Lexington, Kentucky

Probably the most efficient and quickest way for a teacher to teach a lower-order pre-defined objective is to utilize a feedback model:

                                                                  specify the objective

                                                   analyze evaluation             directly teach it, explaining    

                                                   findings                             typical examples        

                                                              evaluate student competence

and ideally repeat this cycle, offering alternative teaching strategies, until the students have learned the objective.

EdSource surveyed 5,500 teachers and 257 principals and found that the highest performing California schools serving many low-income students focus on improving student achievement using essentially the feedback model.¹

The feedback model systemizes the instructional process, enabling a teacher, or a group of teachers, to learn from their experience. Ideally, the feedback model leads to continuous instructional improvement based on data analysis. To improve teaching effectiveness, a teacher can use Ralph Tyler's concept of "backward mapping" (that has often been attributed to Grant Wiggins) to figure out what a student will need to master a pre-defined standard. Or, a teacher can analyze the pre-defined standard, using Gagne's idea of identifying all the necessary prerequisite knowledge and skills, and then utilize diagnostic assessment instruments written with the explicit purpose of determining what prerequisite knowledge and skills students need, to learn the pre-defined standard.

Utilizing the feedback model, it is essential that teachers accurately report student achievement so that they can appropriately respond to identified error patterns. A lack of truthful reporting about student achievement has bolstered calls for accountability. It is professionally embarrassing when there is a huge difference between student achievement test scores and course grades. Furthermore, without accurate reporting, research-in-practice to improve teaching is impossible. The feedback model allows teachers to work together to diagnose student learning problems, develop alternative teaching methods, and improve evaluation procedures.

Conceivably, this feedback model can also be automated. (At least this is the hope of Arizona Senate Bill 1512, just signed into law by Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano this past June.) Numerous alternative teaching strategies can be pre-programmed. Routine tasks can be transferred from the teacher to the computer, freeing the teacher to reinvest many hours in one-on-one teaching time. Assessment instruments can be automatically assembled from numerous pre-tested questions. Analytic reports can be generated at the conclusion of each cycle, and the whole system can patiently and theoretically continue until the desired student achievement level is attained. Computers are infinitely patient, and, as these programs are improved, I believe it will be possible to actually implement mastery learning utilizing the feedback model to a higher level of attainment than is possible through regular classroom instruction.

The key feature of the feedback model is that it focuses upon student outcomes--the results of learning, not upon a particular instructional strategy.

Chester Finn and "The Biggest Reform of All"

Chester Finn, Former Assistant Secretary of Education, and now President of the conservative Fordham Foundation, in his April 1990 Phi Delta Kappan article, "The Biggest Reform of All," predicted this focus on student outcomes, referring to this shift in focus as a "paradigm shift," referencing Thomas Kuhn's famous book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.² "History," Chester Finn said, "is going to view the final third of [the 20th century] as a time when the very meaning of education was recast, at least in the United States and perhaps throughout the industrial world." Under the new paradigm, "education is the result achieved, the learning that takes root... Only if the process succeeds and learning occurs will we say that education happened."

Chester Finn, in April 1990, correctly predicted the change "in emphasis from educational inputs to outcomes." He correctly foresaw that the changes in 1990, "... represent[ed] barely the warning tremors of the policy earthquake [which was] to come," as we can readily see by what has happened, largely due to the No Child Left Behind legislation which has certainly represented the "policy earthquake to come" which Chester Finn predicted.

Not one known for his modesty, Chester Finn went on to

Quoting James Coleman's study on equality of educational opportunity,³ Chester Finn justified separating inputs and outcomes. Finn noted that President Nixon also picked up on James Coleman's research and called for "more education for the dollar." Soon there followed many studies of the "production function" of schooling by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Herbert Walberg, Eric Hanushek, and many others. The testing of "outcomes" became more important when international tests began to show that American education was not producing as high of test scores as we thought it should. This resulted in more emphasis upon the specification of pre-defined standards and testing to determine if those pre-defined standards had been learned.

Michael Lerner describes what happens in schools, today:

Clearly, Chester Finn's ideas went right along with all this testing. He said,

This "competency based" argument required demonstration of proficiency. As Chester Finn put it, "When selecting a cake, who cares about the process, if it tastes good?"

This competency based argument led Lamar Alexander to suggest less regulation, "if schools and school districts will produce better results." Utilizing Lamar Alexander's suggestion, Chester Finn felt that an "outcome-based view of education ... when coupled with an exacting system of performance accountability [could be] a liberating experience for those who toil in the enterprise of education."

