CHAPTER TWO--LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, I begin with an examination of several types of schools. The first are the be politically based public schools, those governed by the democratic process. From there I examine market based schools which encompass private and parochial schools. In contrast to the public schools, which are governed by the democratic process, these are governed by the market and the forces it exerts. A group of this market based sector of schools is the faith based parochial, Christian schools, of which, most notably are the Catholic schools. Finally I examine the schools of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, one of which will serve as the site for this research project.
The second section deals with professional development. The section begins with discussion how professional development has become an item garnering much research in the field of education. There is contrast between what is the generally held notion of professional development which is a presenter talking to teachers for a period of time on a particular subject and teachers being involved in their own professional development through regular collaboration with other teachers. There is then brief discussion of the principal’s role in the professional development of teachers.
The third section deals with the similarities and differences between the various forms participative action research. It concludes with a more in-depth look at collaborative inquiry with focus on how collaborative inquiry mirrors how people learn.
The fourth and final section contains discussion on thematic instruction/integrated curriculum. These are not contrasting terms but rather synonyms for an instructional strategy that links various subject areas around a particular topic. This is contrasted with the traditional approach to instruction which is having blocks of time set aside for particular subject areas.
Politically Based, Public Schools
Throughout America, democratic control and the marketplace are the two ways that societal decisions are made and social resources disbursed. These two also form the distinction between the public and private sectors. Government relies almost totally on democratic control, while in the private sector almost all decisions are made by the influence of the market.
The American public school system and the schools that operate within that system are both political and bureaucratic. These terms carry negative connotations; however, neither is intrinsically such. Schools are political in that the system is affected and ultimately controlled by the democratic process. They are governed through highly uniform institutions of democratic control. Here the public allocates decision making authority to those elected to positions of government – for example, School Board members. However, should the School Board enact policies and procedures which the public does not support, its members will not be re-elected when their terms are fulfilled, and in their places will be Board members who support the policies which the public wants to see.
The schools are bureaucratic in that there is a formal, and in this case, hierarchical system of authority in place. In these bureaucratic and politically based schools, decisions regarding personnel, goals, leadership, and practice are often dictated by higher levels of government. Research on bureaucracy is, also, often negative. In a survey of principals and superintendents, both cited bureaucracy as the primary reason for leaving the profession (Johnson, 2002). The Los Angeles school system is attempting to reduce or eliminate bureaucracy in an effort to become more responsive to schools and improve support for instruction (Johnson, 2001). The bureaucracy of the school system is seen as a large part of the reason that public schools are slow to make changes in instructional strategies (Levine, 1970).
Yet virtually all organizations regardless of size are in some way or another bureaucratic. They rely on hierarchy, division of labor, specialization, and formal rules to move members to a common goal. So, a certain amount of bureaucracy is often needed for effective social action (Weber, 1947). In addition, bureaucracy provides structure and fairness to the educational system (Corwin, 1993).
But, for purposes here, the bureaucratic and political system is neither positive nor negative, but rather descriptive of a model of governance.
Market Driven, Private Schools
While public sector schools are political and bureaucratic, there are two differences between public sector schools and schools within the private sector. Those differences unite schools in the private sector while serving to distinguish them from those in the public sector. Those differences are first, that society does not control them through the democratic process and second, that society does control them – however indirectly – through the marketplace.
These private schools account for approximately eleven percent of the student population in the United States and nearly twenty-five percent of the schools (Council for American Private Education Statistics, 2004).
In private sector schools, the people who run each school decide what they will teach, how they will teach it, who will do the teaching, how much to charge for their services, and virtually everything else about how education will be organized and supplied. But, at the same time, teachers and administrators must prove sensitive over the long run to the goals of those who pay for their operation (Gardner, 1991). Student tuition provides the only source of real income, covering some eighty percent of the annual budget (Sikkink, 2001). The gain or loss of a small number of students can sometimes be the difference between economic viability and potentially ceasing operation. They often have limited budgets and depend on “word of mouth” and satisfied clientele as primary forms of advertising and recruiting of new students. They also need to ensure that they are providing the kinds of services parents and students want, and that they have the capacity to cater and adjust to their clients’ specialized needs and interests (Chubb & Moe, 1990).
