ERIC ED356541: Designing Educational Programs Aligned with Reforms in Teaching and Uniform Restructuring in Education: Rationale and Basic Operating Principles. Research, Consultation, & Teaching Program Monograph No. 5.

36 Pages·1993·1.6 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 356 541
EA 024 789
AUTHOR
Tindal, Gerald; And Others
TITLE
Designing Educational Programs Aligned with Reforms
in Teaching and Uniform Restructuring in Education:
Rationale and Basic Operating Principles. Research,
Consultation, & Teaching Program Monograph No. 5.
INSTITUTION
Oregon Univ., Eugene. Coll. of Education.
PUB DATE
93
NOTE
36p.
PUB TYPE
Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.)
(120)
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
Age Grade Placement; Educational Environment;
Educational Objectives; Educational Policy; Holistic
Evaluation; *Learning Disabilities; *Learning
Processes; Models; *Nongraded Instructional Grouping;
Primary Education; School Effectiveness; *School
Restructuring; *Systems Analysis; Systems Approach
IDENTIFIERS
*Oregon
ABSTRACT
An increasing number of elementary school sites have
begun to implement nongraded, multiage, primary developmental
learning environments. Nongraded primaries are more than just
a
loosening of the age limits and a changing of the promotion
strategies. This broad educational restructuring strategy provides
a
unique opportunity for creating new learning and inclusive
environments as well as understanding systemic variables in schools
affecting children with disabilities. The purpose of this
paper is to
describe the relationships among interdependent processes and
resource-use strategies within the context of a specific
school-reform/restructuring effort. This approach is designed to
enhance system adaptability and inclusiveness as a means for
achieving better educational outcomes for children with disabilities.
What distinguishes this approach from previous research and
development is not only the contextual focus on nongraded, multiaged
primary blocks, but the systemic "holographic" and interdependent
approach to school organization. This paper presents
a systemic
framework and theory for guiding the development, implementation, and
evaluation of such reform grounded in organizational and systems
theories of change. A systemic, holographic approach to school reform
and restructuring is based on a conceptual framework that requires
"putting the whole into the parts," rather than attempting
to sum or
link the parts to make a whole. (Contains 124 references.)
(Author)
*****************************************************4-*****************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that
can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
U S. DEPARTMENT OP EDUCATION
' PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
Office or Educalsonel asemlien and improvement
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER IMO)
UrThis document has been reproduced as
received from 11 person or organizahon
originating rI.
Minor changes hove been made to improve
O
reOrecloction dually
Points of v*w or opinions stated in this (locu-
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
m** do not necessarily revion* othast
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)"
OERI I:pos.1*n or policy
Designing Educational Programs
,
Aligned with Reforms in Teaching
and Uniform Restructuring in Edu-
cation: Rationale and Basic
Operating Principles
Gerald Tindal
Paul Goldman
Martin J. Kaufman
Richard Schmuck
m
I
A
2
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Research, Consultation, & Teaching Program
Monograph No. 5
Designing Educational Programs
Aligned with Reforms in Teaching
and Uniform Restructuring in Edu-
cation: Rationale and Basic
Operating Principles
Gerald Tindal
Paul Goldman
Martin J. Kaufman
Richard Schmuck
University of Oregon College of Education, Behavioral Research and Training
Eugene, Oregon, 97403-1215
Published by
Research, Consultation, & Teaching Program
Behavioral Research and Teaching
College of Education
University of Oregon
Staff
Gerald Tindal, Program Director
Jerry Marr, Editor
be
reserved. This publication, or parts thereof, may not
Copyright ©1993 University of Oregon. All rights
of Oregon,
permission. For information, write University
used or reproduced in any manner without written
97403-1215.
Teaching Program, 237 Education, Eugene, OR
College of Education, Research, Consultation, &
Schmuck, R.
Tindal, Gerald, Goldman, Paul, Kaufman, Martin J.,
Education:
in Teaching and Uniform Restructuring in
Designing Educational Programs Aligned with Reforms
Rationale and Basic Operating Principles
Monograph No. 5
is
Research, Consultation, and Training Program, which
Preparation of this document was funded by the
soley responsible for its content.
Layout: Jerry Marr
Cover design: George Beltran
Designing Educational Programs Aligned
with Reforms in Teaching and Uniform
Restructuring in Education: Rationale and
Basic Operating Principles+
Gerald Tindal, Paul Goldman, Martin J. Kaufman, Richard Schmuck
University of Oregon College of Education
Abstract
An increasing number of elementary school sites have begun to implement nongraded, multi-age/primary developmental learning
environments. Nongraded primaries are more than just a loosening of the age limits and a changing of the promotion strategies.
