EAPS 745 Student Critiques of Networking High
in New York's Secondary Education
- The following are a listing of student impressions about the
Networking text and a response by the author/instructor. As a
graduate assignment, the student evaluations are likely to be as
carefully thought out and honest as any subsequent appraisals by
standard book review processes. Of course, the summaries do not
capture all the points made nor the depth of artistic literary flavor
within presentation made by each
Eileen Borden: Notes the Compact implementation has emphasized
intra-district and local building reforms that may preclude districts
from expanding their collaborations to inter-district arrangements.
Believes the Regents do promote a stability that is needed in New York
reform but wonders if educators feel any "wave" of expectation or just
disorganized noise. The book lacks concrete examples of how keiretsu
actually works in American networks and that keiretsu nets may well
leave out the little and weaker "companies." Discussing allocation
pattern measures emphasizes the have-have not settings in New York.
This discrepancy plays out "viciously in step four of decision rules"
where Bulls-eye discussions create a "trickle down" theory.
Interprets "dim" as areas where large concentration of low or no
points instead of areas where districts overlooked in state wide
implementation efforts. Given the reaction on Long Island last fall,
Eileen thinks the process of forming alliances should proceed without
too much "noise."
Debbie Chicorelli: Keiretsu will not work unless the fundamental
belief in local control is changed. Choice in how the local district
is run is "the last vestige of local control in a world of big
business and government." ( Sergiovanni, et. al). BOCES are seen as
governmental entities in themselves and not the cooperating group of
neighboring districts network. BOCES are seen as a place to farm out
hard problems so that each district can work on its own Regents.
Believes the Regents focus is necessary to compensate for the "feel
good" evaluations, the AFT argument that "happy teachers make happy
children" and the lack of accountability interest in the average
intelligence majority of children. Wonders why SED not doing this
kind of detailed, multiyear analysis as a matter of course.
Interprets "dim" as a reference to poor performance.
Dorothy Donlan: Wonders if keiretsu can bridge between Japanese and
American cultures, whether business focused networking makes sense to
children focused educators, whether Americans will help one another
and be motivated to cooperate. The networks that exist are sports
councils but school districts exist in isolation. Site based
management and shared decision making committees have increased the
isolation tendency. Believes state wide comparisons too discouraging
for upstate; suggests regional comparisons and thinking of secondary
schools by size and location before performance. Felt the study
started with the premise to identify the top ten percent and
manipulated decision rules to reach the goal instead of patterning 649
cases, then identifying n=67 as the "top ten" percent of the group.
Thought presenting Bullseye districts in alphabetical order without
specific point count had merit even though it would create impression
of speculation rather than hard data analysis. Interpreted "dim" as
an insult being given to schools in the north country who "already
know they cannot stack up to schools on Long Island." Discussed BOCES
as possible option for networking districts and finances from state as
a necessary dangling carrot.
Eric Isselhardt: Felt the book lacked essential definitions,
particularly the concept of structure was not explicated. This
failure made the meaning of keiretsu application hard to diagnose and
oversimplified the political process of New York State. Felt the
decision rules and "steps" inferred a methodology but the core
rationale for each step was not addressed. Utilized W. Sewell ( Amer
Journ of Sociology, 98, 1992) theory of structure to discuss the two
areas of definition; system wide policies and goals that provide unity
and (b) overall organizational elements. Noted the need to specify
the equivalent of Chomsky's (1971) "deep structure." Eric argued that
the very resources schools use and produce have fundamentally changed
by technology and that keiretsu should be used to develop systems for
the ongoing culture of change.
Ruth Lang: Noted that American business had some skepticism whether
the balance between cooperation and competition could be reached and
whether management concerns for profit could be translated into what's
good for students. Noted that the larger BOCES districts were already
functioning like keiretsu arrangement with shared services between
districts. Recommended cooperation about staffing by the creation of
a team of member teachers moving to the school with a particular
change initiative. Was skeptical whether the most achieving districts
would share with any other district and suggested the text inference
that districts might re-constitute themselves would overshadow the
rest of the text and bring discussion to an end. Noted the problem
with official state reporting using estimates and perceptions. Gave
example of self reported data being so suspicious that SED personnel
would not create or use statistics because it was sure to create a
political document. Noted the issue of "Herricks" type districts
that deliberately de-emphasized Regents diplomas would be hard to
network with and retain local autonomy. In general, thought the
network of Bullseye districts as leadership and SED as liaisons might
work because public needs models of actual high performance. Doubted
whole state could change by 2003 if start with 10 percent of the
Karen McSharry: Noted that the New York State of Learning had
concluded for the past three years that achievement and performance
differences were a function of socio-economic and racial differences
of the students tested. Although there is a general concession to the
disparities of rich-poor as a major determinant, the discussion of
increasing performance and "raising the bar" occurs in an era of
diminishing resources. While the Networking book fits the recent
political climate to promote Regents, there is a danger of using a
single measure that "straight jackets" creativity( Nehring,
Darling-Hammond) and Compact for Learning intentions. Doubts equity
can be shelved when the results of Bullseye identification are a set
of rich, white suburban districts. Karen seems to believe that
vertical keiretsu concept is credible for school networking even if
though the Japanese culture and business focus are acknowledged.
