES VIVIAN then asked: “How can

On Common Ground give teachers more ofa voice to reach the audience of college anduniversity presidents, chief state school of-ficers, corporate and foundation heads, andthe like—those who may be importantagents of change?” And the responses ofSHARON FLOYD, PATRICIA KING, andSHARON OLGUIN all pointed in the samedirection: “I think that if there is an oppor-tunity to let teachers submit manuscriptstalking about their collaborative experiences.. .” “As well as their needs. . .” “Yes, yes.The pros and cons of collaborative experi-ences. . .” “Voicing the impacts it’s had ontheir professional lives. . .” “I think some-times administrations, and maybe universi-ties, don’t understand what’s going on in-side of the teacher trying to make it day today and work effectively in a public schoolsituation.”

Can this piece, “Voices from the Class-room,” become a regular feature of On Com-

mon Ground? The answer, we think, lies inyour hands. Our three new board membersthought it would be especially helpful to ourreaders—both to those who work in theclassroom and to those who don’t—if teach-ers could provide testimonials about the col-laborative experiences that have powerfullyinfluenced their own practice. Let us hearfrom you!

Whitaker: Science,Technology(continued from page 5)

mammals, reptiles, and insects, organizing hiscollection in accord with the scientific prin-ciples of the day. And through twenty yearsof labor, he created the first serious museumof natural history in the western hemisphere.That museum sponsored the first Americanscientific dig, which excavated a fossil skel-eton of a mastodon—a process that Pealerecorded in another notable painting.

In The Migration Series, Jacob Lawrencetraces the great migration between 1916 and1930 that took more than one million African-Americans to the North. Panel 58, which weinclude on this page with “Voices from theClassroom,” carries as its text: “In the Norththe African American had more educationalopportunities.” At age twenty-three,Lawrence had already married tempera tech-nique with a synthetic cubist style. In thispanel the jagged rhythms and bold symme-tries provide a rather syncopated harmonywith the arithmetic sequence that the girlsare writing on the board. As Lawrence latersaid about this cycle: “I tried to create a stac-cato-like rhythm over and over and over againwith the shapes as they move. . . I build onthe geometry and I love it.” And yet he sostrongly identified with the figura-

(continued on next page)

ON COMMON GROUND14

tive elements that he could also say: “I don’tthink in terms of history in that series. I thinkin terms of contemporary life. . . If it was aportrait, it was a portrait of myself, a portraitof my family, a portrait of my peers.”

On our front cover, William H. Johnson’sDr. George Washington Carver pays hom-age to the great African-American scientistwho was also an inventor of new agriculturalproducts, a teacher at Iowa State College andTuskegee Institute, and an artist in severalmedia. By developing products from pea-nuts, sweet potatoes, and pecans, as well ascotton, Carver effectively revolutionized theagriculture of the South. Johnson’s painting,which employs his late style of “consciousnaiveté,” orders in a single brilliant design amultiplicity of scientific, technological, andeconomic relationships, glimpsed in partthrough moments in Carver’s life.

On our back cover, a detail from DiegoRivera’s fresco cycle, Detroit Industry, fo-cuses on the manufacture of the engine andtransmission of the 1932 Ford V-8. The entiremural project, on several walls at the DetroitInstitute of Arts, places the automotive in-dustry in a broad mythological, historical,geographical, and geological context. In thispanel, however, the workers are given the facesof Rivera’s assistants and Detroit acquaintan-ces. Rivera thus offers a secular and pan-Ameri-can answer to the cosmic scope, universal his-tory, and contemporary details often found inthe frescoes of European churches.

Other images in this number may seem tohave abstracted science, technology andteaching from any historical context. But theyteach us in other ways, leading us into a realmwhere design and color have merged withthe depiction of a technological, geometrical,or arithmetic “subject.”

That is true even of Thomas Eakins’ Draw-

ing of Gears (page 15), an academic exercisecarried out by a student at Central HighSchool in Philadelphia who later became amajor American painter. Here the beauty ofthe geometrical forms that are essential tothe mechanical transmission of energy seemsat one with the beauty of graphic design.

(continued from previous page)

Whitaker: Science, TechnologyJosef Albers’ Homage to the Square (page 9)

is one of many such works painted during thelatter part of his life by this teacher at the YaleUniversity School of Art and Architecture.Theywere part of his study of the “saturation of col-ors” and the mutability of color perception, top-ics treated in his book, Interaction of Color.

This painting proposes a realm in which scienceand art overlap or merge—a realm of ambiguityand mystery, where luminosity is a transcen-dent energy.

In Jasper Johns’ 0-9 (page l6) on the otherhand, the ambiguities are more jarringly in-sistent. Arithmetical symbols and aestheticform here seem at odds—and yet in harmony.They are mutually obscuring and mutuallyconfirming. To look intently at this image isto be shuttled endlessly back and forth be-tween digits and design.

Finally, we include with the “Book Review”(page 21) a work by John Frederick Peto, forwhom books often provided the occasionfor eloquent formal designs. Nine Books wasgiven to the Yale Art Gallery by Charles F.Montgomery, late Professor of Art History atYale, and the Curator of the Garvan and Re-lated Collections of American Art. Had it notbeen for his untimely death in 1978, Mont-gomery would have led the first Yale-NewHaven Teachers Institute seminar on Ameri-can Art.

More on the Arts in

Our Next Number

There are strong arguments for the importanceof the arts in the educational process. Judgingfrom the recent decisions of many school ad-ministrators, those arguments have not beenheard. Herbert Read’s Education Through Art,first published a half-century ago by Faber andFaber (3rd ed., 1961), is a classic in this field fromwhich we still have much to learn.

Our next number will focus on this topic. Itwill include, among others: Scott Massey on“The Arts as Knowing,” Elliot W. Eisner on“Why the Arts are Marginalized in OurSchools,” James Gray and Richard Sterlingon “The National Writing Project,” and MartyTrujillo on “Saint Joseph Ballet’s Program forInner-City Children.”

I also want to re-emphasize the critical impor-tance of parents as partners. Parents serve asvolunteer homework mentors and others are paidto assist in teaching, mentoring and to serve asstaff. Parent programs are offered at school sitesin the community daily after the summer campends. The activities strengthen parents’ skills insupporting their children’s learning. Principalsat the children’s schools tell us that, “Thesehave become some of our most active parentsat school. They are eager to share their hopesand their plans for their students to attend col-lege. . . . Most of our KIDS parents are partici-pating in our Parent Institute for Quality Educa-tion.”

Finally, I want to underscore the value ofbuilding on an existing regional infrastruc-ture that has solid community support, if oneexists. An important factor contributing tothe rapid and continuing success of KIDS isthat it has been implemented in conjunctionwith the Student/Teacher Education Partner-ship (STEP). This is a collaborative effortinvolving the predominantly minority SantaAna School District—the largest in OrangeCounty—and other institutions of highereducation and school districts in the region.STEP, which has been in existence for close tofifteen years, is nationally recognized as a modelof school-college collaboration. It has had sup-port at the highest levels, including UCI’s Chan-cellor and the Santa Ana Unified School District’sSuperintendent.