This broad educational restructuring strategy provides a unique opportunity forcreating new learning and inclusive environments
as well as understanding systemic variables in schools affecting children with disabilities.
The purpose of this paper is to describe the relationships among interdependent systemic processes
(i.e., connectivity-
redundancy, specialization-generalization, critical minimum specification, and self-organization) and resource use strategies
(team building, consultation, information feedback) within the context of a specific school reform /restructuring effort (e.g.,
nongraded, multi-age/primary developmental block). This approach is designed to enhance system adaptability and inclusiveness
as a means for achieving better educational outcomes (e.g., participation-contribution, independence- responsibility, social!
behavior skills, and literacy) for children with disabilities.
-
What distinguishes this approach from previous research and development is not only the contextual focus on nongraded,
multi-aged primary blocks, but the systemic "holographic" and interdependent approach to school organization. This paper
presents a systemic framework and theory for guiding the development, implementation, and evaluation of such reform grounded
in organizational and systems theory of change. A systemic, holographic approach to school reform and restructuring is based on
a conceptual framework that requires "putting the whole into the parts," rather than attempting to sum or link the parts to make
a whole.
School Restructuring and Special
the very departure of children from the family into the
school system, they are grouped into cohorts, generally
Education: The Systemic Challenge
on the basis of age, and not infrequently by their readiness
The first official act of most school systems is to
to learn.
confirm whether students can begin school. Enrollment
Yet, children present and challenge schools with
eligibility is based on chronological age determined by
extreme varii bility in their "pre-school" literacy related
comparing the child's birthday to a pre-established cut-off
opportunities. Children from families which highly value
date. Some students are deemed ready for school (those
reading have been provided approximately 40 minutes
who have come of age in time); others (who are too young
per day or over 1,000 hours on average of story book
and not of age) must wait another year; for a very small
readiig prior to entering school.
In contrast, children
minority, the margin of error around the cutoff date is
from families where literacy related activities are minimal
vague, and parents are sufficiently persuasive, that they
have been provided approximately one or two minutes
enter schools younger than their peers. In essence, from
per day or about 36 hours of storybook reading prior to
entering school (Adams, 1990). Scho( is and teachers are
challenged to attenuate, ameliorate, and "make even" for
'This monograph is an abridged version of Project DEPAR-
all students their ability to achieve performance stan-
TURE, submitted to the United States Office of Educational
dards. Kameenui (in press) discusses this problem as the
Research on Innovation: "Systemic Efforts to Restructure
"tyranny of time." Learning environments are needed in
Schools" 84.023R
Research, Consultation
Teaching Program
Tindal, Goldman, Kaufman, & Schmuck
2
(e.g.,
ment of Education and many national organizations
which at-risk children, including those with disabilities,
table)
Na tional Go vernors Association, the Business Round
must learn more in less time (Kameenui & Simmons,
school re-
as a prototype for achieving comprehensive
1990). The nongraded, multi-age primary developmental
structuring. Like many states with budget deficits or
block (NASBE, 1992) provides a restructured learning
delay
shortages of state general funds, Oregon has had to
environment that allows a 27-to 36-month formative time
implementationof some legislativemandates. Most school
frame, more realistic than the traditional 9-month
systems are currently in a cost containment, notan expan-
summative grading period for reducing learning gaps.
Oregon
sionist mode. In spite of the bleak fiscal portrait,
The U.S. Department of Education's, Fourteenth
induce-
is actively pursing educational reforms through
Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the
school systems
ments and system change project grants to
Individuals With Disabilities Act (1992) reports that ap-
Therefore, this economic
for restructuring initiatives.
proximately 25 percent of all children served under IDEA
forecast should not be equated with a "stand-still or
By far, most of these
are six, seven, and eight years old.
hunkering-down" orientation to educational reform. But
children receiving special education and related services
the economic landscapes of states such as Oregon, with
arereported as havingeither learning disabilities or speech
equalization
property tax measures limiting revenue and
impairments. It is evident that the traditional lock-step
of funding initiatives, requires reforms that can be man-
bacic-
grade promo lion organization sets an inappropriate
aged within existing or even diminished resources.
drop for children with disabilities during this critical
The purpose of supporting such school /community
developmental period. The necessity of regular educa-
in
based reform projects is to create natural variations
and
tion reforms designed to create a more adaptable
policy, organization, and service delivery contributing to
inclusionary learning environment cannot be over-em-
the identification of design principles for school restruc-
phasized.
turing. The state of Oregon is one of the few states to
The importance of the primary grades for all children,
primary
promote legislatively non-graded, multi-age
especially those at risk, including children with disabili-
developmental blocks. This legislation and the State Task
ties, deserver priority attention. Research suggests con-
Force and network of 17 schools receiving State Depart-
sistently that acquisition of early literacy and social/
extraordi-
ment of Education project funding provide an
behavioral skills is fundamental to later school success
Specific
nary experimental educational reform program.
