Teacher networks are a recent innovation in professional development that are being used in California and Vermont to support state policy initiatives. Our analysis relies on interviews, observations, and document analysis to identify how teachers’ program experiences are affected by the fit between their backgrounds and program goals and methods. Drawing on insights from symbolic interactionist and social movements theory, we treat the teacher networks in these states as professional-area movement organizations sharing the common goal of changing instruction in a constructivist direction. First, we describe the common goals of the programs in both states. Then we describe key features of the network programs and their different policy environments. Finally, we identify how teachers’ beliefs, background experiences, social influences, and contextual circumstances can color their program experiences and willingness to make changes in classroom instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlsupA. (1990). Vermont writing assessment: The pilot year.Montpelier: Vermont Department of Education.
2.
AndersonG. S. (1984). A whole language approach to reading.Lanham: MD: University Press of America.
3.
AppleM. (1996). Cultural politics and education.New York: Teachers College Press.
4.
BissexG. (1980). Gnys at wrk: A child learns to read and write.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
5.
BlumerH. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
6.
BrittonJ. (1972). Language and learning.Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton Cook Publications.
7.
California Department of Education. (1985). Mathematics framework for California public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve.Sacramento: Author.
8.
California Department of Education. (1987). English-language arts framework.Sacramento: Author.
9.
California Department of Education. (1992). Mathematics framework for California public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve.Sacramento: Author.
10.
ClarkC. M., & PetersonP. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In WittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.
11.
CohenD. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15 (3), 233–254.
12.
CohenD. K., & SpillaneJ. P. (1993). Policy and practice: The relations between governance and instruction. In FurhmanS. H. (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 35–95). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
CourcelleW. (1990). The Vermont mathematics portfolio: What it is, how to use it.Montpelier: Vermont Department of Education.
14.
FirestoneW. A. (1991). Educators, researchers, and the effective schools movement. In BlissJ. R., FirestoneW. A., and RichardsC. E. (Eds.), Rethinking effective schools: Research and Practice (pp. 12–27). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15.
FirestoneW. A., & PennellJ. R. (in press). Designing state-sponsored teacher networks: A comparison of two cases. American Educational Research Journal.
16.
GarfinkelH. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
17.
GravesD. (1982). Writing: Teachers and children at work.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
18.
HargreavesA. (1984). Experience counts, theory doesn't: How teachers talk about their work. Sociology of Education, 57, 244–254.
19.
HargreavesA., & FullanM. G. (1992). Introduction. In HargreavesA., & FullanM. G. (Eds.), Understanding teacher development (pp. 1–19). New York: Teachers College Press.
20.
HollingsworthS. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal, 26 (2), 160–190.
21.
HollyM. L. H. (1989). Teacher professional development: Perceptions and practices in the USA and England. In HollyM. L., & McloughlinC. V. (Eds.), Perspectives on teacher professional development (pp. 259–283). New York: Falmer Press.
JohnsonJ., & ImmerwahrJ. (1994). First things first: What Americans expect from the public schools.New York: Public Agenda.
24.
KatzE., & LazarsfeldP. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications.New York: Free Press.
25.
KnappM. S. (1995, April). Educational policy and the improvement of teaching: Two accounts of local response to the California Mathematics Framework. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
26.
LiebermanA., & McLaughlinM. W. (1992). Networks for educational change: Powerful and problematic. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 673–677.
27.
LiebermanA., & MillerL. (1984). Teachers, their world, and their work.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
28.
LittleJ. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91 (4), 509–536.
29.
LortieD. (1975). Schoolteacher.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
McAdamD., McCarthyJ. D., & ZaldM. N. (1988). Social movements. In SmelserN.J. (Ed.), Handbook of Sociology (pp. 695–737). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31.
McAdamD., & PaulsenR. (1993). Specifying the relationship between social ties and activism. American Journal of Sociology, 99 (3), 640–667.
32.
McCarthyJ. D., & ZaldM. N. (1973). The trend of social movements in America: Professionalization and resource mobilization.Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
33.
MoffettJames. (1981). Active voice: A writing program across the curriculum.Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton Cook Publishers.
34.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards or school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author.
35.
Office of the President, University of California. (1994). The California Subject Matter Projects: Professional development by and for teachers.Oakland: Author.
36.
ParkerW. C., & McDanielJ. E. (1992). Bricolage: Teachers do it daily. In RossE. W., CornettJ. W., & McCutcheonG. (Eds.), Teacher personal theorizing: Connecting curriculum practice, theory, and research (pp. 97–114). Albany: State University of New York Press.
37.
PennellJ. R. (1996). Re-forming teachers: The movement to create constructivist-informed teachers in California and Vermont. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers, The State University of New JerseyNew Brunswick.
38.
PetersonP. L. (1990). Doing more in the same amount of time: Cathy Swift. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12 (3), 261–280.
39.
RiesmanD. (1950). The lonely crowd.New Haven: Yale University Press.
40.
RossE. W., CornettJ. W., & McCutcheonG (Eds.). (1992). Teacher personal theorizing: Connecting curriculum practice, theory, and research.Albany: State University of New York Press.
41.
St. JohnM. (1993). An annual update and progress report: Exploring the rationale for state investment.Inverness, CA: Inverness Research Associates.
42.
SchutzA. (1962). The problem of social reality: Collected papers 1.The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
43.
ShorI. (1992). Culture wars: School and society in the conservative restoration 1969–1984.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44.
SmithM. S., & O'DayJ. (1990). Systemic school reform. In FuhrmanS. H., & MalenB. (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233–267). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
45.
SnowD. A., RochfordE. B.Jr., WordenS. K., & BenfordR. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51 (4), 464–481.
46.
TobinK., & JakubowskiE. (1992). The cognitive requisites for improving the performance of elementary mathematics and science teaching. In RossE. W., CornettJ. W., & McCutcheonG. (Eds.), Teacher personal theorizing: Connecting curriculum practice, theory, and research (pp. 161–178). Albany: State University of New York Press.
47.
Vermont Department of Education. (1994). Mathematics portfolio scoring rubric [revised].Montpelier: Author.
48.
WolfD., BixbyJ., GlennJ.III, & GardnerH. (1991). To use their minds well: Investigating new forms of student assessment. In GrantG. (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, vol.17 (pp. 31–74). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
