A Different Approach to Systemic Reform: Network Structures in Los Angeles.

Abstract

Past research has shown that some schools can improve but that most do not have the capacity to support change, Ms. Wohlstetter and Mr. Smith point out. Networks give schools the missing capacity. THE bungalow that houses one of the cluster offices of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is a noisy place. If you visit, you may have a hard time distinguishing parents from teachers and principals. Today, the adults from the area high and the elementary and middle schools that feed into it are bent over computer printouts of test scores they have assembled in order to determine their students' strengths and weaknesses. The adults are participating in two days of training on ways to use test data for diagnosing student needs. They are divided into five groups, each of which includes representatives from the three levels of schooling and from the three stakeholder groups. One group is baffled by a dip in reading scores between the eighth and ninth grades. Another group compares reading scores of English language learners and native English speakers and is surprised to find that all performed at low levels, regardless of whether they were tested in their native language. The adults in this network - or school as it is known in Los Angeles - will be engaged for the next several years in the Annenberg Challenge - a national reform initiative aimed at improving student performance. In 1993, when Ambassador Walter Annenberg set forth his challenge to America's public schools, the notion that schools could and should work together to improve the education system quickly emerged as a key element. The collaborative approach of the Annenberg Challenge diverges from other site-based reform strategies in that it relies on groups of schools working collaboratively rather than on individual schools working alone.1 Indeed, while networks are emerging in some states and districts, the Annenberg Challenge requires schools receiving its support to form networks with other schools and, often, with community partners as well.2 The members of the management team of this Los Angeles family come together once a month during the year to plan, develop, and implement improvements for the 12 elementary, middle, and high schools that make up its network. The team spends much of its time finding and sharing resources, many of which can been seen displayed on tables in the bungalow. One elementary teacher brings to a family meeting information about redesignation rates: only 35% of the students who began the bilingual program in kindergarten or first grade were redesignated into English by the end of fifth grade. A middle teacher introduces a for middle students that builds on a reading program used in several of the elementary schools in the family. The high principal shares his experience using coaches in classrooms to enrich teachers' instructional practices. In their first year as a family, these adults are developing an understanding of how they want to improve student performance. They have decided on a set of goals for their family and settled on some specific strategies, particularly in the area of literacy, to help improve student performance. Goals such as challenging curriculum or technology literacy - whose definitions in other districts might come from the central office or from individual schools working independently - have arisen instead from parents and professional educators working in partnership as members of a family network. The goals have been developed from the adults' own experiences with their students and from discussing and exchanging ideas with one another. Thus the goals are interconnected considerations that are central to the family's success in improving student performance. In addition to the schools involved in the Annenberg Challenge, a growing number of organizations - both in and outside of education - are embracing the fundamental ideas of network structures. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 24 citations exist upstream.