In this article, the results of a case study of high school restructuring are presented. The high school studied was a member of the Coalition of Essential Schools and a state Re: Learning Project. The intent of the study was to examine how the implementation of the Coalition's nine principles affected school structures and processes, how staff interpreted the changes, the roles played by school and district leadership, and the barriers associated with the changes. The results of the study showed that the nine common principles were implemented primarily by the school-within-a-school program. In addition, several barriers prevented the full implementation of the Coalition principles. Barriers to change included staff jealousy of the school-within-a-school, political controversy within the school district, decreased staff development opportunities, and lack of communication and buy-in. The article also points to the important role of leadership in implementing change at the high school level.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonL.W. and ShirleyJ.R. (1995). High school principals and school reform: Lessons learned from a sta tewide study of Project Re: Learning.Education Administration Quarterly, 31(3). 405–423.
BarnettB.G. and WhitakerK.S. (1996). Restructuring for student learning.Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
4.
BradleyL.H. (1985). Curriculum leadership and development handbook.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
5.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century.New York: Carnegie Corporation.
6.
ChrispeelsJ. H. (1992). Purposeful restructuring: Creating a culture for learning and achievement.Bristol, PA: Falmer.
7.
Coalition of Essential Schools, Congress Meeting, 1984. Providence, RI: Brown University, Coalition of Essential Schools.
8.
Colorado Department of Education. (1997, March). State Re: Learning Evaluation Report.Denver, CO: Author.
9.
DonahueT. (1993). Finding the way: Structure, time, and culture in school improvement.Phi Delta Kappan, 75(4), 298–305.
10.
EnglishF.W. and HillJ.C. (1990). Restructuring: The principal and curriculum change.Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.
11.
FullanM. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform.New York: Falmer.
12.
HallG.E. and HordS.M. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating the process, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
13.
HallingerP. and HeckR.H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980–1995.Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5–44.
14.
HannayL.M. and RossJ.A. (1997). Initiating secondary school reform: The dynamic relationship between restructuring, reculturing, and retiming.Educational Administration Quarterly, 33 (supplement), 576–603.
15.
HoustonH.M. (1988). Restructuring secondary schools. In LiebermanA. (Ed.), Building a professional culture in schools (pp. 109–128). New York: Teachers College Press.
16.
HubermanA.M. and MilesM.B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In DenzinN.K. & LincolnY.S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. (pp. 428–444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
17.
LeeYE. and SmithJ. (1993). Effects of school restructuring on the achievement and engagement of middle grade students.Sociology of Education, 66(3), 164–187.
18.
LeeV.E. and SmithJ. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on gains in achievement and engagement for early secondary school students.Sociology of Education, (4), 241–270.
19.
LeithwoodK. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring.Educational Administration Quarterly, 30, 498–518.
20.
LeithwoodK. and JantziD. (1990). Transformational leadership: How principals can help reform school cultures.School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1(4), 249–280.
21.
LiebermanA., Darling-HammondL. and ZuckermanD. (1991). Early lessons in restructuring schools. National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching.New York: Teacher's College, Columbia University.
22.
LiebermanA. and McLaughlinM. (1992). Networks for educational change: Powerful and problematic.Phi Delta Kappan, 73(9), 673–677.
23.
LiebermanA. and GrolnickM. (1996, Fall). Networks and reform in American education.Teachers College Record, 155–173.
24.
McQuillanP.J. (1997). Humanizing the comprehensive high school: A proposal for reform.Educational Administration Quarterly, 33 (supplement), 644–682.
25.
MeierD. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem.Boston: Beacon.
26.
MeierD. (1997). Can the odds be changed?Educational Policy, 11(2), 194–208.
27.
MerriamS.B. (1988). Case study research in education.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
28.
MunceyD.E. and McQuillanP.J. (April, 1991). Some observations on the possibility of major restructuring in American schools: An ethnographic perspective. Working paper #3, School Ethnography Project, Providence, RI: Brown University.
29.
MunceyD.E. and McQuillanP.J. (1993). Preliminary results from a five year study of the Coalition of Essential Schools.Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6), 486–489.
30.
MunceyD.E. and McQuillanP.J. (1994). Change takes time: A look at the growth and development of the Coalition of Essential Schools.The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(3), 265–279.
31.
MunceyD.E. and McQuillanP.J. (1996). Reform and resistance in schools and classrooms: An ethnographic view of the Coalition of Essential Schools.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
32.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
33.
NewmannF.M. and WehlageG.G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators. Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
34.
OxleyD. (1997). Theory and practice of school communities.Educational Administration Quarterly, 33 (Supplemental), 624–643.
35.
PodsakoffP. M., MacKenzieS.B., MoormanR.H. and FetterR. (1990). Transformational leaders’ behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors.Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.
36.
RaywidM.A. (December, 1995). The subschools/small schools movement: Taking stock.Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
37.
SchlechtyP.C. (1990). Schools for the 21st century: Leadership imperatives for educational reform.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
38.
ShortP.M. and GreerJ. T. (1997). Leadership in empowered schools: Themes from innovative efforts.Columbus, OH: Merrill.
39.
SizerT.E. (1984). Horace's Compromise: The dilemma of the American high school.Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
40.
SizerT.E. (1986). Rebuilding: First steps by the Coalition of Essential Schools.Phi Delta Kappan, 68(1), 38–42.
41.
SizerT.E. (1989). Horace's school: Redesigning the American high school.Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
SteffyB. and EnglishF. (1997). Curriculum and assessment for world class schools.Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
44.
WalwoodN. (1998). The Fifty Schools Project: Strategies for intentional networking and the lessons learned.Providence: RI: Brown University, Coalition of Essential Schools, manuscript in preparation.
45.
WebbJ., CorbettH. D. and WilsonB. L. (1993). Restructuring systematically for students: Can it be more than just talk? In MurphyJ. and HallingerP. (Eds.) Restructuring schooling: Learning from on-going efforts.Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
46.
WeissC.H. and CamboneJ. (1994). Principals, shared decision making, and school reform.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(3), 287–301.
47.
WhitakerK.S. and MosesM.C. (1994). The restructuring handbook: Guide to school restructuring.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
48.
WigginsG. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
