DOCUMENT RESUME EA 023 365 ED 337 857 Lichtenstein, Gary; And Others AUTHOR CPRE Teacher Empowerment and Professional Knowledge. TITLE Research Report Series RR-020. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, New INSTITUTION Brunswick, NJ. (ED). Office of Educational Research and Improvement SPONS AGENCY Washington, DC. 91 PUB DATE OERI-R117G10007 CONTRACT 27p. NOTE Publications, Consortium for Policy Research in AVAILABLE FROM Education, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1568 (87.00 prepaid). Reports - Research/Technical (143) PUB TYPE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. EDRS PRICE Elementary Secondary Education; Knowledge Level; DESCRIPTORS *Participative Decision Making; *Professional Development; School Restructuring; Self Concept; *Teacher Influence; *Teacher Participation *California; *Teacher Empowerment; Teacher IDENTIFIERS Knowledge ABSTRACT A view of teacher empowerment based on professional knowledge is presented in this paper. A new definition of "professional knowledge" for teachers is also proposed, based on teachers' knowledge of professional community, educational policy, literature review and subject area. After a year of field study and a of structural, formal, and institution-based efforts to empowQr teachers it was found that decentralization or enhanced teacher authority dil not necessarily lead to teacher empowerment. Research based on interviews on knowledge-based reforms was then conducted, Los Angeles with 30 high school mathematics teachers involved in the and San Francisco projects of the Urban Mathematics Collaborative (UMC). Findings indicate that teachers believe they are empowered in principle and practice and have positive attitudes about teaching. A conclusion is that teachers' development of professionally relevant knowledge is necessary for genuine teacher empowerment. (12 references) (LMI) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * * from the original document. * *********************************************************************** RESEARCH IN EDUCATION CONSORTIUM FOR POLICY Empowerment and Teacher Professional Knowledge Gary Lichtenstein Milbrey McLaughlin Jennifer Knudsen EDUCATION S OEPARTNIENT OE tmlyt,orr,P.I t 40,011, ReSPiri h and Oftr r iNf ORMATION RuCATIONAL RE SOURCES CENTER .ERICt iS ,eprotlocert p.4,5 clocwment ottlion.rat,o0 ,eCfPvitd t,or, TNP pe,sor. c tXCiateling .1 ttlatCh t( ..,01),0.4* t'fiknor ChartgeS rut.e ['Peon rPrOd4r1.R4 V01" th.c I vil** U Po,rtill ,enwest.nt ottr merle do ,-,11 neces&vo, (P. RerS.t.om II PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)" PRE Rutgers The State University of New Jersey Harvard University University of Southern California Stanford University Michigan State University The Policy Center University of Wisconsin-Madison The Finance Center 2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE CONSORTIUM FOR POLICY RESEARCH IN EDUCATION CPRE unites six of the nation's leading research institutions in an exciting venture to improve the quality of schooling. The Consortium operates two separately funded, but interlinked research centers: The Policy Center and The Finance Center. Both centers are funded by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Members of CPRE are Rutgers. The State University of New Jersey; The University of Southern California; Harvard University; Michigan State University; Stanford University; and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The research agenda for both the CPRE Policy Center and the CPRE Finance Center is built around three goals: To focus research on policies that foster high levels of learning for students fro m a broad range of social and economic backgrounds; To conduct research that will lead to greater coherence of state and local program and finance policies that promote student learning; and To conduct research that will increase the responsiveness of state and local finance and program policies to the diverse needs of students, schools, postsecondary institutions, communities and states. In addition to conducting research as described above, CPRE publishes reports and briefs on a vari ety of education issues. The Consortium also sponsors regional policy workshops kr state and local policymakers. CPRE Research Report Series Research Reports are issued by CPRE to facilitate the exchange of ideas among policymakers and researchers who share an interest in education policy. The views expressed in the reports are those of individual authors, and are not necessarily shared by the U.S. Department of Education, CPRE, or its institutional partners. This publication was funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, grant number OERI-R117G10007. Copies of this report are available for $7.00 each, pre-paid. Prices include book-rate postage and handling. Quantity discounts are available. Write: CPRE, Eagle= Institute of Politics, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-1568; attention: Publications. Phone (908) 828-3872. 