Well, where has this outcome-based view of education led?

In impoverished communities where principals are desperately trying to increase student achievement, the curriculum is being narrowed to whatever is being tested by the state. For example, in Bakersfield, California, even in summer schools, just reading and mathematics is being taught in day-long instruction, with little time for recess and no time for other subjects.

Further, this past sping, when it came time for testing, students known for poor test performance were encouraged not to attend school.

In the May 2006 issue of Educational Leadership, Marge Scherer talks about how many teachers are now simply "teaching to the test, reducing learning to scripts and pacing guides, or concentrating primarily on lifting up only those students who are just below the proficiency line."⁵

Ohio State University Professor Philip Daniel⁶ reminds us that "there is no proof that standardized tests contribute to learning outcomes. [But] What has been shown is that such high pressure tests contribute to student drop-out rates."

On a daily basis, teachers from throughout the central valley of California who study educational administration at California State University--Bakersfield, tell me that they are actually being told that they are not allowed to teach anything besides what will be tested, and some say they must use designated scripted lessons. Now what kind of model does that set when the children see a teacher acting like a parrot?

In the New York Times, Sewell Chan⁷ describes schools where administrators make unannounced visits to ensure that teachers are abiding by the "flow of the day" schedule posted in each classroom. To avoid being caught if they do not follow the schedule, some teachers have begun "actually training their kids to switch subjects on command. They can be doing a reading lesson, and if somebody walks through the door, all of a sudden they're doing the writing lesson."

Arthur T. Costigan, Assistant Professor of Education at Queens College, has interviewed about 300 middle-school teachers since 2001. At a time when there is a teacher shortage, he links high turnover among new teachers to an overly rigid curriculum.⁸ In this regard, Andy Hargreaves and Dean Fink likewise complain about "standards turned into standardization" which demoralizes innovative teachers, depriving them of the freedom to adjust to student needs.⁹

Studying teacher responses to accountability policies, Kenneth Leithwood¹⁰ found that control strategies trained on input, process, and outputs intended to regulate and standardize school practices tended to be overrated by reformers. In contrast, commitment strategies aimed at unleashing teacher energy and expertise appeared particularly productive in the new accountability contexts, but those commitment strategies apparently are rarely being utilized. Leithwood noted that

As Anne Lewis has observed, "It makes one wonder about the human costs of the high-stakes testing that consumes the life of schools at the expense of other values."¹¹

Is There Another Paradigm?

Clearly the paradigm that Chester Finn recommended has led us to some awful consequences. But where do we turn for a new paradigm? The public knows no other paradigm. What else is there besides learning curriculum standards? Chester Finn's vision is of students satisfactorily completing one set of standards and proceeding without delay to more advanced pre-defined objectives. Completing one grade's standards, the idea is for students to go on to the next grade. In virtual high schools, continuous progress through the various courses is now happening, and students can pass their high school exit exam and proceed to take on-line college courses.

The quiz show champion has become the vision for the ideal student, rapidly able to correctly respond to pre-defined questions for which there are right answers.¹² Students "win" by getting high achievement test scores; schools (and hence, principals) "win" by raising achievement test scores.

If a school fails to show progress with any two subsets of students for two years in a row, the No Child Left Behind Act specifies that it must be identified as "needing improvement." Yet despite decades of evidence that low school test scores are a function of poverty, lack of medical care, lack of pre-schooling, neglect, and various other social disadvantages, to the public, the school is seen as failing.¹³

In looking for another paradigm, I suggest we look at the history of liberal arts education. The history of the liberal arts really starts with the Greeks. There were two "sides" or views on what constituted a liberal education: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized helping students search for virtue; Isocrates emphasized informing students about virtue.¹⁴

By Roman times, Cicero (1st century B.C.) and Quintilian (1st century A.D.) talked about the seven liberal arts, and two contrasting views of a liberal education: the Socratic tradition favored teaching students how to search for virtue; the Roman tradition favored informing students about virtue.

Though the meaning of a liberal education has gone through many changes, even at the end of the 19th century (1880) we still see the two contrasting approaches to a liberal education: On the one hand, we find Thomas Huxley arguing for the teaching of science and culture, saying that a liberal education should be dedicated to increasing human knowledge by use of the scientific method; on the other hand, we find Matthew Arnold arguing for the teaching of the best that has been thought and said, namely the classical texts as the proper approach for the formation of culture and personality. Whereas Thomas Huxley envisioned science as the sole method of reaching truth; Matthew Arnold understood science as the accumulation of facts, organized in a systematic whole.