Parochial, Faith-Based, Christian Schools.
Parochial, faith-based, Christian schools benefit somewhat by providing an environment in which faith can be expressed and demonstrated. There are at least four types of parochial, faith-based, Christian schools. The first, and largest, group is the Catholic school system, makes up of nearly twenty-five percent of the private schools and fifty percent of the private school students nation-wide (Council for American Private Education, 2003). The second of Christian schools are those affiliated with an evangelical movement such as the Southern Baptist or Christian Reformed Churches. The third is the Fundamentalist schools, and the fourth are those schools affiliated with the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS).
The day to day governance of faith-based Christian schools is very different from that of public schools, in large part because control over such things as hiring practices and curricular policies is vested entirely at the local school site. But, because almost all Christian schools are financially precarious, they cannot afford to lose too many tuition-paying students, so market forces often soften the hard religious edges as these schools seek to attract students and financial support they bring (Sikkink, 2001).
Parents whose children attend faith-based schools often cite religious reasons for sending their children to the school and making the associated financial sacrifice. But as result of declining religious order membership, the number of parents who share that faith and are both willing and able to make the monetary commitment necessary to send their children to faith-based schools is not enough to provide the income for these schools to cover rising costs (Rist, 1991).
In these parochial, faith based, Christian schools there is recognition that students who attend often do so because their parents are seeking an alternative to public education and are willing to make a financial commitment to achieve that. Parents undoubtedly consider numerous factors when choosing between public and private education as well as when selecting from among the many private school options as well. Among these factors are the religious, educational, cultural and social values that may be incorporated into an integral part of the school’s mission (Ross, 2001).
Private school leaders use these and other marketing strategies to generate interest in the school. Included would be maintaining smaller class sizes, a safe environment, and a traditional education. This traditional education is demonstrated in test scores that are often published because they are, in some cases, higher than those of the local public school. Recruitment efforts will link the higher test scores with the smaller class size, the safer learning environment, and the traditional education. In their book High School Achievement, Coleman, Hoffer, & Kilgore (1982) estimated that the difference between catholic and public school performance may be equivalent to as much as a full year of learning. Although these conclusions have been challenged (e.g. Goldberger and Cain, 1982), they have withstood (Hoffer, Greely, and Coleman, 1984). Debating the validity of this conclusion is not the purpose here; however, it does show what private and faith-based schools use to recruit students into the school. Because of the cost differential, the perceived value of private schools must far outweigh that of public schools if they are to win students (Chubb & Moe, 1990).
So, parents who do not share the faith component of the school, will often choose to send their children to the school because they see the school as providing the type of education they believe to be more effective (Hofman, Hofman, & Guldemond, 2002). King (2002) suggests that “student-leaving from public schools was at least in some significant part influenced by the school’s reluctance or inability to listen to expressions of parental concerns”. King notes that parents “did not like the teaching approaches that were used in my child’s previous public school”, which led them to seek an alternative.
Lutheran Schools. Lutheran schools began in the late nineteenth century when German Lutherans of the Midwest felt that they were not welcomed in the growing public school system. As a result, they began their own schools. This school system has the largest number of private, religious schools outside of the Catholic Church. Struggles over the definition of Lutheranism have led these schools to be tightly integrated with the local church. The importance of that connection is evidenced by the substantial tuition discounts given to the members of the local church.
As a result, Lutheran schools are, traditionally, not independent; they are owned and operated by the local congregation who usually shares both the campus and the facilities. While the school is not independent, the church is. Lutheran churches and schools have no organizational entity comparable to the Catholic diocese or the public school district. The reason for this political structure is historical in nature. During the Lutheran Reformation of the mid-fourteen hundreds, Martin Luther – the founder of the Lutheran Church - was forced to break away from the Catholic Church. In forming a new church, he noted the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church with the Pope as the head and a broadening number of people under his authority, ending with the laity at the base. The newly founded church took a diametrically opposite political structure. While the Pope is the undisputed head of the Catholic Church, the individual congregation in the Lutheran Church possesses nearly complete autonomy and is, therefore, able to exercise self-governance in a manner unknown in the Catholic Church either then or now.