Notable effects of the KIDS science part-nership have occurred in the children’sschool-year experiences. Teachers tell us,“Many of the KIDS students have becomethe ‘leaders’ in their classrooms in the area ofscience and problem solving.” Principals tellus, “Due to the fact that four of our teachershave been KIDS teachers we’ve been ‘in-fected’ with KIDS philosophy and focus oninquiry.” It can and does work school-wideacross all areas of the curriculum.

I urge colleagues at other colleges and uni-versities to collaborate with school districtsin creating similar programs enabling childrento participate in the campus scientific life. Inthese partnerships, the campus becomes atruly common ground for fostering the loveand learning of science.

(continued from page nine)

Rodriguez: Central Role

SPRING 1995 15

Our society uses the computer as itscentral tool for communicating andcreating knowledge. Public schools

do not. Most public schools misuse com-puters, and some cannot use them at all.Three significant obstacles stand in the wayof the technological revolution schools des-perately need: inappropriate teaching meth-ods, stereotyping of students, and obsoletefacilities.

“We have to teach children about com-puters. After all, computers are the future.”The teacher’s voice trembled slightly, and fora minute I was afraid she was going to cry.We were sitting in her fifth-grade classroomin an elementary school in Queens, finishingan interview for a PBS documentary on tech-nology. Her emotion notwithstanding, hercomments were misguided in two importantways.

First, I doubt if she has to teach her stu-dents about computers; in all likelihood theyalready know more about modern technol-ogy than she does. That “bank deposit”approach to teaching (teacher as ‘depositer’of knowledge into students) may have beenappropriate years ago, but it is certainly ob-solete today—particularly where technologyis concerned.

She was upset because her class’s ambi-tious project, a multi-media yearbook, wasstalled in mid-stream, because the itinerantinstructor who had been visiting her schoolregularly had been laid off. The teacher feltabandoned. “I know there’s lots of informa-tion, like the folk songs the children recordedat home, in this computer, but I don’t knowhow to get it. And now I’ll never learn.”

Sadly, it had not occurred to her to ask herstudents, because that’s not the way she hadbeen taught to teach. But teachers won’tsurvive, and school will become increasinglyirrelevant, if teachers don’t change their styleof teaching.

Her second statement, ‘Computers are thefuture’ is also incorrect. Computers are thepresent, and that’s a fact. The high-tech,information age parade is well under way.

By John Merrow

Obstacles to a Technological Revolution

THOMAS EAKINS, DRAWING OF GEARS, 1860

We’re living in the digital age now—can youeven remember when you had to wait in lineat the bank to get some cash? Everywherewe go today. . . offices, shops, hotels, thesupermarket, the drycleaner and banks, tech-nology is there.

Schools haven’t joined the parade. Foryears they’ve used computers as a manage-ment tool, largely ignoring its remarkable ca-pacity for creating knowledge and stimulat-ing learning.

Most teachers—like that fifth-gradeteacher—do not know the world of comput-ers, because from the very beginning, schoolshave kept computers in the administrators’offices and in special “laboratories.” Thatunfortunate policy has kept teachers awayfrom technology, keeping them technologi-cally illiterate.

Even today, schools provide little in theway of help for teachers who are unfamiliarwith computers. Fewer than half of theschools in this country report having a basiccomputer class available for teachers, butformal training isn’t essential if teachers seethemselves as learners. Jill Livoti had hadalmost no exposure to computers when shewas hired to teach at a middle school in Co-lumbia, South Carolina, last year. Her princi-pal told her, “relax; let the kids show you.”She describes what happened.

“When we started on our first computerproject, I said, ‘I’m not all that familiar withthis, so if you have some ideas please cometo me and we will work something out.’”

And her students, how have they reacted?“They love the fact that I don’t know toomuch about it, because they love to teachme, and it’s fun for me because they reallyare good teachers. Some kids aren’t asstrong on the computer as others, and it helpsthose kids to see that I’m learning too. It’snot as intimidating for them.”

Livoti is comfortable with the idea ofteacher-as-learner. “I think it’s important forchildren to know that a teacher doesn’t knoweverything,” she says. With technologychanging and knowledge expanding, teach-ers have to understand that there is abso-lutely nothing wrong with not knowing.What’s sinful is not seeking to know, or notcaring.

A second obstacle that must be overcomeis the persistent stereotyping of children thathas led to very different uses of technologyfor poor and well-to-do children.

Basically, schools use technology to con-trol poor kids. Many schools in poor neigh-borhoods have computer laboratoriesJohn Merrow is Anchor and Executive

Editor of the Public Television Series

“The Merrow Report.”(continued on page seventeen)

ON COMMON GROUND16

A Partnership Supporting Computers in theSchools: Lessons from Portugal

eform efforts in large, rich nationscan be splintered into competingcamps, each with an issue, constitu-

ency, and not enough money. Perhaps weshould look to smaller, poorer nations if wewant to learn about creativity, cost-effective-ness, and truly effective partnerships. I wasrecently privileged to be the United Statesrepresentative in a team of four evaluatorsinvited by Portugal and the Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development(OECD) to assess a recently concluded Por-tuguese program called Project Minerva.Minerva’s purpose was to foster broader useof computing in Portuguese schools. Theproject had lasted seven good years. Portu-gal was bringing it to a close, taking stock,and thinking about what to do next.

Minerva was a college-school-governmentpartnership, initiated by college faculty,funded by an equally imaginative govern-ment agency, and staffed largely by schoolteachers. Its goal was to get computers intothe schools and, far more important, to helpteachers improve formal and informal learn-ing by exploiting the new machines.

To give you a taste of Minerva’s achieve-ment, here’s one case of many that we in-cluded in our report.1

The coordinator of a computer centerserving several rural Portuguese schools toldour team, “Last year one school did a projecton ‘How did our grandparents live?’ Theycollected all kinds of information, includ-ing recipes about what their grandparentsate. One of the boys said, ‘We have so manyrecipes, we can do a cookbook!’ Alentej hasa very distinctive cooking style, but therehas never been a cookbook about the cook-ing of this region. Our book will be pro-duced next June, and distributed by schoolsall over Portugal. The children are now in adifferent school but they come back to ourcenter regularly and ask about their book.

RBy Stephen C. Ehrmann When it is published, there will be a party.

The boys will wear ties, and the girls willwear their smart dresses. The children were9 and 10 years old, and they will have writ-ten something people all over Portugal willread.”