In the 20th century, John Dewey linked the search for knowledge with the highest aspirations of American democracy:

The individual who has a question which being really a question to him instigates his curiosity, which feeds his eagerness for information that will help him cope with it, and who has at command an equipment which will permit these interests to take effect, is intellectually free ... His own purposes will direct his actions. Otherwise, his seeming attention is docility, his memorizings and reproductions will partake of intellectual servility. Such a condition of intellectual subjection is needed for fitting the masses into a society where the many are not expected to have aims or ideas of their own, but to take orders from the few in authority. It is not adapted to a society which intends to be democratic.¹⁵

During the mid-20th century we saw a conflict between those who saw a liberal education as the education of leaders, and those who favored universal liberal education. But still we saw the two liberal arts traditions: on the one hand the "liberating"/searching side, and on the other hand, the side that would have the student come to understand the way things are.

The historian, Russel Nye, perceived American public education as having tried to foster both views. He said,

The psychologist, Howard Gardner, likewise saw both sides. He said:

More recently, Jonathan Kozol, in The Shame of the Nation¹⁸, wrote of the need for both sides. He said:

Back in 1990, I responded to Chester Finn's article. My response was published in the Kappan,¹⁹ a few months after his article. This is what I said:

I said that in 1990, and I believe that today. Let me give you the origin of my belief:

As a graduate student, I was impressed by the work of social-psychologists Edward Jones and Howard Gerard, who spent a year at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, sorting and reviewing research in the field of social psychology. They concluded that there is a fundamental antinomy (or opposition in laws) between the desire to preserve pre-existing views or convictions, and the desire to be open to change. This fundamental antinomy pits stability and self-maintenance on the one hand against openness to change and stimulation on the other. As Jones and Gerard point out, "If either side of this antinomy should become completely dominant, it is hard to see how the individual could survive as an intact, effective organism."²⁰

After studying the history of education, and applying that basic antinomy to education, it was reassuring to learn that I reached the same conclusion previously expressed by many others. For example, Immanuel Kant said that "... education partly teaches man something and partly merely develops something within him ..."

I believe schools need to promote both sides of this basic antinomy. On the one hand we want to preserve pre-existing understandings. We rightly do this through the identification and teaching of state standards. On the other hand, we also want to be open to change and thereby help, aid, assist, and promote student creativity and student interests. I call these two sides of the curriculum, the "expository" and "investigatory." If for no other reason, we need both sides to "grow" the economy.

Yes, the country needs employees with basic skills, but, as former Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich has so eloquently argued in his book, The Work of Nations,²¹ the future of the American workforce depends upon workers who can identify and creatively solve problems. American workers can not compete in terms of low labor costs. American workers can only compete when they offer better ideas. Many of us fear that "Standardization is sapping innovative platforms in elementary schools, [and] in a knowledge-based economy, that's suicide."²²

There is widespread recognition that the United States' once-heralded capacity for innovation is in serious trouble. In sources as varied as Thomas L. Friedman's book The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century,²³ the National Academies' report "Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future,"²⁴ and the recent National Summit on Competitiveness held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, we are hearing calls for bolstering American competitiveness through research and education. We need to create a stronger culture for innovation by encouraging all students to participate in intellectually stimulating projects. Research promotes critical and creative thinking, intellectual excitement and adventure, and the habits of mind that nurture innovation.²⁵

While the No Child Left Behind Act has mandated high-stakes competition for higher test scores, China, Singapore, South Korea, and Japan have all started reforms aimed at fostering more creativity and innovative thinking among their citizens. As the United States pushes for more centralized curriculum standards, China is abandoning a one nation, one syllabus tradition. As the United States moves toward a required program of study for high schools, China is working hard to implement a flexible system with more electives and choices for students.²⁶

How can American workers learn to offer better ideas? As Jerome Bruner has said, "I have never seen anybody improve on the art and technique of inquiry by any means other than engaging in inquiry."²⁷ Or, to put it another way, creative inquiry can not be learned by only studying pre-defined standards. Creativity is developed through the pursuit of interests and ideas, i.e. through the investigatory side of education. Is it not more important for students to be engaged deeply in something that is interesting to them, than it is for them to absorb everything? Our experience is that it is ultimately more valuable for students to learn fewer things more deeply than to gain a superficial knowledge of many things.²⁸