Even though the individual congregation is autonomous, leadership for the school is hierarchical in nature. The principal is responsible for the day to day smooth operation of the school, teacher performance, tuition collection, and monitoring of school related expenditures. The principal is accountable to the School Board who decides matters of policy and sets tuition based upon projected expenses.
When school matters have effect beyond the school entity, church leadership enters the decision making process. The first of two groups that can be involved in this process is the church council, which is comprised of the corporate officers and leadership representatives from all the church programs. This group meets regularly and has decision-making authority. However, both the School Board and the church council have authority limits. Neither has the authority to borrow money, and any decision either makes can be reviewed and overturned by the church body as a whole. The church body as a whole is known as the voters’ assembly; they are the final decision making body in the organization. The church has a large financial interest in the school through facility and personnel costs, so there is careful monitoring of school activities and anything perceived as having the potential of diminishing school success is questioned.
It should be noted that while the School Board and principal are accountable to the church council and the voters’ assembly, neither of those overseeing bodies chooses to exert influence in the matters of curriculum and instruction outside the area of religion. In the area of religious instruction, the church does two things to ensure that the doctrine and theology of the LCMS are presented faithfully. The first is that the majority of teachers in LCMS schools were trained in LCMS colleges (Sikkink, 2001). The second is the religion curriculum taught is one designed and published by the LCMS.
In all other academic areas, the principal has nearly complete autonomy and is allowed to determine instructional philosophy and the curriculum necessary to facilitate that philosophy. However, as noted previously, that instructional philosophy and the results it yields need to be attractive so that there are enough students to generate sufficient income to cover expenses. Should a time arise that school enrollment falls short of budget projections and the instructional philosophy was suspected as the cause for this, the church council and the voters would call on the principal and the School Board to devise an instructional strategy that would attract more students to the school and, therefore, alleviate the budget shortfall. From the church perspective, success of the school is measured not in student achievement, but rather in the school’s ability to maintain financial viability. And as long as the school meets its enrollment and resultant financial projections, the instructional philosophy used to attract that enrollment is not called into question.
As was noted above, the principal has near complete autonomy in the area of instructional philosophy. This autonomy is similar to that of other principals in non-public schools. Based upon the results of “Administrator and Teacher Survey” given to 500 of the High School and Beyond schools, Chubb & Moe (1985) determined that in private sector schools – Catholic, other religious, and non-sectarian – the strongest outside influence (whatever that may be for each school) was found to be less influential than in the public sector. They also found that in the private sector, the strongest outside influence from an outside authority is weaker than the influence of the principal.
Professional Development
The education reforms of the past decade have brought the role of professional development to the fore. School policy makers have recognized that schools can be no better than the teachers and administrators who work in them and have, therefore, made professional development a key part of every school improvement plan (Guskey, 2003). Fallon (1999) suggests that “teacher quality is the most important variable in producing student achievement”. This is echoed in the No Child Left Behind legislation (U.S. Congress, 2001) which stresses the importance of high quality professional development to guarantee that all teachers are “highly qualified” and that all students reach high levels of achievement. In their school reform frameworks, both Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution (1996) and Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century (1989) include teacher professional development as one of the key elements to successful middle and high school reform. In addition, Payne (2000) notes that “principals must work to ensure that all teachers are able to address the many challenges the contemporary classroom present by helping to provide meaningful and effective professional development opportunities”. This professional development should also be “an ongoing process” (American Federation of Teachers, 1995) and not a “’one shot’” deal” (Payne, 2000)
But with this increased focus came increased scrutiny. Professional development was seen as ineffective, with the much-maligned “single session workshop” used as the example of how and why professional development failed to promote meaningful school reform and increases in student achievement. In this single session workshop model, topics could vary from district initiated programs on instructional methods to teacher wellness and school climate (Alexander, 1995). Also, a lack of clear consensus about what constitutes effective professional development, led those same policy makers to demand assurances of quality in the professional development activities. This, in turn, led those same policy makers, and many others, to publish “lists” that describe the components of high quality, effective professional development.