3 EDUCATION CONSORTIUM FOR POLICY RESEARCH IN and Teacher Empowerment Professional Knowledge Gary Lichtenstein Milbrey McLaughlin Jennifer Knudsen September 1991 CPRE Research Report Series RR-020 Education 0 Copyright 1991 by the Consortium for Policy Research in PRE Rutgers. The State University of New Jersey University of Southern California - Harvard University Stanford University Michigan State University The Policy Center University of Wisconsin-Madison The Finance Center 4 Contents Abstract vii Acknowledgements 1 Introduction 5 Rethinking Professional Knowledge Teacher Knowledge Empowerment and Three Types of 7 Knowledge of Professional Community 11 Knowledge of Education Policy 12 Knowledge of Subject Area 19 Professional Knowledge and Empowerment 21 Endnotes Abstract This paper presents a view of teacher empowerment which includes professional knowledge as a cnicial aspect. The authors also propose a new defmition of "professional knowledge" for teachers, one that goes beyond staff development efforts and other commonly proposed strategies to enhance teacher knowledge. After a year of field study and literature review of structural, formal and institution-based efforts to empower teachers, the authors found that decentsalization or enhanced teacher authority did not necessarily lead to teacher empowerment. The authors then shifted their research to look at knowledge-based reforms. Through this approach, the authors discovered teachers who believe they are empowered in principle and practice, whose attitudes about teaching are upbeat, hopeful, and even enthusiastic. These teachers believe their practice represents a model of professionalism that ought to be widely developed. Acknowledgements Research and preparation of this paper was supported by the Consortium for Educational Policy Research (CPRE) and by the Education Development Center (EDC).through a grant from the Ford Foundation. The paper will also appear as a chapter in The National Society for Studies in Education 91st Yearbook, Part II, edited by Ann Lieberman (University of Chicago Press, 1992). We owe a great debt to the teachers and project administrators who participated in this study. They gave freely of their time and thoughts about teacher empowerment and strategies they believe promote it. These respondents hoped that their participation in this study would help inform policymakers about teachers' realities and the factors that empower teachers. Colleagues from the University of California at Berkeley, Judith Warren Little and Diane Sharkan, collaborated in this research and conducted many of the interviews upon which this paper is based. Our Stanford colleagues, Nina Bascia and Carol Colbeck, provided thoughtful review and comment. None of these helpful people, of course, are responsible for its shortcomings. Gary Lichtenstein taught writing and language arts to middle school, high school, and college students for six years before becoming a doctora/ student in Stanford University's School of Education. His research interests include the effects of collaboration on teachers' attitudes, sense of efficacy, and classroom practice. Milbrey McLaughlin is a professor of education at Stanford and Director of the federally funded Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching. Her research interests focus on planned change in education, intergovernmental relations, the organizational context of teaching and learning. Prior to joining the Stanford faculty, she was a policy analyst with the RAND Corporation where her research centered on federal and state efforts to promote educational change and improvement. Jennifer Knudsen is a doctoral student in the Stanford School of Education. Before coming to Stanford, she taught mathematics in a New York City public high school; she also taught English and mathematics with the Peace Corps in Kenya. Her research interests include contexts for classroom practice and teachers' professional decision-making, particularly in the area of high school mathematics. vii Introduction "Teacher empowerment" bwame a catch-phrase in the law 1980s. At that tune, policy analysts began to worry that the ambitious reforms they conceived during the decade would come to little if teachers' classroom practices were ineffective. Policymakers acknowledged that successful outcomes of more courses, longer school days, tougher graduation standards, or "back- to-basics" curricula all hinged on the attitudes and capacities of classroom teachers implementing those reforms. Two general strategies were advanced to smack the "teacher problem." One strategy involved raising standards for individuals entering the profession. This response targeted teacher licensure, including credential-granting and preparation programs. The second strategy focused on ways to enhance the status and practices of teaching professionals. Doing so, it was reasoned, would re- shape teachers' conceptions of their own role in a way that would boost their morale, generate intrinsic and extrinsic incentives to improve their job performance, and increase professional autonomy. It was out of the debates about this latter strategy that notions of teacher empowerment emerged. Proponents of teacher professionalization cited a back-breaking educational bureaucracy as a critical impediment to the success of reform efforts.' Many analysts and reformers claimed that a top-heavy educational system constrained teachers' effectiveness by reducing or eliminating their professional discretion. In this view, the bureaucratic structures of the education establishment restricted teachers' ability to operate according to their own professional notions of best practice. Recognition of these constraints quickly shifted emphasis of public education reform from devising strategies of control and oversight to designing initiatives meant to empower them? Reformers and practitioners alike embraced the concept of teacher empowerment as being fundamental to an enhanced sense of professionalism and, ultimately, to better teaching. The concept of empowerment used most commonly in policy discussions derives from the literature on organizational management and sociology of work, and connotes alteration in the distribution of power in the workplace.' Central to talk about empowered teachers is enhanced control over decisions that affect the school workplace generally, and the classroom in particular. Most of these conversations highlight organizational arrangements for decision-making and teachers' institutional authority. For example, Sara Lawrence Lightfoot defmes empowerment in terms of the opportunities an individual has for "autonomy, responsibility, choice, and authority"! Or, Floretta Dukes McKenzie summarizes: "Empowering teachets most commonly appears to refer to 'allowing' classroom teachers to participate more directly in their schools' decision-making."5 A conclusion many have drawn from the discussions of the 1980s is that empowerment is something given to teachers by shifting institutional lines of authority. And, at both local and state levels, restructuring schemes or site-based management strategies that allow classroom teachers direct influence over decisions have gained popularity as a promising means to improve the quality of classroom practice.' 