What sort of preparation for higher education does a narrow standards-based high school provide? In college students must ask questions and search for answers. Certainly students are not going to be able to miraculously ask questions and investigate ideas when they arrive on campus if they have never done so, previously.²⁹ To prepare for a college education, students certainly need the basic tools of learning, but they also need investigatory experience, which many educators feel they are not getting because of the current "preoccupation" with a narrow set of "standards to the exclusion of everything else."³⁰

However, not everyone agrees. Larry Cuban, in the June 2006 Phi Delta Kappan³¹ says that he collected over 1,000 reports of classroom lessons between 1993 and 2005 in Denver, Colorado; Oakland, California; and Arlington, Virginia. He says that "instead of finding intensified teacher-centered practices, as teacher surveys, stories, and occasional studies led me to believe," he found "mixes of teacher-centered and student-centered approaches." He says he "saw elementary teachers prepare students for upcoming state tests and then have them work in small groups for a project on Mexico." He says he "found secondary biology teachers lecturing on DNA for part of a lesson and then breaking the class into small groups with materials taken from a crime scene to figure out who did it."

Larry Cuban says "These findings raise doubt about generally accepted reports that the current passion for standards and testing has forced teachers to embrace more teacher-centered approaches to instruction than they would otherwise have chosen." I hope he is right, but I doubt it. In any event we certainly need more research to determine what is actually happening in this nation's classrooms.

The point I am making is that we do need a mix of the two approaches.

Kathy Christie has suggested

This experience could arise as a method for teaching a pre-defined objective in nutrition. But would it not be preferable if the students had raised the question and the teacher had helped them investigate by helping them undertake this experiment?

Douglas Reeves, in his recent book, The Learning Leader,³³ states that

He goes on to remark that "When students are drowning, they do not need a lecture on the theory of aquatics--they need a life preserver." Yes, they need a life preserver, and that is why I suggest they also need curriculum that will bring "life" to these students by cultivating self-knowledge, a passion for inquiry, and critical thought.

Our vision should not be of schools filled with quiz show champions, but of schools

The American Association of Colleges and Universities³⁵ has documented an emerging consensus across many constituencies on a set of widely endorsed educational aims and outcomes that are important to all students, whatever their choice of institution, academic field, and intended career. These include:

These outcomes are important, but much of this can not be attained by simply studying a set of pre-defined objectives.

Hence, a study of whether this nation's elementary schools are balancing this basic antinomy is urgently needed. To what extent are teachers being ordered to devote virtually all of their teaching to the expository side? Under what circumstances is this being justified? Are there schools which are able to appropriately balance this basic antinomy? If so, how are they doing that and what can other elementary schools learn from their example? Those are important questions which need answering.

One school which reportedly aims at balancing the two sides of education is John Hersey High School, located 20 miles outside Chicago. That school is committed to standards and student engagement. They accomplish this

While at John Hersey High School student achievement has soared,

those who favor Chester Finn's vision point to counter evidence gathered by "Project Follow Through," one of the largest experiments in education ever conducted. Over 75,000 children from 170 different communities participated in a project designed to systematically evaluate different approaches to educating children assessed for risk of academic failure in grades K-3. Nine models of education were compared to each other, and to school districts used as no treatment control groups. Student outcomes were assessed on the Metropolitan Achievement Test, the Wide Range Achievement Test, the Raven's Colored Progressive Matrices, the Intellectual Achievement Responsibility Scale, and the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory. Seven of the teaching models were based on learner-centered, cognitive conceptual investigatory approaches to education (e.g., Cognitively Oriented Curriculum, Florida Parent Education Model, Tucson Early Education Model, Banks Street Model, Open Education Model, Responsive Education Model). Two of the models were teacher-centered, skill, behavioral, and outcome-based (namely, the Direct Instruction Model and the Behavioral Analysis Model). The results were quite clear: The two teacher-centered outcome-based models significantly outperformed the learner centered/constructivist models on all the dependent measures. The Direct Instruction and the Behavioral Analysis models also out performed the other models even on those outcomes valued in the learner centered approach (i.e., self-esteem and higher order cognitive skills).³⁷

This is strong evidence that direct expository instruction is superior to investigatory student-centered education for the teaching of specific objectives, but I am arguing for the need for both.