(Stanovich, 1986), school dropout, pregnancy, and unem-
relevant sections of the legislation are displayed in
ployment (Allington&McGill-Franzen,1991;Slavin,1989),
Figure 1.
and incarceration (Walker & Sylwester, 1991). As Boyer
Nongraded, Multi-age Primary
(1992) stated, "without dramatic intervention, children
Developmental Blocks: A Promising
will come to school not only not ready to learn but also
with their potential dramatically diminished" (p.44).
Learning Environment
Recent instructional research on children with learn -
Gaustad (1992) defines nongraded primary educa-
ing disabilities in the academic mainstream reports largely
tion as "the practice of teaching children of different ages
undifferentiated, whole-class, and text-driven learning
and ability levels together, without dividing them or the
environments (Baker & Zigmond, 1990). Mounting evi-
curriculum into steps labeled by 'grade' designations.
dence documents the low amount of active reading in-
The nongraded approach uses student diversity to ad-
struction and academic learning time afforded low-achiev-
vantage rather than regarding it as an impediment
ing students (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1989;
Children grow socially and emotionally as well as intel-
O'Sullivan, Ysseldyke, Christenson, & Thurlow, 1990).
lectually as they work together in cooperative projects,
Undifferentiated instruction or assignments, and lack of
help classmates who are younger and less able, and rely
sufficient learning opportunities to "catch up," require
when they need
or. older and more advanced peers
educational reforms such as the nongraded, multi-age
assistance themselves" (Gaustad, 1992, p. 1). This type of
primary developmental block. These restructured learn-
education allows students to move at a flexible pace, as
ing environmen ts have the potential to provide adaptable
skills and knowledge are acquired rather than age /grade
and inclusive organizational and instructional learning
attained (American Association of School Administra-
environments.
tors, 1992).
Oregon: A Bellwether State for.
In the nongraded model, no assumptions are made
Educational Reform
that age and developmental achievements are associated;
necessarily to
as a consequence, children are not expected
The state of Oregon provides a proactive opportunity
In a nongraded primary,
from their
progress at the same rate.
to design authentic educational reforms that,
inception, are sufficiently adaptable and inclusive to meet
children do not pass or fail, bu t make continuous progress.
"The use of letter grades is often replaced by alternative
the needs of children with disabilities. House Bill 3565,
types of assessment, such as collections of student work
The Oregon Educational Act for 21st Century Schools,
and descriptive reports. Progress is evaluated with refer-
enacted in 1991, has been recognized by the US. Depart-
The University of Oregon
Educational Program Design
3
SECTION 12. (1) In addition to the application described in ORS 336.555 for the 21st
Century Schools Program or ORS 336.720 for the School Improvement and
Professional Development Program, a school district may submit proposals to:
(b) Establish nongraded school programs for students;
(f) Operate a team, small group model school with a team of teachers remaining
with students over a period of several years using a variety of teaching techniques
and research-based small groups;
(1) The Department of Education shall administer The Early Childhood
SECTION 19A.
Improvement Program to assist public schools districts in providing programs
designed to improve educational services for children enrolled in grades
kindergarten through three. Programs shall be based on research and proven
successful practices in programs such as Head Start. The department shall
evaluate the programs which receive grants Under this Act and report the results of
the evaluation to the Legislative Assembly.
(2) The programs shall include the following planned components:
(a) Targeted services for "at-risk" children and families, which may include but are
not limited to remedial and alternative academic programs, child care, parent
participation and child development services.
(b) Efforts to improve the kindergarten through third grade curriculum and
educational practices so that they:
(A) Are consistent with research findings on how children learn;
(B) Are sensitive to individual differences such as cultural background and learning
styles; and
(C) Encourage parent participation.