Horizontal keiretsu is more unlikely as political tensions increase
competition and not collaboration among very top districts. Also
questions whether a true state wide Regents reform agenda can be
implemented with five percent of the districts leading.
Martin Miller: Agrees with the idea that New York State needs the
Regents as a "steady platform" to rebuild public education and that
achievement driven reforms must model on high performing schools.
Also believes that the Bulls-eye documentation means that high quality
does not have to be re-invented only re-emphasized. Notes the
questions of modeling business in education and that horizontal
sharing is okay while vertical keiretsu would not be a good reform
method. Had problems understanding the audience that the Networking
book was written for and lack of explanation of the Appendices.
Thought practical issue of Networking use would rest with why high
performing districts would offer help and whether low performing
districts would accept help.
John Polnak: Could not see the incentives that would induce high
performance districts into networks. While leagues are an appealing
idea, cooperation would seem to imply extra time, talent and money.
Suggests possibility of "league" money being allocated through BOCES
on a "rfp" basis of distribution. Believes use of official state data
makes sense in today's political climate. Felt that the decision
rules were too numerous and complicated so that the book argument was
weakened. Feels that specific rank ordering of districts should not
occur because educational policy for implementation only needs broad
categorization. Was upset that Madrid-Waddington was called
Madrid-Washington and took offenses at the "dim" north country
discussion. Felt "dim" was interpreted as "backward" not overlooked.
Art Recesso, Jr.:Argues that keiretsu organizations can become too
concerned with internal organization and cohesiveness about control of
lines of production that "rival organized crime families." Also questions
whether profit incentive can be approximated with districts focused upon
academic acheivement. Believes technology provides a better concept of
networking secondary education interests than district jurisdiction
identities. Would look to the internet networking as changing the meaning
of bulls-eye to the hub of information exchange and getting questions of
performance circulated .
Delilah and Roberto Reyes: Noted that Yoshida argued that Japanese
cooperation and harmony based upon "natural and geographic
impediments" as precondition for keiretsu. Argued that New York
"structural impediments" of political realities and norms not a
Japanese equivalent because no premise of mutual good or ethical
obligation to level playing field. Talked of Albany attracting the
Giants as a temporary keiretsu example but skeptical about viability
of persistent and sustained structures because of union contracts,
local politics, etc. did not believe that money (equity) and
minority(democracy) could be shelved while focus on performance(
Regents reform) in real political climate. Does not believe SED will
align themselves with any effort that differentiates or ranks
districts. Suggests that the inability to "skim" and make simple the
arguments of the book will detract from its acceptance by busy
administrators and policy makers.
RoseMarie Rosen: Several questions about Networking will be as a work
of analysis and as a call for action center on the accountability of
public education. Do not have common expectations for good spending
or even outcomes. The text asserts that a vision of accounting must
document performance but the last fifteen "at risk" years have created
an image problem and a fiscal preoccupation to do with less. Open
consideration of performance is against the norms of schools and
community. Teachers unions can speak of wages, benefits, custodial
issues and bureaucracy but it cannot differentiate its membership.
Can collaborative keiretsu networks replace the state preoccupation
with merger and consolidation? This kind of political issue may hold
promise to focus the critical practicalities of financing,
representative membership and so forth if a network was formed.
Standards have evolved from registration review (Ambach) through
waivers and decentralization (Sobol) to examinations and testing(
Mills). The issue of the "bar high enough" is a different question
for Bulls eye and no point districts. The value of using "college
bound" as a focus is that it is deliberately limited and does not
pretend to encompass all of the secondary experience. The core
problem is that Regents focus generally ignores urban children. As
the New York Times said "efficacy is not enough." A vision of
performance and a belief in student potential is only about 10 percent
of what success means among the most difficult and needy children.