Dennis Littky and Elliot Washor have argued that investigatory education should be the largest part of a high school education. That is certainly true of the high schools they have created. Their high schools, such as one in Providence, Rhode Island, are "small, personalized learning environments where students perform real work in the community and design their own curricula according to their interests." The question that drives their work is "How do we take a kid's interest and passion, use the real world, and get the kid engaged?"³⁸

How can teachers help students pursue curricula according to their interests? The instructables.com web site produced by Squid Labs includes suggestions on how to create a wide variety of projects. My educational administration students have assembled a pamphlet describing many examples of investigatory education,³⁹ and, of course, there are numerous other sources.

Summary

But now let me summarize: I believe Chester Finn correctly predicted the current emphasis upon standards or outcome-based-education. I believe that model has swept the nation because neither the public nor educators provided a viable alternative and because there were and still are justifiable concerns about the literacy of the next generation. As Rep. Anne Northup of Kentucky testified in March of 2001 before the "Committee on Education and the Workforce" which was considering the No Child Left Behind legislation,

She and other legislators were rightly horrified by such abysmal academic performance, and so we got the No Child Left Behind Act.

Kentucky has a new law (H.B. 197) which will require the state department to provide end-of-course examinations in Algebra I and II, and in Geometry. I think that is a good thing, because there is certain knowledge which we wish to pass on to the next generation, and we need truthful reporting on how well students are learning that material.⁴⁰

However, I have tried very hard this evening to suggest that we educational administration faculty need to teach our students, and indeed the public, that there is another side to education, namely the investigatory side.

The investigatory side starts with student questions and curiosity, which the expository side lacks. The investigatory side is based upon the constructivist principle that learners gain understanding when they construct their own knowledge and develop their own cognitive maps of the interconnections among facts and concepts.⁴¹

It is my position that both sides of this basic antinomy are vital to public education and indeed our nation.

I stand here this evening remembering the wonderful teachers and administrators in the Educational Administration Program at California State University--Bakersfield--and, I am sure there are many in your programs--who are counting on us to deliver this message that the present narrow emphasis upon the teaching of just a set of pre-defined standards is extinguishing the motivation, enthusiasm, and potential of students, teachers, and administrators.⁴²

Both sides of the basic antinomy are vital to public education and indeed our nation.

Let me now add a brief personal postscript: This is the story of a scientist whose work exemplifies the importance of investigatory education which I believe is so lacking in this nation's public schools:

In 1906, exactly one hundred years ago, Sir William Perkin, arrived in New York. On Saturday night that autumn there was to be a big dinner in his honor at Delmonico's, New York City's premier banqueting hall. The following week he would meet with Pres. Roosevelt in Washington, D.C.

About 400 men gathered at Delmonico's at 7 p.m. The banqueting room, a place of huge chandeliers and gilt mirrors, was decorated with English, American and German flags. These leaders of the chemical and industrial worlds sat around forty-four tables, telling stories about booming business and fantastic inventions. At least half of them wore fashionable moustaches. Their menu cards had been embossed, each carrying a brightly coloured tassle and a picture of Perkin looking like a benevolent country clergyman. The gold inscription read, "Dinner in honour of Sir William Henry Perkin by his American friends to commemorate the 50th anniversary of his discovery."

According to Simon Garfield, Perkin's biographer, the first course was oysters. Beyond the oysters there was clear green turtle soup. Waiters then brought radishes and olives, and Terrapin a la Maryland. The saddle of lamb aromatic came with brussels sprouts and chestnuts, the grouse with bread sauce and currant jelly, and for dessert there was a choice of cake, cheese, coffee and Nesselrode pudding. There was more champagne. And then at about 10 o'clock it was speech time, and a small orchestra appeared at the back of the hall.

One speech was given by Dr. Hugo Schweitzer who explained how Perkin's discovery--the discovery of the first synthetic dies for clothing--was also important as it was indirectly responsible for enormous advances in medicine, perfumery, food, explosives and photography.

By 1906, there were already 2,000 artificial colours, all stemming from Perkin's work. Coal-tar derivatives had enabled the German bacteriologist Paul Ehrlich to pioneer immunology and chemotherapy.

How did this discovery occur? This is what Sir William Perkin said: "I was in the laboratory of the German chemist Hofmann. I was then eighteen. While working on an experiment, I failed, and was about to throw a certain black residue away when I thought it might be interesting. The solution of it resulted in a strangely beautiful colour. You know the rest."

Perkin's discovery occurred while investigating coal-tar. He was not trying to learn pre-defined standards; he was investigating an area of interest, and thus discovered the first synthetic die for clothing.⁴³

I think there is much to be learned from that history. In the future, educators must not be cowered by politicians. We must insist that education be balanced between that which we want to pass on to the next generation and education which will allow students to investigate and pursue their ideas.