Guskey’s (2003) analysis of these lists found no characteristic of effective professional development that appeared on all of them. However, that analysis did find that the most frequently mentioned characteristic of effective professional development to be “the enhancement of teachers’ content and pedagogic knowledge” (American Federation of Teachers, 1995; Dougherty, 1998). Helping teachers understand more deeply what they teach and how students learn what they are teaching appears to be an important component of effective professional development. The analysis also found “another consistently noted characteristic is the promotion of collegiality and collaborative exchange”. Educators value the opportunity to work together and exchange ideas. This collaboration also helps build a sense of community (Supovitz, 2002). But for collaboration to bring its intended benefit, it must be structured and purposeful, with efforts guided by clear goals for improving student learning (DuFour, 2001; Guskey, 2003). Creating a collaborative environment has been described as “the single most important factor” for successful school improvement initiatives, “the first order of business” for those seeking to enhance their school’s effectiveness, and essential requirement for improving schools, the critical element in reform issues, and the most promising strategy for substantive school improvement (Eastwood and Louis, 1992; Fullan, 1993; Newmann and Wehlage, 1995; and McLaughlin, 1995).
In the right environment, even flawed activities can be a catalyst for professional growth (DuFour, 2001). Conversely, in the wrong environment, even programs with powerful training strategies can prove ineffective (DuFour 1998). So, to increase the likelihood that professional development will have positive impact on student achievement and school improvement, principals first create an environment in which there are opportunities for teachers and staff to work together, engage in collective inquiry, and learn from one another. In doing so, professional development is structured into the routine practices and becomes a part of the normal workday (American Federation of Teachers, 1995). Second they shift focus from what teachers are teaching and how to help them teach more effectively to a focus on what students are learning and how they can be enabled to learn more (DuFour, 2001). Shifting focus in this manner represents a change from when principals were thought to be first and foremost instructional leaders. Principals foster this shift when they change their emphasis from helping individual teachers improve their instruction to helping teams of teachers ensure that students achieve the intended outcomes of the school.
Principals can also facilitate professional development through alternate, informal activities such as conversations among teachers about common concerns, ideas for classroom lessons, and formal and informal observations of interactions between teachers and students. The principal also can orchestrate teacher learning through strategic room and lunch period assignments and informal conversations with teachers based upon observation (Payne, 2000).
Participative Action Research
There is an increased interest in the processes of action oriented research in the field of adult education. There are a number of participatory action-oriented inquiry methods that are popular in the field of adult education, yet each has distinguishing characteristics. But they all share a dual focus. The first is on an interaction between action and reflection that produces learning that, in turn, changes the world of those who live in it and the second focus is a basic truism that learning is essentially a social experience (Bray, 2000). Elden and Gjersvik (1994) suggest that they have indications that utilizing participants as co-researchers provides “much more valid data and useful interpretations” (p. 39)
Reason (1994) identifies three approaches to participative inquiry: cooperative inquiry, participatory action research, and action science and action inquiry. The author notes that the list is not exhaustive and gives several approaches not included. Bray (2000) omits cooperative inquiry from the inquiries listed but adds collaborative inquiry. Brooks and Watkins (1994) give action science, action learning, and collaborative inquiry. The purpose here is not to provide a thorough and complete listing of all forms of participatory inquiry, but rather to note that there are numerous forms and then to examine traits of similarity and difference between them.
The foundation for all participatory action research is the constructivist theory of learning. In constructivism knowledge is discovered rather than absorbed. It is then transformed into concepts that a person can relate to. Learning consists of active participation rather than passive acceptance of knowledge presented by a lecturer. Learning then occurs through transactions and dialogue among those involved in the experience.
