In 1991, the New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDC) was created in order to create “break-the-mold” models for a “new generation of American schools.” NASDC sought to achieve this goal by funding eleven different design teams including the ATLAS Communities Project—a collaboration of the Coalition of Essential Schools, the School Development Program, Harvard Project Zero, and the Education Development Center. While schools associated with ATLAS and the other design teams showed some signs of progress in the first few years of their work, there has been little evidence that these positive outcomes have been achieved by “breaking the mold.” In fact, the NASDC strategy and the ATLAS collaboration may have exacerbated basic conditions that make it difficult for schools and organizations to explore new ideas and develop innovative practices. By drawing on studies of innovation in business organizations, this paper argues that rather than trying to create “break-the-mold” school designs, reformers should aim to create the conditions that allow for a better balance between efforts to explore new ideas that may be successful in the future and the further expansion of practices that have been successful in the past.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArthurB. (1988). Self-reinforcing mechanisms in economics. In AndersonP., ArrowK., & PinesD. (Eds.), The economy as an evolving complex system.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
ATLAS Communities (1992, February). ATLAS Communities (Proposal to New American Schools Development Corporation).Providence, RI: Author.
3.
BodillyS. (1996). Lessons from New American Schools Development Corporation's demonstration phase.Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
4.
BodillyS. (1998). Lessons from New American Schools’ scale-up phase: Prospects for bringing designs to multiple schools.Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
5.
BodillyS., PurnellS., RamseyK., & SmithC. (1995). Designing New American Schools: Baseline observations on nine design teams.Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
6.
CohenW., & LeventhalD. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1), 128–152.
7.
CubanL. (1984). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890–1990.New York: Teachers College Press.
8.
CushmanK. (1996). Looking collaboratively at student work: An essential toolkit. Horace, 13 (2).
9.
ElmoreR. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review.
FullanM. (1999). Change forces: The sequel.London: Falmer Press.
12.
GarudR., NayyarP., & ShapiraZ. (1997). Technological innovation: Oversights and foresights.New York: Cambridge University Press.
13.
GlennanT. K. (1998). New American Schools after six years.Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
14.
HatchT. (1998). The differences in theory that matter in the practice of school improvement. American Educational Research Journal, 35 (1), 3–32.
15.
HatchT. (1999). What does it take to “go to scale”? Reflections on the promise and the perils of large-scale school reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
16.
HatchT., & WhiteN. (1997). The raw materials of educational reform: Rethinking the knowledge of school improvement. Unpublished paper, ATLAS SeminarProvidence, RI.
17.
HerriottS., LeventhalD., & MarchJ. (1985). Learning from experience in organizations. American Economic Review, 75, 298–302.
18.
HubermanM., & MilesM. (1984). Innovation up close.New York: Plenum Press.
19.
JelinekM. (1997). Organizational entrepreneurship in mature-industry firms: Foresight, oversight, and invisibility. In GarudR., NayyarP., & ShapiraZ. (Eds.), Technological innovation: Oversights and foresights (pp. 181–213). New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
KearnsD., & AndersonJ. (1996). Sharing the vision: Creating new American schools. In StringfieldS., RossS., & SmithL. (Eds.), The new American Schools Development Corporation designs (pp. 9–23). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Leonard-BartonD. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111–125.
23.
LeventhalD. (1997). Three faces of organizational learning: Wisdom, inertia, and discovery. In GarudR., NayyarP., & ShapiraZ. (Eds.), Technological innovation: Oversights and foresights (pp. 167–180). New York: Cambridge University Press.
24.
LeventhalD., & MarchJ. (1981). A model of adaptive organizational search. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2, 307–333.
25.
LeventhalD., & MarchJ. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.
26.
MansfieldE. (1981). How economists see R&D. Harvard Business Review, 59, 98–106.
MarchJ. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2 (1), 71–87.
29.
MarchJ. (1995). The future, disposable organizations and the rigidities of imagination. Organization, 2, 427–440.
30.
McDonaldJ. (1992). Steps in planning backwards: Early lessons from the schools.Providence, RI: Coalition of Essential Schools.
31.
McDonaldJ., HatchT., KirbyE., AmesN., HaynesN., & JoynerE. (1999). School reform behind the scenes.New York: Teachers College Press.
32.
MirelJ. (1994). School reform unplugged: The Bensenville New American School project, 1991–1993. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 481–518.
33.
MunceyD., & McQuillanP. (1996). Reform and resistance in schools and classrooms: An ethnographic view of the Coalition of Essential Schools.New Haven: Yale University Press.
34.
New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDC). (1991). Request for proposals.Washington, DC: Author.
35.
NunneryJ., BolL., DietrichA., RichL., KellyS., HackerD., & SterbinA. (1997). Teachers’ initial reactions to their pre-implementation preparation and early restructuring experiences. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8 (1), 72–94.
36.
RAND. (1995). Unpublished report.
37.
RosenbergN. (1994). Exploring the black box: Technology, economics, and history.New York: Cambridge University Press.
38.
SeidelS., HatchT., & BlytheT. (1997). How much is too little? Rethinking the minimal conditions for changing classroom practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
39.
SeidelS., WaltersJ., KirbyE., OlffN., PowellK., ScrippL., & VeenemaS. (1997). Portfolio practices: Thinking through the assessment of children's work.Washington, DC: NEA.
40.
SizerT. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
SmithL., MaxwellS., LowtherD., HackerD., BolL., & NunneryJ. (1997). Activities in schools and programs experiencing the most, and least, early implementation successes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8, 125–150.
43.
SquiresD., & KranyikR. (1997). Linking school-based governance and instructional change: A case study of two ATLAS schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
44.
StringfieldS., DatnowA., RossS., & SnivelyF. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring in multicultural, multilingual contexts: Early observations from Sunland County. Education and Urban Society, 30 (3), 326–357.
45.
StringfieldS., & RossS. (1997). A “reflection” at mile three of a marathon: The Memphis restructuring initiative in mid-stride. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8 (1), 151–161.