SECTION 19f. (1) By the 1992 school year, the Department of Education shall
recommend models for use by school districts for developmentally appropriate
nongraded primary programs for children enrolled in pre-kindergarten through the
primary grades. (2) Plans for early childhood education shall include a
recommended funding formula and implementation process chat recognize the
need for flexible models to meet local needs and shall include strategies that:
(k) Encourage heterogeneous grouping of students and discourage negative
labeling of children's learning levels; and
(I) Develop nongraded primary models that are culturally and linguistically
appropriate.
H.B. 3565: Oregon Education Act for 21st Century Schools
Figure 1.
ence to general normative standards and to the student's
pendent processes and resource use strategies for assur-
previous work, rather than by comparison with class-
ing the adaptability and inclusiveness of this primary
in traditional age /grade
mates" (Gaustad, 1992, p. 1).
school reform movement. The uniqueness of this oppor-
classrooms, the eventual choice between promoting stu-
for students at-risk or
tunity, it's importance, and its net:
dents to the next grade or retaining them for an entire year
with disabilities are further evidenced by an ERIC search.
frequently leaves teachers in a dilemma. What should be
In the ERIC system as of September, 1992 only six entries
done with a student who works at or above grade level in
combined inclusion or mainstreaming with ungraded,
some areas but below it in others? In nongraded primary
nongraded, or multi-age classrooms. These references
programs, such problems are less likely to occur.
revealed only incidental association; none referred to
Nongraded, multi-age primary programs provide a
either an instructional program or a research study.
context of: (a) critical period for child development and
The Challenge of Dereloping A Systemic
acquisition of academic foundations; (b) an optimum
Approach to Achieving Adaptable and
learning environment for organizational, curricular, and
Inclusive Frimary Education Reform
instructional experimentation related to adaptability and
School restructuring poses extraordinarily complex
inclusion; and (c) a rapidly emerging national educational
problems for those who wish to initiate and sustain
reform of importance to children with disabilities. Or-
drama tic changes. Practitioners and publics ha 'e come to
egon provides a natural laboratory for developing, imple-
expect a mass-production model, personalized to be sure,
menting, and evaluating a systemic approach to interde-
Research, Consultation, & Teaching Program
1.4
Tindal, Goldman, Kaufman, & Schmuck
4
triunity. Rather, such educational reform is a strategic,
oriented around grade levels, a modicum of ability-group-
systemic response of interdependent, not additive pro-
ing, a sequenced curriculum that is relatively standard-
cesses and resource-use strategies to more effectively
ized at least at the building or district levels, and a
manage the diversity and complexity of individual needs
comprehensible, discrete system of student evaluation.
of children, including those with disabilities.
Restructuring shatters these expectations, requiring sys-
Nongraded, multi-age primary school reform does
temic change that alters the nature of longstanding pro-
not consist simply of a re-division of the time that changes
cesses and relationships that have characterized Ameri-
need to occur as students are "mainstreamed" or in-
can schooling.
cluded. This reform requires more than simply re-divid-
It is imperative to determine how students with
ing the time that students with disabilities spend in class-
disabilities and the delivery of special education fit into
rooms; rather, the very structure of schools must change:
the school restructuring equation. Conley (1991) defines
"To be sure, schools in an inclusive, restructured system,
restructuring as "activities that change fundamental as-
must look very different from the typical school that exists
sumptions, practices and relationships, both within the
today. In the expanded vision, the place called school is
organization, and between the organization and the out-
actually a center for community activity. Students do not
side world in ways that lead to varied and improved
move through the traditional lock-step, age-grade pro-
student learning outcomes for essentially all students."
gression, but rather are grouped heterogeneously, based
He suggests that it contains a series of overlapping dimen-
on the particular lesson. Not all students necessarily work
sions: Restructuring is "complex, multidimensional, and
on the same tasks at the same time, but rather curricular
at times contradictory. It involves discussion, planning,
goals are achieved thorough a variety of methods"
Specifically, restructuring
programs and structures."