This anecdote illustrates several featuresof Minerva—the role of the computer inenabling a broader pattern of curricularchange (desktop publishing enabled but didnot encompass this exciting project), collabo-ration and sharing of resources, and the re-forming power of the children’s own energydrawn from their encounter with the worldoutside the school. Several features ofMinerva are not apparent from the story,however, among them the roles of the uni-versity, school, and governmental partners.

The design of Minerva had an elegant geo-metric simplicity. Visualize a triangle withthe Ministry of Education at one vertex, theuniversities at a second, and the schools atthe third. Minerva had a distributed leader-ship structure: you can turn the triangle sothat any vertex is on top—each of the threepartners could be seen as the true leader ofMinerva.

For example, the Ministry of Educationprovided not only funds but also a centralpoint of reference and leadership. AlthoughMinerva was invented by university facultyfrom several institutions who then ap-

lThis and several other sections of this article are adaptedfrom our report, Report of the Minerva Project Evalua-tors, 1994, (JSBN 972-614-271-7), available from theOrganization of Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment, rue Andre Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX l6,France. The authors are Monique Grandbastien, StephenC. Ehrmann, Bridget Somekh, and Rick Withers.

proached the government for funding, andalthough its first director was in a univer-sity, its later directors were Ministry officials.The Ministry allocated (“seconded”) teach-ers to Minerva (all teachers are paid by thecentral government) and also paid the billsfor training, equipment (including a com-puter each year for the participating schools),university staff, publications, and other ex-penses.

The universities were equally the leadersof Minerva. Each participating universitycontrolled the use of the resources for its area,and was responsible for the quality of theoperation. Each university selected itsschools (often around fifty of them) from anumber of applicants, and tailored servicesto their needs and the university’s specialcapabilities. For example, a university mightspecialize to a degree in the development ofcourseware, while another might specializein services for special education; all univer-sities, however, had to provide a base of gen-eral services for their schools. In the begin-ning, the universities organized only train-ing courses and support to teachers. As theirstaff of seconded teachers (often around 20of them) became more knowledgeable aboutcomputers, they also offered subject-orientedseminars and other services.

The schools were equally the leaders ofMinerva. At its peak, almost 1200 schools

JASPER JOHNS, 0-9, 1959

SPRING 1995 17

were participating. Their “seconded” teach-ers shaped and delivered the services offeredby the universities. Some of the key gov-ernment officials in the Ministry were them-selves seconded teachers. Also of course theschools decided what ultimately was to bedone with the opportunities created for themby Minerva.

Each group had its own distinctive rewards(i.e., incentives) which helped to power andstabilize this distributed leadership.

The Ministry could display visible, valu-able national leadership.

The universities’ education faculty couldgain entrance to the schools for their re-search. Minerva influenced the in-serviceand even the pre-service offerings at a num-ber of universities and colleges. Faculty fromdepartments other than education could playa role in improving schooling (and thus thequalifications of students seeking entry totheir institution) and could developcourseware for use in schools.

The schools had the greatest incentives tolead and collaborate. They could get com-puters, extensive training for their teachers,and opportunities to advance the broadereducation reform agenda in Portugal. Theseconded teachers benefited professionally,from what they learned in doing their workand, for some, graduate study.

Each university operation (called a “node”)and its cluster of schools was mainly on itsown, and appreciated its loose interdepen-dence with the other nodes. As one schoolteacher said of the seconded teacher at anearby computer learning center, “If I don’tknow, I go to Amelia. If Amelia doesn’tknow, she goes to [her node]. If [her node]doesn’t know, there are other nodes. Thereis quite a network, through the computer bul-letin board system, through workshops of-fered by other nodes.” Three times duringMinerva’s history there were national meet-ings. More frequently contact came in meet-ings with a defined purpose (e.g. discussingLogo) that were sponsored by one or morenodes and, sometimes, by associations.When one node offered a workshop, some-times teachers from other regions of thecountry would also attend, especially if the

workshop dealt with specialized topics. Be-cause of the linchpin role played by secondedteachers, and because of the strength andconfidence that came from a distributed lead-ership structure in which no party was sub-ordinated, Minerva participants could col-laborate across what traditionally have beenalmost insurmountable organizational bar-riers in Portugal.

Our team concluded that the distributedleadership structure at the heart of ProjectMinerva was a great success, worthy of closestudy by Portugal and other nations. I thinkit has some special lessons for the UnitedStates.

l) Portugal was able to create a nationalschool-college-government partnership todeal with a serious, long-term educationalproblem. The United States has not yetshown itself capable of doing that.

2) Minerva demonstrated that such a part-nership could function with a relatively non-hierarchical, distributed leadership structure,one in which each of the three major partiescould be seen as the leader and key drivingforce behind the whole.

3) Minerva also showed that it is foolishto divide the reform effort into “technologyinitiatives” and “normal initiatives.”Minerva was not a computer literacy project.Computers were the key enabling factor butthe range of benefits ran far beyond the im-mediate uses of the machines. For theschools, let the Alentej cookbook stand asthe symbol of what Minerva can accomplish.For the universities, let the enlivening oftheir teachers education programs stand asa symbol of their broader benefits. For thegovernment, so recently an autocracy, thetriumph was in supporting and, in its lateryears, directing a program that was a modelof distributed leadership.

In these days when any initiative seemstoo expensive to a government agency, a uni-versity, or a school, let Portugal stand as asymbol of what our poor country might yetaccomplish.

Merrow: Obstacles(continued from page 15)

equipped with drill-and-practice tutorial pro-grams called Integrated Learning Systems.Students sit in front of these computers andfollow the programmed routine, typing inanswers to problems like “12+4-2=?” Criticscall this the “drill and kill” approach, and itwould be hard to find a student who woulddisagree.

In contrast, in many suburban schools, stu-dents are likely to be able to manipulate com-puters, databases, spreadsheets, and draw-ing programs—which allow them to create.They are able to express themselves and theirthoughts, and then share that informationwith each other.

In other words, middle class kids are usingtechnology in ways that will make them con-trollers of their lives, while poor children arebeing denied that power. Practices like theseserve to divide our society. They also con-tradict our American myth of public educa-tion as the great equalizer, the road to ad-vancement.

Outsiders often assume that lack of moneyis a major obstacle to a technological revolu-tion in schools, but that is not correct. Lastyear schools spent $2.4 billion on technol-ogy—computers, laser discs, CD-ROMdrives and the like. Advance planning mustnot be our educators’ strong suit, because alltoo often someone discovers that they can’trun their new equipment without blowing afuse or burning down the building.

Sad to say, school buildings themselvesare a major obstacle: 31 percent of our publicschools were built before World War II. An-other 43 percent went up almost overnightduring the baby boom of the ’50s and ’60s.These are yesterday’s buildings, but they’retrying to run today’s technology.

When the two worlds meet, bad things canhappen. Clark High School in New Orleanscaught fire and burned last April when the de-mand for power to run the new computers causeda short circuit. In New Orleans, which has 124public schools, the average school is 55 yearsold, and their basic wiring inside can’t satisfytechnology’s thirst for electricity. In fact, only 10of that city’s public schools are properly wiredfor, and equipped with, today’s technology.