Andreea Serban: noted there was no empirical testing of the keiretsu
concept in educational settings and the applicability of business
networking in Silicon Valley was problematic for direct comparisons
with education. Questioned Saxson's assertion that the networking of
business was a "sense of community" as much as a desire for profit
maximization. Noted that the fast pace of technology development
forced cooperation because no one company can keep up. Andreea used
the Netscape and Java collaboration on Java script development and Netscape
and Microsoft collaboration on
hypertext markup language development as examples of cooperation to keep
ahead of competitors
and how such efforts outpaced the more established National Center for
SuperComputing - which created the first Internet browser, Mosaic - in
industry leadership. She used
this discussion to contrast the "service" (Blau and Scott) education
organizations operating without profit and asked what incentives would
Bullseye districts have to network with anyone. Even if incentives
were offered, the "level playing field" of fair competition could not
be achieved. There is no way "equity" and raw redistributive politics
can be shelved for a discussion of performance. Felt that the use of
the term indices (e.g., Shavelson's development of indicators ) was
too pretentious and should use measures instead. The key test of an
indicator system is whether data can bridge between policy design and
Ted Smith: Notes that vertical keiretsu is now operating in State
Education Department and horizontal keiretsu might be discussed in
BOCES arrangements of specialized programs or in high school, colleges
and SAT company networks. Suggests that you could argue that New
York public education suffers from too much keiretsu already and
should abandon state imposed "cooperative" efforts of all kinds.
Believes the greatest contribution of Networking is to demonstrate
that SED should have done this analysis but did not. The SED code is
if we don't look for problems, we do not have problems. The data
confirms that the general assertions about socio-economic status and
performance was right. Complaints about methodology will come from
other rich suburban districts but rural and city districts will be
very quiet. On the practical level Ted raises the question if
increased performance expectations will continue with the current
legal expectation that remediation will be provided for those that
don't keep up. Under current way of thinking about public education
he cannot see the "carrot or the stick" in terms of what Bulls eye
districts would engage in networking. Using the "regionalization"
issue in the Capital region as an example he also does not believe the
parochial focus of local boards, teachers and administrators will buy
the "league" of like districts idea.
Shireen Yadegari: Sees text as effort to mobilize reform and that
standard testing is needed to stop the further disparities in
promoting quality education state wide. Remains uncertain whether
local initiatives mean tailoring image of production to what local
community sees or considering what students need most. Believes
network idea valid despite district's "dog-eat-dog" approach to
accountability. Points out that most of the characteristics that
relate to high and low points are not controllable by districts.
Described how the two group approach ( full and close groups) results
in a different ranking of individual districts than a simple adding of
full and close points together. Also notes the problem of looking at
points calculation too close sets stage for ranking discussions more
than networking. Believes the keiretsu idea would be a "hard sell"
and has grave reservations about "selling" any educational idea.
Constance Spohn: General approach was to assess the practical
translations of concepts to the likelihood of actual utility by New
York State educators. Argued that the networking idea should be
compatible with the Tech Prep, School to Work and Goals 2000
expectations for "regional consortia" in curriculum development.
Pointed out that districts might engage in horizontal keiretsu forums
for a variety of reasons; to "outshine" other districts, to position
for money allocations or to maintain and reinforce independence from
the rest of the group. Noted the business idea of "benchmarking"
performance against industry standards and the potential of
"best-in-class" standards to form leagues of districts. Questioned
what keiretsu "reciprocal stock ownership" would be in education.
Noted possibilities in BOCES and PDK/IRI services for fees
arrangements. Asked who would be the "main company" in a network of
districts. discussed BOCES, union Teacher Centers and area membership
organizations like CASDA as possible options. In general, liked the
idea of "matching" districts of equivalent performance and context on
a state wide basis but questioned (a) what would be the incentive
structure for target districts to work with low and no point districts
and(b) whether equity and democracy discussions could be "shelved"
while establishing groundrules about Regents performance.
At least seven major points made by the 745 group that lend themselves
to revision of the text in the upcoming second printing revision:
1) Text hard to read, decision rules too complicated or methodology
inadequately spelled out. ( Eric, Delilah and Roberto, Martin, John,
2) Doubts the meaning of production taken from a business "profit"
orientation can be directly translated to a meaning of educational
productivity based upon "achievement performance." (Eileen, Andreea.
Debbie, Dorothy,Art, Ruth, Martin, Delilah and Roberto)
3) Doubts whether equity and democracy discussions can be "shelved" or
that New York's focus on "urban" can be avoided in discussion of
Regents performance results ( Eileen, Delilah and Roberto, RoseMarie,
Karen, Andreea, Constance, Shireen)
4) Doubts top ten percent state wide districts would share or network
with one another or low/no points districts ( Karen, John, RoseMarie,
5) Interprets "dim" as meaning concentration of low/no point districts
and not overlooked middle scores when state concentrates as subgroups
of very high and no point districts ( Eileen, Debbie, Dorothy, John)
6) Believes existing BOCES arrangements could center networking of
high performance districts (Dorothy, Ruth, John, Constance. Note that
Debbie feels the opposite is true)
7) Suggests the organizational nature of networking more compatible
with horizontal keiretsu is found in emerging technology exchanges
instead ofinstitutional bureaucratic identification between
districts (Eric,Art, Andreea).