(NASBE, 1992, p.12 and 14). Inclusionary practices "may
may include (a) changing the core technology of schools,
be chosen for organizational convenience and scheduling
which incorporates whatis taught, how, and to whom; (b)
purposes rather than the educational needs of the stu-
changing the occupational conditions of teaching, in-
dent" (NASBE, 1992, pp. 10-11).
creasing, if possible, both professionalism and account-
As teachers attempt to manage this instructional and
ability; (c) changing the school's authority and decision-
learning environment they must learn to recognize and,
making structures and processes; and (d) changing the
more importantly, have the capacity to respond to indi-
relationship between the school's staff on the one hand,
vidual children's learning problems and disabilities. In
and its clients and communities on the other (David, 1989,
such environments, the need for continuous information
Elmore & Associates, 1990).
on student progress is essential. Hornbeck (AASA, 1992)
Malcolm Katz (1991) challenges practitioners and
emphasizes the critical need for assessment tools and
scholars to realize and to research holistic change. He
strategies which mn guide instruction based on stipu-
notes that the emerging "new improvement model" of
lated goals and outcomes. A concern with such fluid
school change emphasizes (a) multiple elements rather
learning environments (e.g., open classrooms) is how to
than single variables, (b) school culture rather than the
monitor and obtain feedback on student progress and
classroom or student, (c) long-term rather than short-term
instructional effectiveness. Instructional personnel must
results, (d) humanistic rather than technological orienta-
develop teaming strategies enabling them to individual-
tion, (e) multiple correlates /intenctive effects rather than
ize curriculum and accommodate not just a few new
causes and effects, and (f) school and community vari-
students every September, but students entering (or exit-
ables rather than in-school variables. The new model
ing) throughout the year from traditional graded class-
implicitly recognizes that schools need not be, and per-
rooms. They must transition students to the more struc-
haps should not be, "loosely coupled" aggregations of
tured fourth-grade environment. In short, teachers and
teachers and students teaching and learning in class-
specialists functioning in a nongraded, multi-aged pri-
rooms. The restructured school builds interdependency
mary developmental block confront a range of complex,
through interaction, collaboration, and flexible responses
simultaneously occurring challenges.
to student learning problems.
How Do We Decide Whether
Correspondingly, change and adaptation are not
Change is "Systemic?"
discrete phenomena, and individual or collective deci-
This paper addresses a single issue that combines
sions reverberate throughout the learning community,
policy, practice, and research concerns. Specifically, how
affecting the everyday school life of pupils and their
do schools initiate, implement, and maintain a systemic
teachers and confounding the expectations of parents as
approach within nongraded primary /nongraded devel-
Multi-age classrooms for kindergarten to third
well.
opmental blocks that is adaptable and inclusive as a basis
graders, for example, do not represent a simple, additive
for enhancing participation, independence and responsi-
change or innovation. Multi-age primary education is not
bility, social and behavioral skills, and literacy for all
a nostalgic recapitulation of the one room schoolhouse
children? The following table describes four questions,
reflecting a homogeneous and typically uncritical corn-
The University of Oregon
Educational Program Design
5
Table 1. Systemic versus Additive Consequences
Counter Proposition
Proposition
Question
Specialized programs can additively
A systemic approach requires
How does a systemic
achieve a unity across the primary
interdependencies to create a
approach differ from
grades that results in an adaptable
nongraded primary block that is
an additive approach
and inclusive learning environment
capable of being an adaptable and
that meets the needs of all children,
inclusive learning environment in
including those with disabilities.
meeting the needs of all children,
including those with disabilities
The general education teacher will
The greater the connectivity between
How do general
exchange information with specialists
the primary teacher and specialty
education teachers
but neither develop new skills nor
teachers, the greater their capacity will
adapt the learning
persist in adaptations necessary to
be to adapt for, and to include, children
environment to
effect continuous student progress.
with disabilities
effectively include
diverse learners?
The primary role of the specialist is to
Generalists assimilate more specialized
How does the function
work directly with individual students
functions and specialists accommodate
and knowledge of
in a separate setting to overcome skill
more generalized needs and demands.
specialists change in
deficits; instruction in this setting
Together, they develop programs that
a nongraded primary
supplants the instruction in the
reflect greater adaptation and are more
developmental
general education setting.
inclusive of all students, particularly
learning environment?
those with disabilities
The counter proposition is that
The more teaming between specialists
How do children
increased teaming will result only in
and general education teachers, the
progress in a learning
more, not more effective, adult
more effective the adaptations are in
environment that has
interactions that do not result in
maintaining student progress and the
been systemically
improved student progress.
more students are taught together,
organized to be
those with and without disabilities
adaptable and
inclusive?
1985) theories of system change (Kanter, 1983), and imple-
and four competing propositions that emerge from this
mentation of innovations (Fullan, 1985; and Loucks-
broad issue.
A Systemic and Innovative
Horsley & Cox, 1984). The innovativeness of this paper
lies in its ability to integrate these theories into a systemic
Approach to School Restructuring
conceptual approach and framework.