(continued on page 22)

Stephen C. Ehrmann is the Manager of the

Educational Strategies Program for The

Annenberg/CPB Projects (e-mail:ehrmann

@soul.cpb.org).

ON COMMON GROUND18

Robert G. Wheeler is Professor of Applied

Physics and Physics at the Becton Center

at Yale University.

Artifacts of Technology as an Educational ResourceBy Robert G. Wheeler

[Editor’s note: Robert Wheeler’s seminaron “Electricity,” offered by the Yale-New Ha-ven Teachers Institute in l989, includedteachers of science, life science, mathemat-ics, home economics, business, and account-ing. Each Fellow was therefore challengedto find an important relation between thetopic of the seminar and his or her academicsubject. And Professor Wheeler was chal-lenged to make his approach to the topic asinterdisciplinary as might be feasible. Thecurriculum units written during the semi-nar ranged from “Teaching Basic Electricity”and “Changes in Lifestyle Due to Electricity”to “Operating Electric Kitchen Appliances,”“The Fax Systems: A Bright Outlook for Busi-ness Communications,” “How Computers haveSimplified Accounting,” and “Boolean Alge-bra and its Application to Problem Solving.”Professor Wheeler has continued to reflect onthe pedagogical problems posed by such abroadly focused seminar.]

y concern as a seminar leader inthe Teachers Institute is to ex-plore ways of conveying the

knowledge and excitement of science andtechnology to the Fellows. A “hands-on”approach, using experiment and demonstra-tion, is one way of conveying realisticallythe nature and methods of science. In thesedays of scarce resources, however, the Fel-lows may find it difficult to transfer suchexperiences to their classrooms. We shouldtherefore seek interesting examples fromwhich we can draw scientific generalizationsthat are broadly applicable. Such examplescan often be found among the technologicalartifacts in the students’ own locality. Letme illustrate with one about which I learnedlast summer—an artifact that would be veryuseful in the study of light and radio.

In Marion, Massachusetts, on the westernshores of Buzzard’s Bay, there existed, fromshortly before the First World War until adecade after the Second, a forest of 400-foot-high towers supporting a radio antenna.Here Guglielmo Marconi had constructedone of the Marconi Company’s eleven wire-

less transmitting stations to provide worldwidecommunications. During the First World Warthe U. S. Navy appropriated the station for thenation’s defense, and in l9l9 it formed a part ofthe assets of the new company called the RadioCorporation of American (RCA).

The Marion installation operated at twodifferent wave-lengths: ll,620 and l3,420meters. The frequencies were therefore verylow, about 26,000 and 22,000 hertz (cyclesper second) respectively. (The numericalproduct of wave-length and frequency is thespeed of light.) These low frequencies werechosen in order to enable trans-Atlantictransmission. Nature has provided, in thesurface of the ocean and the ionosphereabove, two facing mirrors, each capable ofreflecting electromagnetic waves with mini-mal loss. A small bit of geometry and geog-raphy permits one to find that for trans-At-lantic radio communications (from Marionto Land’s End) there have to be four bouncesof the waves, since the ionosphere is aboutl00 kilometers above the earth’s surface.This layer is composed of a very low densityof electrons and ions which itself has a natu-ral frequency of oscillation, the plasma fre-quency (about a million hertz.) As long asthe radio wave frequency is less than thisplasma frequency, the ionosphere reflects theradio wave. For frequencies higher than theplasma frequency, the mirror ceases to workbut instead lets the radio wave leak out intospace.

Another reason for the very low frequen-cies was the need for high radio frequency(r.f.) power. The first wireless technologieswere not very efficient; in particular the re-ceivers were quite sensitive. For Marconi’ssystem the transmitters radiated 200,000watts of r.f. power—a level that could onlybe attained by interrupting high voltage elec-trical discharges. By opening and closingthese spark gaps, the Morse code of dots anddashes could be impressed or modulatedupon the waves. What is the visible conse-quence of operating a station with such lowfrequencies and long wave-lengths? In or-der to send radio waves efficiently into theatmosphere, an antenna needs to be a quar-ter of the wave-length. The elder residentsof Marion still speak in awe of the rows of

towers from which the mile-long horizontalantenna was arrayed.

The Marion station had its main impactduring the twenties, when it competed suc-cessfully with the older trans-Atlantic cable.Because its capital costs were much less thanthose of the undersea cable, it was immedi-ately of economic importance. From it, forexample, the Wall Streeters of the day ob-tained the London prices before the stocktrading opened in New York. A number offortunes were based on this timely informa-tion. As the next decade arrived, RCA ex-panded their services to include voice trans-mission. By then, vacuum tube electronicshad led to more sensitive receivers. Thesenew stations operated at a higher frequencythan Marion so that voice frequencies couldmore easily be impressed upon the radio wave,yet not so high a frequency that the ionospherewould cease to function as a mirror.

What general point is here most relevantto a seminar on light and radio? Simplythis: in all instances of electromagnetic re-flection, the physics remains the samethough the numbers are different. Mirrorsonly work when electric charges are able tomove under the influence of the oscillatingelectric field associated with the wave. Thefrequency above which electromagneticwaves are transmitted rather than reflectedvaries with the square root of the density offree electric charges. Thus the ionosphere,which has a low charge density, is a reflec-tor of long waves; while aluminum metal,which has a very high charge density, canalso reflect light, whose wave-length is verysmall. High frequencies also have a tech-nological advantage. The higher the fre-quency of the electromagnetic wave, thegreater the possible rate of modulation. Asa result, more simultaneous channels becomeavailable with a single transmitter station,which decreases the cost for each channel.As we have proceeded to use higher frequen-cies for worldwide communications, we havehad to replace nature’s mirrors with activereflectors or re-broadcasting stations placedupon satellites, which are much above theionosphere. Through all these technologi-cal changes, however, the physics remainsthe same.

M

SPRING 1995 19

Carlos Mora is the Director of Partner-

ship for Minority Student Achievement-

New Haven (PMSA).

By Carlos Mora

chools have been victimized by a mul-titude of well-meaning individuals,agencies and foundations—each in-

spired by a private view of education reformor school improvement. School reform pro-grams may not be compatible and thus maypull teachers and students in different di-rections. The observation that teachers areoverwhelmed by multiple—and many timesincompatible—reform efforts is not new.Tyack and Tobin (1994) quote a New Yorkteacher from the 1940s who, referring to areform of that time, said: “Last year it wasthe socialization recitation, or the Gary Plan,or dramatization, or correlation; this year itis motivation, silent reading, or the DaltonPlan. Each is taken up in turn, indiscrimi-nately adopted, presently elbowed out tomake room for the next newcomer; and yetwe are not saved. The old problems remain.”

