HomepageISTEEdSurge
Skip to content
ascd logo

Log in to Witsby: ASCD’s Next-Generation Professional Learning and Credentialing Platform
Join ASCD
December 1, 1995
Vol. 53
No. 4

Seeking Common Ground: Goal-Setting with All Constituencies

When you ask people what they mean by school reform, it turns out that different groups have very different perspectives, needs, and priorities. The Institute for Responsive Education has designed a process for promoting understanding among a school's various stakeholders.

Many school systems initiate site-based school reform efforts without any serious discussion about goals. School teams undertake changes like block scheduling, theme-based learning, and heterogeneous grouping with little or no discussion of the problems these initiatives are supposed to rectify. Nor is there much discussion about how the teams will assess the results.
In most school change efforts, educators assume a consensus on goals. Nearly everyone says they are for school reform. Schools are failing, make them better—so what is there to talk about?
Without clarity and consensus about goals and ways of measuring progress, most reform strategies are likely to be short-lived and superficial—the educational fad of the month. For site-based teams to be effective, they must understand the views of diverse constituencies and create common ground before making changes.
In 1994, the Institute for Responsive Education (IRE) launched the Responsive Schools Project, involving 14 schools in Las Cruces, New Mexico; Flambeau, Wisconsin; Harts, West Virginia; and Chicago—all of which serve economically disadvantaged families. We designed the project, which expanded this year to include schools in Boston, Cleveland, and Milwaukee, to develop a methodology for understanding the concerns of policymakers, parents, community members, educators, and students. Its goal is to generate a shared vision for change.
We began by conducting interviews and focus group discussions, guided in part by the work of the Public Agenda Foundation (Johnson and Immerwahl 1994). After meeting with national policymakers, we interviewed parents, teachers, and principals, and students in grades 10–12. The task involved asking each group a series of questions about the goals of educational change and the roles parents and community members should play in the process. An analysis of their answers reveals very different starting points among the four groups (Wagner 1995a).

What Some Policymakers See

To begin, we interviewed Senate and Congressional staff with primary responsibility for educational issues, a majority of whom were Republicans. While they disagreed on some issues, such as the role of the federal government in setting national standards and ensuring compliance with federal regulations, their answers to the question, “Should school reform be a national priority—and if so, why?” were brief but consistent. A typical comment was “Yes it should. We have to make sure that we can maintain our economic dominance. We need graduates with higher skills.”
Without exception, legislators felt reform must be a priority in order for our country to remain competitive. Discussion was short and unanimated—almost as if it were a silly question, one for which everyone knew the right answer.
Similarly, they quickly agreed that parental involvement was crucial for the success of school improvement efforts. However, several Republican staff members expressed skepticism about whether parents want to be involved. “Parents have to want to do it. We shouldn't have to pull and tug” was a typical response. Other staff members suggested that parents' attitudes and behaviors were a part of the school reform problem, noting that students don't “come to school motivated to learn, with respect for teachers” and that parents need a long-term commitment.

What Parents See

In sharp contrast to the policymakers' cursory replies, parents and community members gave intense and often lengthy responses to the question, “Should reform be a priority?” They were united by a deep sense of urgency about the need for fundamental change.
Although a number of parents were concerned that their children would graduate from school unprepared for the world of work, issues related to values and students' lack of motivation were at the top of their lists. “Schools aren't producing happy, healthy kids. They have no sense of purpose,” said one parent. Others felt that students have “no sense of a future, no direction, no light at the end of the tunnel.”
Many parents felt that their children were unmotivated because their schools had nothing to offer students who are less academically inclined. They also raised concerns about the lack of enrichment opportunities—computer labs, extracurricular offerings, and after-school programs. “Kids have nothing to do after school. That's why they join gangs and get into trouble,” observed one parent. Others agreed, suggesting that extracurricular activities were more motivating for many students than regular academic courses.
The belief that the structure of high schools is part of the problem was evident in comments such as “Kids can't deal with big high schools; too many are slipping through the cracks” and “We can't prepare kids for the future in a lock-step setting.” One parent stated the problem even more strongly: “We've had the same education system since the industrial revolution. All schools do is warehouse kids—not educate them!”
While some acknowledged that “parents who don't care” may be part of the problem, they believed that many parents would benefit from more assistance. Others pointed out that many parents don't know how to get help—which they blamed on inadequate social service programs.
All agreed that teaching values is everyone's responsibility. “For there to be more discipline in schools, “one said, “there needs to be more community involvement. It's everyone's job.” They cited poor preparation for future employment, lack of self-discipline and self-control, and low self-esteem as core problems. They felt students needed to be taught how to behave, how to solve conflicts, and how to negotiate.
Some parents faulted uncaring teachers, saying that teachers need to see themselves as models. They also expressed the view that schools must individualize learning. Several thought that special education programs show the way to tailor learning to individual needs and interests, but that many teachers either aren't interested or don't know how to use this approach.

