Learning by all

Phi Delta Kappan

Volumn 77, Issue MAR, 1996, Pages 468-476

  Wilson, Suzanne M ^a,b   Peterson, Penelope L ^b   Ball, Deborah L ^b   Cohen, David K ^c  

^a Department of Teacher Education ^*

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000893115     PISSN: 00317217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. See, for example, Larry Cuban, How Teachers Taught: Constancy and Change in American Classrooms, 1890-1990 (New York: Teachers College Press, 1984);
2. David Tyack and Larry Cuban, Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995);
3. Philip A. Cusick, The Educational System: Its Nature and Logic (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993);
4. and David Tyack and William Tobin, "The 'Grammar' of Schooling: Why Has It Been So Hard to Change?," American Educational Research Journal, vol. 31, 1994, pp. 453-79.
5. The work on which this article is based was supported by the Education Policy and Practice Study, which is funded in part by Michigan State University and by grants from the Pew Charitable Trust (Grant No. 91-04343-000); Carnegie Corporation of New York (Grant No, B 5638); the National Science Foundation (Grant No. ESI-9153834); and the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) and the National Center for Research on Teacher Learning (NCRTL), both of which are funded by grants from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (Grant No. OERI-G-008690011 and Grant No. OERI-R-117G10011-94). The views expressed in this article are the authors' own.
6. Because in most of our research we promised our informants confidentiality, we use pseudonyms in these stories.
7. See Mathematics Curriculum Framework for California Public Schools (Sacramento: California State Department of Education, 1985).
8. A revised framework was published in 1991. See Mathematics Curriculum Framework for California Public Schools (Sacramento: California State Department of Education, 1991).
9. These are not new insights, for education scholars have been developing aspects of this thesis for years. See, for example, Ann Lieberman, The Work of Restructuring Schools: Working from the Ground Up (New York: Teachers College Press, 1995);
10. Andy Hargreaves and Michael G. Fullan, eds., Understanding Teacher Development (New York: Teachers College Press, 1992);
11. and Judith Warren Little, 'Teachers' Professional Development in a Climate of Educational Reform," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 15, 1993, pp. 129-51. However, we don't mean to imply that if only the California state department staff members had read a couple of books, they would have been fine. We believe that they needed to arrive at these conclusions for themselves based on the interplay of reading and experience.
12. For an insiders' account of the genesis of the Renaissance Project, see Kris Acquarelli and Judith Mumme, "A Renaissance in Mathematics Education Reform," p. 478, this Kappan.
13. For a more in-depth account of this teacher educator's learning, see Penelope L. Peterson and Carol Barnes, "Learning Together: The Challenge of Mathematics, Equity, and Leadership," p. 485, this Kappan.
14. Note that, when we say "education system" here, we mean it as Philip Cusick has described it: both the formal and informal collectives and communities that have some commitment to and interest in education (Cusick, Kappan op. cit.).
15. Judith Warren Little writes about the nature and value of "joint work." See Little, Kappan op. cit.