The Federal Government is aware of thedangers of fragmented reform efforts. In arecent report, the U.S. Department ofEducation’s Office of Educational Researchand Improvement Program (OERI) warnsthat their conjoint efforts with the NationalScience Foundation “must not fragment Fed-eral reform efforts through the creation of amultitude of ‘systemic reform’ activities. Allresources going to a state should be focusedon support for a single, comprehensive strat-egy to attain the National Education Goals.”In an article written for the inaugural issueof On Common Ground, Secretary of Edu-cation Riley asserts that fragmentation is alsopresent in staff development activities. “Toofrequently, professional development activi-ties have been ‘one shot,’ offer limited fol-low up, and are isolated from school anddistrict goals. This has been true of manyfederally funded professional developmentactivities as well.”

Due to the sources of funding, urbanschools are more vulnerable to the onslaughtof uncoordinated reform than rural or sub-urban schools. For example, New Haven

Fragmented School Reform andEffective Partnerships

schools receive close to 87 percent of theirfunding from external sources while only 13percent is raised from local sources. The1995-96 New Haven schools budget includes$20 million in grants and $101 million instate aid, while local revenues amount to $23million. The grant money supports 135 dif-ferent programs, covering a wide area ofsubjects from curriculum-based (e.g., im-proving math and science education throughsystemic change), to community-based (e.g.,adult education for the homeless). Eachone of those grants embodies a preferredmode of school reform, including priorities,reporting requirements, professional devel-opment, classroom activities, and so forth.A wealthy suburban district receives lessmoney from outside sources, but at the sametime is burdened with fewer mandates.

Uncoordinated efforts create a climate in-compatible with organizational goals. Thelack of consistency in action and unity inpurpose creates frequent opportunities forconflicts, misunderstandings, and antago-nisms. Teachers and administrators inschools become less productive because partof their time and energy is spent resolvingconflicts or clarifying misunderstandings.An obvious response would be to coordinatethe reform efforts. In fact, this has been rec-ommended by several observers, includingthe federal government. As quoted above,OERI suggested that the grants—at leasttheirs— should support a “single, compre-hensive strategy.” But it is difficult to bringthe current situation into a house of order.

Why is it so difficult to coordinate reformefforts? Obviously, the complexity of theeducation system makes coordination diffi-cult. But that argument is not sufficient,since many other complex systems exhibitgood coordination.

Unfortunately, we do not have a generaltheory of education, powerful enough tocover several areas including learning,teaching and school administration; instead,we have short-range “theories”—or fieldsof inquiry—that illuminate a limited areabut are not sufficient to establish connec-tions with other areas. A general theory ofeducation would yield two immediate ben-

efits: (a) it would filter out reform plans in-compatible with the theory, (b) it would makeclear how the different areas are connected,thus facilitating the consistency and unityof reforms.

The absence of a general theory may be atransitory or a permanent feature of our ca-pacity to understand complex social systems.Maybe one day it will be developed. In themeantime, we have isolated areas of inquiry,but this is no different from the historicaldevelopment of science. The eminent physi-cist Victor Weisskopf (1977) noted that sci-entific inquiry began by asking limited ques-tions. “Instead of searching for the wholetruth, people began to examine definable andclearly separable phenomena. They askednot What is matter? and What is life? butHow does blood flow in the blood vessels? .. . In time this restraint was rewarded as theanswers to limited questions became moreand more general.”

Two promising fields of inquiry in educa-tion are empowerment and accountability.Empowerment has been a popular compo-nent of many organizational transformationprograms implemented over the last decadeby business and industry in the Westernworld. The goal of empowerment is to bringfirst-line managers and employees closer tothe decision-making process. The strategyseems to be working.

Numerous studies in the business litera-ture document a strong relationship betweenincreases in productivity and quality on theone hand, and increased workers’ empow-erment. In education, the goal of empower-ment is to move to the school building mostof the decision making power previouslyassigned to the central office. It also seemsto be a winning strategy for schools (cf. “TheMilwaukee Experiment,” Business Week,April 17, 1995).

For over a decade now, the New Havenschools have experimented with a very ef-fective model of empowerment: the Comermodel. The Comer model is predicated ona school-based organization called theSchool Planning and Management Team(SPMT). The SPMTs are organized around

S

(continued on next page)

ON COMMON GROUND20

(continued from previous page)

Accountability is another popular topic inthe current debate over school reform. TheAmerican public is concerned with the costand quality of public education and that con-cern is being expressed in the political arena.Legislation calling for standardized testing,minimum graduation requirements, en-dorsed diplomas, teacher certification,school report cards, and district profiles hasbeen adopted by most states.

Operationally, accountability is based onmeasurement models that define the objectof accountability. For example, interest instudent outcomes leads to the developmentof standardized tests or other measures ofstudent performance. Information systemsare needed to collect and analyze measure-ment data and disseminate results. The in-formational infrastructure created by themeasurement models and information sys-tems could be used to convey a constructivefacet to accountability. Constructive account-ability must be based on a model of infor-mation utilization for early detection of prob-lems, timely suggestions for improvement,participatory decision making, and consis-tent recognition of good performance.

An example of university-school partner-ship forged around constructive accountabil-ity is voluntary accreditation. In 1871, TheUniversity of Michigan initiated a programof school accreditation whose original pur-pose was to “examine” schools instead ofindividual applicants. Applicants whograduated from accredited schools weregranted admission without further tests.That created a great incentive for localschools to become accredited and Michiganbegan receiving correspondence fromschools interested in its accreditation pro-gram. A few years later James Angell, thenPresident of The University of Michigan,hosted a meeting of presidents of midwestuniversities interested in the accreditationprogram. That meeting resulted in the foun-dation of the North Central Association ofColleges and Schools (NCA), a regionalaccreditation association that expanded overthe years and today includes nineteen statesplus the Navajo Nation and the Departmentof Defense dependent schools.

In spite of the fact that the automatic ad-mission status granted to otherwise quali-fied applicants from accredited schools hasbeen eliminated, schools continue to expressgreat interest in voluntary accreditation.Today, the accreditation process is based ona set of minimum standards or indicators oftotal school quality. The accreditation pro-cess generates data which can be used (andin fact is typically used) for school improve-ment.

Although the public at large may only beinterested in a pass/fail verdict, universitiescan help schools further develop the infor-mational infrastructure of accountability sys-tems so that the information can be used toinform decisions in the context of school im-provement. This possibility is not restrictedto school accreditation. Student achieve-ment, teacher certification and re-certifica-tion, graduation requirements and the like,are all examples of accountability objects thatcan be treated in a similar manner.

We hope that with the information pro-vided by a system of constructive account-ability and the power needed to make deci-sions based on that information, school-based organizations like SPMTs will be ableto impart order to the many reform programsand make sure that their energies convergeat all those points where teaching meetslearning.