Conceptual Framework and
The present discussion conceptually and theoreti-
Theoretical Orientation
cally brings together (a) systemic processes, (b) empiri-
The U.S. Department of Education request for pro-
cally supported resource-use strategies, (c) systemic out-
posals entitled "Systemic Efforts to Restructure Schools"
puts, and (d) student outcomes as a means for responding
to the priority requirement for affecting the inclusion of
defines innovativeness as developing and implementing
individuals with disabilities into broader educational
systemic changes at the school level, required to incorpo-
rate effective practices for children with disabilities into
reform and restructuring initiatives (See Figure 2).
broader school based educational reform and restructur-
What distingui shes this paper from previous research
ing initiatives. The federal regulations governing this
and development is not only the contextual focus on
program define innovativeness as "a conceptual frame-
nongraded, multi-aged primary blocks, but the systemic
work that is founded on previous theory and research;
"holographic" and interdependent approach to organiza-
It represents part of an effort to
tions (Morgan, 1986).
and provides a basis for unique strategies and approaches
operationally design, develop, implement and evaluate
to be incorporated into the model" (20 U.S.C. 1441-1442).
systemic processes and resource use strategies consistent with
The conceptual framework and theory guiding the
a systemic, holographic approach to including children
development, implementation, and evaluation of the pro-
with disabilities into broad school reform and restructur-
posed systemic changes is grounded in organizational
ing initiatives.
and systems theory (Morgan, 1986; Schmuck & Runkel,
r-
Research, Consultation, & Teaching Program
Tindal, Goldman, Kaufman, & Schmuck
6
Coordination in an Additive Approach
(T)
(OUTPUT)
( THROUGHPU
Po OUTCOME
RESOURCE USE
Interdependencies in a Systemic Approach
OUTCOME
OUTPUT
THROUGHPUT
Figure 2. Foundations of systemic interdependencies
operationalized in a manner supportive of, and consistent
can characterize much of the rational effort to
One
with, four essential systemic processes. Beforediscussing
undertake educational reforms as piecemeal. Schools too
these four systemic processes, hoitever, we must ground
often use either an additive or linking approach to achiev-
our discussion in the concrete and operational resource
ing educational reform and restructuring. In the additive
strategies that schools use on a day-to-day basis.
often empirically supported strate-
approach, reforms
A Model for Driving Restructuring
gies (e.g. adoption of cooperative learning, peer tutoring)
are just added on to current instructional practices. The
and Systemic Change
In the linking
implicit principle is "more is better."
The innovative model we propose for "developing
orientation, school restructuring initiatives may add on
and implementing systemic changes at the school level
boundary-spanning innovations such as collaboration
required to incorporate effective practices for children
with other human service providers. Such additive and
with disabilities into broader school-based educational
linking approaches have created schools that, while adopt-
reform and restructuring initiatives" (CFDA 84.023R) has
ing effective organizational and instructional strategies,
five major components. In this section, we describe these
end up resembling a Rube Goldberg machine in their
components and relate them to our overall theme.
structure and complexity.
1. A contextual component, which we have already
This additive approach to educational reform and
described (nongraded primary, multi-age primary develop-
restructuring reflects an incremental orientation to change.
mental learning environment).
A systemic approach implicitly calls for transforming
2. A throughput component, which defines the sys-
schools, not transferring innovations. A systemic, holo-
temic approach and concomitant process interdependen-
graphic approach to school reform and restructuring is
cies. It is the interdependency of these four systemic pro-
premised on a theoretical and conceptual framework that
cesses as operationalized by effective resource use strate-
requires "putting the whole into the parts" (Morgan,
gies that is the foundation of any true restructuring effort,
1986), not attempting to sum or link the parts to make a
and, often, it is missing. These four systemic throughput
whole. A systemic, holographic approach to school re-
processes are: (a) connectivity-redundancy, (b) special-
form does not consider such empirically supported inno-
ization-generalization, (c) minimum critical specifications,
Runkel, 1985),
vations as team building (Schmuck
Sr
and (d) ability to self-organize.
consultation (Sugai &Tindal, 1993), and curriculum based
A resource-use strategy component which
assessment and measurement (Tindal & Marston, 1990)
3.
operationalizes the systemic, holographic approach and
as additive but rather as interdependent. From a systemic
processes for affecting educational reform and restructur-
effort, these innovations are considered as resource-use
strategies that are interdependent and must be
ing. We focus on three particular strategies: (a) team
The University of Oregon
1 :/