Brooks and Watkins (1994) identify four major dimensions that are common to action inquiry technologies. The first dimension is “the construction of new knowledge on which new forms of action can be based” (p. 11). The second component is that the people who comprise the population of the research setting should be “central to the research process” (p. 11) as active participants in the inquiry process. Third, “the data used in the research process are systematically collected and come from the experience of the participants” (p. 12). The fourth component is a focus on generating change in the form of “improvements in professional practice, organizational outcomes, or social democracy” (p. 12).
Brooks and Watkins (1994) also identify four major dimensions of difference as well. The first listed is the political dimension. In this dimension, there is a paradoxical quality in that those who condone and fund the research could find that their privilege in the social order at stake. A second dimension is whether “they work more as a social version of the scientific experimental method or as a form of critical reflection on the part of the researchers and co-researchers” (p. 13). A third dimension is the degree to which to researcher and the co-researcher share power. All models use data generated by co-researchers; however, the amount of decision making authority varies. The fourth dimension they are different is how the knowledge generated by the process is used.
Collaborative Inquiry
In his early work on cooperative inquiry, Heron (1985) described cooperative inquiry as a way of systematically deriving learning from individual and shared experience as people engage in a refined experiential learning cycle. Heron (1996, p. 7) also noted that, unlike other forms of action inquiry, this form views “the full range of human sensibilities as an instrument of research”. At the heart of this form of inquiry is the assumption that learning resides in the experience of inquirers (Bray, 2000).
Collaborative inquiry is a participatory action research that is the least hierarchical of all the action strategies. In this process, the distinction between the researcher and subject is erased. Rowan (1981) suggests that the decision to initiate inquiry is likely to begin when individuals experience an imbalance or disequilibrium in their state of being. He describes this imbalance as moving from resting on one’s own experience to a sense of dissatisfaction with one’s own practice (Rowan, cited in Reason, 1988, p.7). When this happens, a part of one’s life-world becomes negated, but instead of retreating into feelings of defensiveness and displacement, curiosity is aroused. What Rowan describes as disequilibrium or imbalance, Bray (2000) identifies as being uncomfortable with some aspect of experience and wishing to explore this sense of discomfort.
Although the inquiry is collaborative in nature, the process begins with a person experiencing the above described disequilibrium or discomfort and who also has what Bray (2000, p. 51) calls “a burning desire for new knowledge and a willingness to work with others to find new avenues of meaning”. Bray then notes that this person joins others with a similar sense of discomfort. Many of those who join in the collaborative process do so because they see it as “a way of obtaining answers to troubling or compelling questions” (Bray, p. 29).
The collaborative inquiry group stands in contrast to much of the research and writing being done on the topic of leadership. The collaborative group is truly leaderless. For the person who initiated the inquiry process, the movement from a position of leading the initiation process to one of being co-researcher can be difficult. Bray notes “some of our most difficult feelings as initiators have centered on this issue of transitioning from initiator to co-inquirer” (p. 69). As a result, it is important for individuals who are initiators of a collaborative inquiry to think through the implications of being a coequal. While that transition may be difficult it does, however, highlight the equality of co-inquirers within the group and how collaborative inquiry groups function.
Members of the group meet together as a co-operative group, define their common area of interest and move through cycles of action and reflection, meeting regularly to review progress (Reason, 1998). It is the process of reflection that becomes one of the defining characteristics of collaborative inquiry. “Only when changes made through action are reflected upon and involve a change in the person in the form of learning is activity transformed into significant experience” (Bray, 2000 p.21). Reflection is reactive in that thought is given to what has happened and how that has impact upon one’s life. But it is also proactive. Dewey was critical of the unreflected individualism that he saw pervading American life. Dewey (quoted in McDermott, 1973, p.50) said,
“…it does not insist upon antecedent phenomena but upon consequent phenomena; not upon the precedents but upon the possibilities of action…Under these conditions the world will be different from what it would have been had thought not intervened. This consideration confirms the human and moral importance of thought and its reflective operation in experience.”