References

Riley, R. (1993). “The Emerging Role ofProfessional Development in Education Re-form.” On Common Ground, Yale-New Ha-ven Teachers Institute, Number 1.

Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). “The‘Grammar’ of Schooling: Why Has it BeenSo Hard to Change?” American Educational

Research Journal, 31(3), 453-479.U.S. Department of Education. (1993).

Building a Capacity for Systemic Reform,Office of Educational Research and Improve-ment, Programs for the Improvement ofPractice.

Weisskopf, V. (1977). “The Frontiers andLimits of Science.” American Scientist, Vol-ume 65, Number 4, pp. 405-411.

Mora: Fragmented School Reformpsychological and academic needs of theschool community. However, the fact that atthe present time the SPMT does not have abudget for operations limits the extent ofempowerment.

Another example of empowerment is pro-vided by the Yale-New Haven Teacher In-stitute. The Institute is a teacher-based pro-gram that offers both resources and trainingfor teachers to express their contributions tocurriculum development. The productivityof the Institute, as measured by the qualityand quantity of curriculum units developedover the years, is a testimonial of its effec-tiveness. At the present time the Institute isdeveloping a database of curriculum unitsdeveloped by fellow New Haven teachers.The intent is to make the database availablethrough the Internet and train teachers sothat they are able to use this vast resource.

The effectiveness of empowerment is a re-flection of the quality of decisions made byteachers and school administrators who havehad neither training nor experience as deci-sion makers before. What decision toolsshould be available to them in order to dis-charge their new responsibilities with a fairprobability of success? Although we don’thave a definite answer to that question yet,it is possible to identify some basic tools thatneed close attention.

Database of available resources. Thismay include curriculum materials, trainingprograms, assessment kits, student enrich-ment activities, university and/or businesspartnerships, and so forth. The databaseshould identify basic attributes of the re-source such as cost, source, availability,training requirements, duration, and refer-ences.

Selection criteria. This may include avoting system, a checklist of minimum re-quirements, a plan for resource utilization,or a combination of these and other selec-tion criteria.

Budgeting and resource allocation. Thiswill include a diagnosis of the current slackin human and material resources.

Program implementation and monitoring.This will be covered under constructive ac-countability.

SPRING 1995 21

Book Reviewswing toward and away from the poles ofstrong, national assimilation and strong,local pluralism” (p. 22). At the end of thissurvey, Massaro concludes that “any nationalcore curriculum must reflect both the corecurricularists’ interest in cultural solidarityand their critics’ interest in cultural plural-ism, because both interests are integral toour national constitutional character” (p. 65).

In the second part of her book, Massarosuggests the way that teaching constitutionallaw, at varying levels of sophistication andcomplexity from sixth grade upwards, couldaccomplish this curricular integration of thecompeting themes of unity and diversity.Massaro maintains that constitutional lawis a good, and even a preferable, curricularinstrument because Americans historicallyhave tended to define themselves in its ter-minology. She correctly observes that pub-lic debates on issues of unity vs. diversity“typically occur against the backdrop of ourconstitutional commitments—using consti-tutional language as our common vocabu-lary”—in matters such as secularism vs. re-ligious expression in public institutions,unrestrained vs. restricted expression in themedia and other public forums, and claimsregarding use vs. misuse of race, gender,disability or sexual identity categorizations(p. 70).

Massaro’s discussion of specific SupremeCourt decisions addressing these variousmatters is the most useful part of her book.She presents these decisions clearly and ac-cessibly for lay readers, and in doing so, shedemonstrates the feasibility of her claim thatclassroom discussions of constitutional lawcan serve the educational purposes that shehas proposed. At the same time, however,Massaro’s specific case discussions under-score the difficulty in achieving her pro-claimed goal of merely “teaching the con-

Toni Marie Massaro, Constitutional Lit-

eracy: A Core Curriculum for a Multicul-

tural Nation (Durham, N.C.: Duke Univer-sity Press, 1993), 200 pages, $24.95; Re-viewed by Robert A. Burt, Alexander M.Bickel Professor of Law, Yale University.

Recent debates about American culture havebeen waged in sharply dichotomous terms:whether we are fundamentally unified orfundamentally diverse, a “melting-pot” or amulti-cultural “mosaic.” During the pastdecade, conservative critics have lamentedthe absence of cultural unity and have advo-cated, as a supposed remedy for this absence,that our public schools teach a nationalized“core curriculum” of great books that illu-minate superior values. This call to intel-lectual arms has attracted considerable popu-lar attention. In 1987 two books espousingrelated versions of this theme became na-tional best-sellers: Cultural Literacy, by E.D. Hirsch of the University of Virginia, andThe Closing of the American Mind by AllanBloom of the University of Chicago; andpolitical leaders prominent in the Reaganand Bush administrations were quick toembrace this theme and their professorialexponents.

Toni Marie Massaro, a professor of law atthe University of Arizona, gives a paradoxi-cal spin to this debate. There should be acore national curriculum, Massaro asserts,but it should not purport to promote unifiedcultural values; the core curriculum shouldinstead “teach the conflicts”—that is, itshould identify the persistent tensions be-tween unity and diversity in American cul-tural life and should offer students a coher-ent intellectual framework for thinking aboutthese tensions without insisting that theychoose one side over the other. Massaroproposes that instruction in constitutionallaw would be the best vehicle for providinga specifically focused content to this curricu-lum.

In the first part of her book, Massaro setsthe contemporary debate into the context ofeducational controversies that have raged forat least a hundred years in this country—the “competing pulls,” as she puts it, “ofcommon culturalism and multiculturalism[that] have caused educational policies to

flicts” without pushing students toward somepedagogically preferred resolution of theseconflicts. Massaro works hard to be scru-pulously fair-minded in her presentations,and attentive to the complexity of the com-peting social goals in controversies such aspublic support for religious preferences ineducational institutions or school censorshipof student speech or claims for racial- orgender-based affirmative action policies ineducational institutions. But Massaro has aclear ideological commitment in these mat-ters—a complex, even paradoxical convic-tion that constitutional doctrine should giveessentially equal respect to the “competingparts of the American personality: a liberalinstinct to permit dissent and escape fromcommon standards [and] an assimilationistinstinct to enforce common standards” (p. 101).

This position mirrors Massaro’s pedagogiccommitment to teaching rather than resolv-ing these conflicts. In substantive constitu-tional law, this position leads Massaro toprefer some Supreme Court decisions to oth-ers; thus, in discussing recent cases that up-hold school censorship of student speech andnewspapers, Massaro sharply observes thatthe “current Court, led by the statism of Jus-tice Scalia, seems profoundly unconcernedabout protecting the liberal instinct fromoverweening assimilationist forces” (p. 101).However persuasive this criticism might be,it would not sit comfortably within the non-directive pedagogy that Massaro appears toespouse in her core curriculum design.