What Teachers and Principals See

Many teachers described the same kinds of student behaviors that concerned the parents. One teacher lamented, “There are too many kids in pain today. It shouldn't have to hurt to be a kid.” Observed another, “Kids are not motivated now. Before I can get to academics, I have to teach them how to behave.”
However, teachers generally did not see major reform as the solution—especially those who work in large school systems. They've seen too many reform fads like new math and open classrooms come and go, so they are skeptical of new ideas. “We need to reach out, build links, but not necessarily make fundamental changes,” one teacher said. “We need to think about goals and assessment before jumping into change,” said another.
The problems most often mentioned by teachers and principals in the largest districts were those that originated outside their schools: scarce resources and changes imposed by an out-of-touch bureaucracy. “We're on probation and may lose our accreditation because we have no librarian, no media center, and a counselor-student ratio of 937 to 1,” said one teacher. “Doesn't the central office know this? What are they doing about the problem?” Others felt they needed more local control, so that they could design their own curriculum.
Some teachers in urban systems expressed the view that advocacy by parents is a key to changing these conditions: Parents can put pressure on the system without being fired and can get the attention of the school board or mayor. While parents often supported this view, they were more concerned with what was happening—or not happening—in their children's classrooms and schools and what educators might do to make improvements.

Seeing Through Different Eyes

In training programs sponsored by the Institute for Responsive Education, educators, parents, community members, and older students talked together about the need for, and goals of, change. In all four of the districts where we worked, we observed that parents' strongly felt concerns served as both a model and an incentive for educators to be more open to systemic changes.
Initially, the educators' focus was more on “what-to-do-on-Monday” tactics, rather than long-term goals. Small changes were all that educators felt they had either the “permission” or the resources to undertake.
After listening to the opinions of parents, however, they seemed much more willing to consider fundamental change. They also began to take students' concerns more seriously and to see advantages to including students' voices in the reform process. After two days of discussions in mixed teams, educators were still very concerned about the resources needed to implement change, such as time for meetings, but they seemed much more open—even emboldened—as a result of hearing the parents' sense of urgency.

What Students See Is Seldom Heard

The perspectives of students on their schools' strengths and weaknesses were often strikingly insightful. But it became clear immediately that their views on school improvement were rarely solicited because educators had a difficult time hearing their concerns.
Both parents and students complained of classes where teachers lecture, assign worksheets, or require students to read outdated textbooks. Many educators were initially dismissive and defensive. “Kids are always complaining about being bored. They want us to be Big Bird—do a tap dance on our desk.”
In one district contemplating a move to block scheduling, students expressed deep concerns about boredom. “I can barely stay awake for 40 minutes,” said one. “What will I do when they go to 90–minute classes?”
While teachers talked about block schedules, students were worried about safety. They were not comfortable walking the halls of their schools and felt rules meant to discourage gang activity in the schools were of no use. One 11th grader offered a solution similar to that of some parents: “Kids are gonna belong to gangs, no matter what. You gotta channel that energy. A couple of gangs started playing sports after school against each other last year, and there was a lot less violence. Gangs gotta have constructive ways of getting involved.”
The need for more engaging activities in and after school was a recurring theme. “Right now, school sports is only for the few kids who are really good. We need more options,” argued one. Other students wanted more hands-on learning activities such as work with computers.
But the most deeply felt concerns of students involved teachers' lack of respect. “They yell a lot more than they talk to you” was a typical comment. “If you're not one of their favorites, forget it.”
In one of our site-based meetings, students' simmering concerns about respect erupted suddenly when one teacher referred to students in their school as “rejects.” A 10th grade female student replied, “I am strong and am going to make something of my life. Teachers have to believe in us!” The teacher apologized and hastily explained that she was describing many students' perceptions of themselves in a school that few of them had chosen to attend.
Strong words were exchanged—critical but respectful—before the meeting finally went forward. For everyone present, it was a powerful lesson in the difficulties that can arise when groups begin working together. The experience underscored the need for respect as the bedrock for collaboration and school change.