In collaborative inquiry, learning takes place for the duration of the group’s existence, not just at the conclusion. This is due to the fact that during the inquiry process, group members engage in critical reflection, a process of examining their underlying assumptions and the activities that generate them. Dewey (1933) refers to reflective thinking as “…the kind that consists of turning a subject over in the mind and giving it serious and consecutive consideration” (Dewey, 1933, p. 3). Mezirow (1991) describes this process of reflection as learning that “involves assessment or reassessment of assumptions” (p. 6). As the group goes through the repeated cycles of action and reflection, nascent meaning emerges and is further tested, with new meaning continually emerging from the process (Bray, 2000). As they make meaning from their experience, their personal horizons and the horizons of the life- world under investigation become merged into a new understanding of their world.
Thematic Education/Integrated Curriculum
It is taken for granted, apparently, that in time students will see for themselves how things fit together. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that they tend to learn what we teach. If we teach connectedness and integration, they learn that. If we teach separation and discontinuity, that is what they learn. To suppose otherwise would be incongruous. (Humphreys, 1981, p. xi)
The subject of integrated curriculum has been under discussion for over fifty years, with a renewed interest taking place over the last ten. Jacobs (1989) contributes this rise in interest to the explosion of knowledge, the increase of state mandates, fragmented teaching schedules, concerns over curriculum relevancy, and a lack of connections among the academic disciplines. Benjamin (1989) adds trends towards global independence, the increased pace and complexity of the twenty-first century, the expanding body of knowledge, and the need for workers to have the ability to draw from many fields and solve problems that involve interrelated factors.
Principals and teachers alike experience the feeling that “there isn’t enough time to get it all in” or “the school day isn’t long enough to cover what I’m supposed to” or “every year something new gets added to the curriculum”. This feeling of frustration is one of the motivations behind the development of an integrated curriculum. Teachers see this as part of the solution to the requirements they see pulling them in a multitude of directions (Lake, 1994).
The move towards integrated curriculum is move away from memorization and the recitation of isolated facts – the activities associated with a traditional education – to more meaningful concepts and connections between concepts. As students move into the work field of the twenty-first century, the will be faced with a requirement for a flexible use of knowledge that goes beyond memorization and recitation and moves into insight that is developed through learning that is connected. Perkins talks about that kind of learning when he states:
A concern with connecting things up, with integrating ideas, within and across subject matters, and with elements of out-of-school life, inherently is a concern with understanding in a broader and a deeper sense. Accordingly there is a natural alliance between those making a special effort to teach for understanding and those making a special effort toward integrative education. (1991, p. 13)
Support for an integrated curriculum also comes from the body of research on the brain and how children learn. Caine and Caine (1991) and Shoemaker (1991) note that the search for patterns is a basic process of the human brain. Caine and Caine expand this by stating that, in fact, the brain may actually resist learning fragmented facts that are presented in isolation. Cromwell (1989) echoes this when he states that holistic experiences are recalled quickly and easily. In his book, Human brain and Human Learning, Hart (1983) states that the recognition of patterns accounts largely for what is called insight, and facilitates transfer of learning to new situations or needs, which may be called creativity. So learning subject matter in time chunks and periods separates the patterns the brain seeks in learning.
A term that is used interchangeably with integrated curriculum is interdisciplinary curriculum. The Dictionary of Education defines this term as “a curriculum organization which cuts across subject-matter lines to focus upon comprehensive life problems or broad based areas of study that brings together the various segments of the curriculum into meaningful association” Good, 1973). Humphreys puts forth a basic definition of integrated curriculum when he states, “An integrated study is one in which children broadly explore knowledge in various subjects related to certain aspects of their environment” (Humphreys, 1981, p.11).
Concerns about national achievement levels and high dropout rates have put the spotlight on any educational change that can lead to increased student success. Research demonstrates that an integrated curriculum strategy has a positive impact on student achievement and student content knowledge (Aschbacker, 1991; Boidy, 1994; Greene, 1991; Vars, 1965; Vye, 1990). But integrated curriculum has also been shown to have positive impact on student attitudes. MacIver (1990) found that integrated program students developed improved attitudes and work habits. Jacobs (1999) reports that an integrated curriculum is associated with higher levels of student attendance, higher levels of homework completion, and better attitudes towards school. These results appear to give support to the theories describing that the brain learns better when subject matter is connected rather than disjointed.