But Massaro is not guilty of inconsistencyhere. There is a deeper consistency in herown thinking that she does not adequatelyacknowledge. The deeper consistency isthat, from her perspective, the SupremeCourt is obliged to teach the same lesson tothe nation at large that she proposes for itsschool curriculum—the lesson that equalrespect is required for the demands both ofdiversity and of unity in our culture. Main-taining balance between these contradictoryimpulses is itself a substantive positionwhich is both difficult to accomplish andinevitably controversial in its specific, prac-tical applications. Accordingly, Massaro’sproposed curriculum is not, as the first partof her book might appear to suggest, a non-

(continued on next page)JOHN FREDERICK PETO, NINE BOOKS, CA. 1890-1900

ON COMMON GROUND22

Collaboration Acrossthe CommunityCollegeBy Carole F. Edmonds

ecretary of Labor Robert Reich’s ar-ticle “Creating New Paths to theMiddle Class” in the Fall 1994 issue

of On Common Ground calls for new pathsto the middle class and rightly points to com-munity colleges as institutions uniquely po-sitioned to help Americans reach their careergoals. As Reich notes, community collegesserveAmericans of all ages and backgroundsfrom those who are over thirty and seekingretraining after losing a job to traditional-agecollege students getting the first half of thecourses towards a bachelor’s degree to per-sons with degrees seeking new directions.

Linkages with business and industry toinsure the appropriateness of course workand establish cooperative work experiencesfor students and collaboration with second-ary schools is extensive and on-going at com-munity colleges across the country. Certainlythat is the case at Kellogg Community Col-lege. Collaboration is occurring at every levelof education and among levels. At the com-munity college, however, we need not onlyto collaborate with the K-12s and the univer-sities, but also across the college. My col-lege, like many community colleges, is con-sidered comprehensive; that is, we offer as-sociate degrees for students planning to goto work directly after they complete theircommunity college study and for studentswho plan to transfer to universities. Whilefaculty seem to work together across pro-grams of study—certainly nursing studentstake composition courses and there is gen-eral education in every program—the link-ages are often a mile wide and an inch deep.

Students and faculty often talk about get-ting general education courses “out of theway” so they can get to the “real” courses intheir specialty areas of drafting or nursing orcomputer repair. Furthermore, faculty in spe-

S

cialty areas usually speak of the humanities,in particular, as being part of curricula for stu-dents planning to transfer to universities and“nice” if they fit in the occupational curricu-lum (which they do not because there arealready too many requirements).

For years that is how the discussion wentat Kellogg Community College. Then in 1993,we developed a proposal, funded by the Na-tional Endowment for the Humanities, whichbrought occupational program faculty andtransfer program faculty together to studyprimary texts from European American, Afri-can American, Native American and AsianAmerican traditions and required all partici-pating faculty to integrate the texts in theircourses.

The design of the project was simple: sixfaculty members—three who taught occu-pational courses (nursing, drafting, and busi-ness) and three who taught liberal artscourses (English, music, and history) wouldmeet together for a semester to read the sametexts and discuss them with each other andwith visiting scholars. At the end of theproject, they would produce an annotatedbibliography that would be useful to theircolleagues throughout the college and theywould integrate some of the texts they hadread into their own courses. During the dis-cussions, they would focus on the theme ofwork which would provide a starting pointequally accessible to occupational and lib-eral arts faculty.

What actually happened was more collabo-rative and stimulating than any of us hadanticipated or even dared to hope for. First,work was just the starting point of conversa-tions about the readings that were far rang-ing and thoughtful. For instance, in discuss-ing Thoreau’s Walden, the drafting instruc-tor said that he was going to use a passage inhis classes which talked about Thoreau tak-ing the time to spend half a day just lookingat the world outside his door. The instructorcommented that students needed to developtheir creativity by looking up from their com-puter screens and contemplating possibili-ties, just staring out the window. Then heasked the nursing instructor if that was im-portant in nursing, and she said, “No, there

Response to Robert ReichBurt: Massarro’sConstitutional Literacy(continued from previous page)

judgmental middle ground between the con-temporary avatars of cultural unity and di-versity. There is no escape from makingvalue judgments on these matters, whetherin deciding court cases or designing cur-ricula.

By the end of her book, Massaro admitsas much, and she explicitly justifies her pro-posal to “teach the conflicts” as a way ofgiving heightened visibility to multiculturalperspectives which—as she views thepresent moment—are threatened with sup-pression by the most vocal contemporaryproponents for a national core curriculum.I myself am persuaded of the virtue ofMassaro’s proposed curriculum. But it doesnot strengthen her case to deny that, in ourcurrent mood of “culture clash,” manytriumphalist advocates will disagree.

Carole Finley Edmonds is Dean of Arts

and Sciences at Kellogg Community Col-

lege in Battle Creek, Michigan.

Recent federal legislation will providemoney for facilities repair and upgrading, butthe amount set aside, $100 million, is woe-fully short of what’s needed—billions, notmillions.

In the past, schools have resisted technol-ogy successfully, but that’s no longer pos-sible. Our children swim in a sea of technol-ogy outside of school. If schools resist tech-nology and its opportunities, young peoplewill simply turn off. That means more disci-pline problems, a higher dropout rate, andgreater waste of human potential. In otherwords, schools must adapt, or they will die alingering death.

“Adapt or die” may seem harsh, but it’snot the grimmest prospect. Today’s technol-ogy is truly democratic: the computer doesn’tknow whether the person sitting at the key-board is rich or poor, male or female, black,brown or white . . . only how competent thatindividual is. If your schools don’t give allyoung people a fair chance to become com-petent, then the gulf between the “haves”and the “have nots” will grow wider. Thatprospect should frighten us all. . . and per-suade us to help teachers and schools trans-form themselves.

(continued from page 17)

Merrow: Obstacles

SPRING 1995 23

just isn’t time.” He then described an experi-ence with the birth of his daughter when therehappened to be no other babies born on thatnight and the nurse had had time to come inand hold the baby and he knew she was ex-periencing the miracle of birth just as he was.The conversation moved on, but at the nextsession, the nursing instructor said that shewanted to share something. She said thatshe had repeated the comment about time tocelebrate the wonder of life as part of nursingwith her colleagues in the nursing depart-ment. They had decided that in some waythey had to be sure their students experi-enced that joy and excitement as part of theirnursing education.

Other moments of discovery occurred atalmost every session, sometimes induced bythe provocative and helpful comments of vis-iting scholars, such asXiao-huang Yin fromHarvard University, whoopened up a whole worldof Asian American texts,but who charmed the fac-ulty by providing manypractical suggestionsabout how the texts mightbe used in freshman/sophomore level classes,even providing the entire syllabus and read-ing list from his courses. His openness andthat of the other visiting university scholars,plus their interest in how our faculty read thetexts and how they saw them as working intheir courses built new bridges of collabora-tion across types of institutions at the sametime that our music instructor and draftinginstructor gained new respect for each other,coming to anticipate the group’s discussionseagerly and stopping each other in the hall toshare information about a new article or bookread. Conversations ranged from the rela-tionship of Toni Morrison’s Song of Solomon

to West African religions that opened up newvistas for the history instructor to the waysNativeAmericans and African Americans usedesign that the drafting instructor plannedto incorporate into projects for his productdesign students.