Seeking Common Ground

Hearing these divergent voices helps us understand better what different groups mean when they talk about school reform: policymakers and business leaders want new skills and higher standards; parents in disadvantaged communities worry about their children's lack of hope and eroding values; teachers and principals want the central office to take their concerns seriously; students want schools to be more respectful and engaging.
In a profound sense, what each group sees as the problem is true—but it is only a partial truth. Only by bringing all the groups together can we understand what must change in our schools and why. When groups hear one another, they begin to see the connections between their concerns and those of others. Such dialogue helps develop both the shared vision and the sense of urgency essential to site-based change efforts.
  1. What are some of the most important changes that have taken place in our society, and how do they affect our children?
  2. What do our graduates now need to know and be able to do, to be prepared for work, citizenship, life-long learning, and personal growth and health?
  3. How do we best assess these new competencies?
  4. In light of this discussion, what do we see as our school's strengths, needs, and priorities for change?
Each team then shared the results in “town meetings for learning.” Only after the town meetings did they begin to think about strategies and priorities for change (Wagner 1995b).
At the end of the first year, representatives from each team gathered to share and critique one another's implementation plans for the next two years of the project. When groups heard the concerns of others in their community, a deeper understanding of what must change emerged. Hearing the views of local business leaders, teachers could see more clearly what skills their children needed in order to enter the work force. Once business and community leaders understood the complexities of the school change process, they were more willing to help find additional resources. And when students felt that adults really heard their concerns, they too were more willing to listen and to work collaboratively to solve their mutual problems.
For many site-based teams, important learning was the discovery of a new set of tasks. Too many teams flounder for lack of focus—or they are asked (or required by law) to create a school improvement plan without knowing where to start. The teams in our project came to understand that their most important function was to generate thoughtful discussion about schoolwide improvement goals and core values, then to help shape priorities according to what they heard.
The teams also learned what they must do to keep change efforts on track: continue to listen to one another to assess progress, refine goals, and select new priorities. Common ground, once discovered, must be rediscovered and continuously cultivated through ongoing dialogue.
References

Johnson, J., and J. Immerwahl. (1994). First Things First: What Americans Want From Their Public Schools. New York: Public Agenda Foundation.

Wagner, T. (1995a). “Building a Learning Community: Structured Dialogues About Important Questions.” New Schools, New Communities 11, 3: 19–26.

Wagner, T. (January 1995b). “What's School Really For, Anyway? And Who Should Decide?” Phi Delta Kappan 76, 5: 393–398.

End Notes

1 The project is supported by grants from the Pew Charitable Trusts; and the Boston; Danforth; Joyce; John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur; and C.S. Mott Foundations.

2 My colleagues at the Institute for Responsive Education—Ameetha Palanki, Nancy Sconyers, Carol Strickland, Scott Thompson, and Abby Weiss—assisted with the focus group work.

3 Business leaders and policymakers have agreed for a decade that the core problem with schools is their inability to prepare students for the workplace. Indeed, it is fair to say that school reform has been largely “business-driven.”

Tony Wagner is the first innovation education fellow at the Technology and Entrepreneurship Center at Harvard University. He is the author of five books on education, including The Global Achievement Gap (Basic Books, 2008). 

Learn More

ASCD is a community dedicated to educators' professional growth and well-being.

Let us help you put your vision into action.
From our issue
Product cover image 195220.jpg
Site-Based Management: Making It Work
Go To Publication