1 With this authority-based, institutional conception of empowerment in mind, we set about to locate settings that had initiated strategies to empower teachers by changing their roles and responsibilities. We sought to understand the consequences of these new organizational practices! Did reputedly arrangements for teachers' conceptions of their jobs and classroom empowered teachers indeed relish their new authority? Did they feel better about themselves and their professional life? Did the classroom of an empowered teacher look more effectiveor at lea4 differentfrom that of teachers operating under traditional institutional arrangements? Our candidate sample comprised schools and districts in California that claimed to tc. also restructured (or restructuring), or that expressed commitment to site-based management. "4/ searched the literature to find examples of new institutional arrangements and empowered teachers! Despite the visibility of a few districts prominent in the school restructuring movement (Dade County, Florida or Santa Fe, New Mexico, as examples), or individual schools operating in innovative and effective educational settings with teachers in charge (Central Park East in Harlem, most specifically), we found little to suggest that decentralization or enhanced teacher authority least as conceived of was necessarily or systematically associated with teacher empowerment, at by teachers themselves. Instead, we observed and read about instances in which site-based authority resulted in little of consequence to the classroom. Contrary to feeling empowered to exercise greater authority in their teaching, many teachers found their time bound up with comminees wrestling with decisions about what color to make the curtain on the auditorium stage, or whether to spend $500 dollars on a slide projector or bookcases. In some cases, we discovered that "re-smicturing" mandates provided weak school administrators an excuse to delegate significant responsibilities to teachers who then floundered because of insufficient orientation, resources, support and expertise! Further, we saw instances where efforts to expand teachers' authority without also attending to performance of school, classroom or their capacity resulted in the ironic outcome of diminished system. In short, we were not successful in locating consistently well-developed, operating examples of "new roles and responsibilities" that made teachers feel empowered in tenns of their pedagogy, practice, or their professional development. In part, this shortfall reflects the newness of these formal institutional reforms. The full effects of these structural reforms are yet to be realized. One district known nationally as a "restructuring district", for example, is still soliciting active school participation. Many schools in this district, officials readily admit, are restructured in name only. Other schools in this district that have implemented restructuring are still working out internal routines and processes. In another district, teachers entering the third year of restructuring continue to duplicate old materials orders and curricula plans because, they admit, they lack the expertise or time or support to change traditional routines. Our initial interviews, observations and literature review led us to three general conclusions: It is too early to tell how the many and diverse restructuring efforts will turn out; they I. have yet to be fully implemented. 2 The success of stnrctural reforms in any event depends fundamentally on the capacity of 2. those teachers given new roles and responsibilities; even the best conceived plans turn on teachers' capability. Knowledge is an elemental, irreducible aspect of teacher empowerment. 3. Consequently, after a year of examining structural, formal and institution-based efforts to empower teachers, we shifted ow msearch to look at knowledge-based reforms. This approach did indeed lead us to teachers who believe they are fundamentally empowered in principle and practice, whose attitudes about teaching are upbeat and hopefulin many cases enthusiasticand who believe that their practice represents a model of professionalism that ought to be widely developed. In addition, we saw that knowledge carries its own authority. We met teachers working in "unreconstructed" or "non-restructured" settings who reported that they were revitalized professionally empoweredthrough access to professionally relevant knowledge. Our research led us to a conception of empowerment that expands upon authority-based definitions and that implies new approaches to empowering strategies. a view of This chapter elaborates on this conception with the related goals of (1) presenting teacher empowerment which recognizes the essential role of professional knowledge, and (2) redefining existing notions of what comprises "professional knowledge" for teachers. Our objective is not to disparage structural, or authority-based reforms as such, but to argue that changed authority or institutional relations alone likely will disappoint. Further, we aim to pres at a view of teachers' professional knowledge that extends beyond notions evident in staff development efforts or even in many knowledge-based empowennent strategies.