I hope that my great great uncle, Sir William Perkin, would be happy with what I have said here, tonight.

                    42. Koben, Rise, "No Enfant Left Behind: The Editor's Page," Phi Delta Kappan, June 2006, p. 722.

Bruner, Jerome, On Knowing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962.

Chan, Sewell, "By the Script," The New York Times, June 27, 2006.

Coleman, James, Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1966.

Chritie, Kathy, "Stateline," Phi Delta Kappan, June 2006, p. 725.

Cuban, Larry, "Centennial Reflections: Getting Past Futile Pedagogical Wars," Phi Delta Kappan, June 2006, p. 793-795.

Dewey, John, Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press, 1916, p. 304-305.

Epstein, David; Gilman, Jane; and Thurston, Bill, "Report on MSRI 1994 Summer Workshop on Hyperbolic Geometry and Dynamical Systems," Notices of the American Mathematical Society, Vol. 42, Num. 12, Dec. 1995, p. 1520-1527.

Ferrero, David, "Having It All," Educational Leadership, Vol. 63, No. 8, May 2006, p. 8-14.

Finn, Chester, "The Biggest Reform of All," Phi Delta Kappan, April 1990.

Friedman, Thomas, The World Is Flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005.

Gardner, Howard, "Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice," as quoted in Education Week, April 28, 1993, p. B2.

Garfield, Simon, Mauve: How One Man Invented a Color That changed the World. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001.

Giroux, Henry, Educational Leadership and the Crisis of Democratic Culture. University Park, PA: University Council for Educational Administration, 1992, p. 11.

Hargreaves, Andy and Fink, Dean, "The Ripple Effect," Educational Leadership, Vol. 63, No. 8, May 2006, p. 18.

Hellweg, Eric, "Taking Back the Class," Edutopia, July/August 2006, p. 35-37.

Jones, Edward and Gerard, Howard, Foundations of Social Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967, p. 227.

Kimball, Bruce, A History of the Idea of Liberal Education. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1995.

Koben, Rise, "No Enfant Left Behind: The Editor's Page," Phi Delta Kappan, June 2006, p. 722.

Kozol, Jonathan, The Shame of the Nation. New York: Crown Publishers, 2005.

Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962.

Leithwood, Kenneth; Steinbach, R. and Jantzi, D., "School Leadership and Teachers' Motivation to Implement Accountability Policies," Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 2002, 94-119.

Lewis, Anne, "Washington Commentary," Phi Delta Kappan, April 2006, p. 564.

Mathews, Jay, "Prepackaged School Reform," The School Administrator. January 2000.

Matthews, William, "Constructivism in the Classroom: Epistemology, History and Empirical Evidence," Teacher Education Quarterly, Summer 2003, 51-64.

McKenzie, Jamie, "Gambling with the Children," http://nochildleft.com/2003/jan03.html#4

McTighe, J. and Wiggins, G., Understanding By Design Professional Development Workbook. Alexandria, VA: ASCD, 2004, p. 161.

Merrow, John, "My College Education: Looking at the Whole Elephant," Change, May/June 2006, p. 8-15.

Nye, Russel, Academe, May-June 1995, p. 26-27.

Reich, Robert, The Work of Nations. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1991.

Robinson, Ken, Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative. West Sussex, Capstone Publishing, 2001.

Rubenstein, Grace, "Creative License," Edutopia, July/August 2006, p. 23-25.

Rubenstein, Grace, "The Daring Dozen, 2006," in Edutopia. The George Lucas Educational Foundation Magazine, March 2006, p. 43.

Scherer, Marge, "The Challenge to Change," Educational Leadership, Vol. 63, No. 8, May 2006, p. 7.

Wildman, Louis et al., Examples of Investigatory Teaching. Bakersfield, CA: Educational Administration Program, California State University--Bakersfield, 1998.

Wildman, Louis, "Finn and the Cult of Efficiency," Phi Delta Kappan, October 1990, p. 172.

Wildman, Louis and Erickson, Deborah (Eds.), Quality School Leadership Begins With Quality Preparation Programs: Professors of Educational Administration and Their Students' Professional Administrative Practice. Sacramento, CA: Association of California School Administrators, 2006.

Winn, Ira J., "The High Cost of Uncritical Teaching," Phi Delta Kappan, March 2004, 496.