Sometimes the moments of sharing werepersonal, as when an African American in-structor shared the similarities between theexperiences described in Ralph Ellison’s In-

visible Man to his own life, right down tohaving been offered a scholarship to thesame predominantly black college. Anothertime, the conversation focused on the de-scription of a mother’s death in a text andthe recent death of the mother of one of thefaculty members. All of these conversationscould occur in groups that did not crossthe lines of occupational and liberal arts fac-ulty at a community college; however, be-cause the conversations were both personaland professional, because they jumped frompedagogy to interpretation to personal ex-perience, they created a bonding that wasboth personal and professional. The remarksof the instructors at the end of the project

in response to the question “What is themajor benefit you received from participa-tion in this project?” were telling. They said:“(1) Deepened my appreciation and under-standing of diverse cultures. (2) Shared agrowth process with colleagues I did notknow”; “The major benefit for me was anincreased awareness of how the humanitiesare so much a part of everything we do. Apart of this benefit was the relationshipsthat were developed by participating in thisproject”; “Working with people from otherareas. Exposure to literature I probablywouldn’t have read;” “The motiviation toread more history and literature providedby the grant and the discussion with col-leagues. It was particularly interesting tohear people’s reactions from different fields/occupations/curricula/degrees. I receiveda more diverse outlook.”

Collaboration on the NEH projectbrought faculty together in ways that de-veloped their appreciation not only of thetexts read and the visiting university schol-ars but also of each other’s strengths andinsights. They are continuing to work to-gether. One exciting outcome has beenthe development of a new NEH-fundedproject to engage twenty faculty membersfrom different subject areas in two month-long summer institutes focusing on Na-tive American history and literature in 1995and African American history and litera-ture in 1996. Participating faculty are fromEnglish, communications, allied health,technology, music, sociology, biology,and art. There is also a librarian this time.

Secretary of Labor Reich is absolutelyright in targeting community colleges as

places where Americanscan receive educationleading them to careerswhich will provide amiddle class standard ofliving. He is also rightin pointing to the needfor lifelong learning andthe enrichment which abroad education makespossible. By bringing

faculty from different departments andfrom occupational and liberal arts curriculatogether to study and to talk to each otherabout primary texts, not only will thecourses be enriched by the multiple voicesof Toni Morrison or Louise Erdrich or Ben-jamin Franklin, but students will see thatteachers talk to each other and see con-nections between nursing and English ormusic and history. Connected learning isvital to students—and to faculty. We can-not assume that the connections will justhappen without structured opportunitiesto make them happen. That’s what the NEHprojects are doing for Kellogg CommunityCollege. Further, the administration andfaculty see these projects as a beginningand are eager to collaborate in other waysand to encourage similar projects at othercommunity colleges.

At the community college we need not only tocollaborate with the K-12s and the universities,

but also across the college. While faculty seem towork together, the linkages are often a mile wide

and an inch deep.

Strengthening Teaching through

School-University Partnership

Spring 1995Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute

Box 203563 Yale Station

New Haven, Connecticut 06520-3563

Phone: (203) 432-1080Fax: (203) 432-1084

E-mail: Common_Ground@yale.edu

World Wide Web: http://www.cis.yale.edu/ynhti

Executive Editor, James R. VivianProduction Associate, Margaret M. Davey

The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute is an edu-

cational partnership between Yale University and the

New Haven Public Schools designed to strengthenteaching and learning in local schools and, by ex-

ample, in schools across the country. Through the

Institute, teachers from the University and the Schools

work together in a collegial relationship. Founded in

1978, the Institute is the first program of its type tobe established permanently as a unit of a university.

Editorial Advisory BoardAdrienne Y. Bailey, Chicago, Illinois • Rene Castilla, President, Dallas Independent School District School Board,Texas • Lucy Davis, Chair, Program in Education, Duke University • Thomas Furtado, Corporate Ombudsman, UnitedTechnologies • Dixie Goswami, Professor of English, Clemson University; Coordinator, Bread Loaf Rural TeacherNetwork, Bread Loaf School of English, Middlebury College • Kati Haycock, Director, Education Trust, AmericanAssociation for Higher Education • Fred M. Hechinger, Senior Adviser, Carnegie Corporation of New York • VinettaJones, National Director, College Board Equity 2000 Project • Gene I. Maeroff, Senior Fellow, Carnegie Foundationfor the Advancement of Teaching • John Merrow, Executive Editor, The Merrow Report (PBS) • Jules D. Prown,Paul Mellon Professor of History of Art, Yale University • Leo Rockas, Professor of English, University of Hartford• Adele Seeff, Executive Director, Center for Renaissance and Baroque Studies, University of Maryland at CollegePark • Thomas Toch, U.S. News and World Report , Washington, D.C. • Gita Z. Wilder, Education Policy Division,Educational Testing Service

On Common Ground

DIEGO M. RIVERA, DETROIT INDUSTRY, NORTH WALL (DETAIL), 1932-1933

Yale-New Haven Teachers InstituteP.O. Box 203563

New Haven, Connecticut 06520

Forwarding and Return Postage Guar-

anteed. Address Correction Requested

Editorial Board

Sharon Floyd, TeacherSaginaw High SchoolSaginaw, Michigan

Manuel N. GómezVice ChancellorStudent AffairsUniversity of California at Irvine

Patricia King, TeacherNew Hanover-Upper Frederick Elementary SchoolBoyertown, Pennsylvania

Edward C. KisailusProfessor of BiologyCanisius College

Antonio C. LasagaProfessor of Geology and GeophysicsYale University

Sharon Olguin, Clinical SupervisorAlbuquerque Public School/University of New

Mexico Career Development ProgramAlbuquerque, New Mexico

Thomas E. Persing, SuperintendentNorth Penn School DistrictLansdale, Pennsylvania

Norine A. Polio, ESL TeacherEast Rock Community SchoolNew Haven, Connecticut

Henry A. Rhodes, Social Studies TeacherEast Rock Community SchoolNew Haven, Connecticut

Jay L. RobinsonProfessor of English and of EducationDirector, Center for Educational Improvement

through CollaborationUniversity of Michigan

Charles S. Serns, PrincipalHubert Humphrey Elementary SchoolAlbuquerque, New Mexico

Thomas R. Whitaker, ChairmanFrederick W. Hilles Professor of EnglishProfessor of Theater StudiesYale University

NONPROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDNEW HAVEN, CT.PERMIT NO. 526