STRATEGIC REPRESENTATION OF AN EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FROM STONE S PERSPECTIVE. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

Transcription

1 1 STRATEGIC REPRESENTATION OF AN EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FROM STONE S PERSPECTIVE A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION to the faculty of the Division of ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP Of The School of Education ST. JOHN S UNIVERSITY New York by Keith Fasciana & Kimberly Carroll

2 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I PURPOSE OF THE STUDY BACKGROUND INFORMATION...5 RESEARCH QUESTION..6 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.. 6 INTRODUCTION..6 PART I GOALS.7 EQUITY.8 EFFICIENCY 8 SECURITY 9 LIBERTY..9 PART II PROBLEMS 9 SYMBOLS 10 NUMBERS 10 CAUSES 11 INTERESTS..12 DECISIONS..13 PART III SOLUTIONS..14 INDUCEMENTS..14 RULES..14 FACTS..15 RIGHTS 15 POWER 15

3 3 SUMMARY.15 CHAPTER III METHOD...18 CHAPTER IV FINDINGS OF THE STUDY NYC TRADITIONAL SYSTEM.22 CLARENCE STONE CIVIC CAPACITY 22 TOUGH / CANADA.23 BULKEY, HENIG, LEVIN..24 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS...27 Kimberly Carroll..27 Keith Fasciana..29 REFERENCES.. 31

4 4 TABLES 1. Product matrix Completed Product Matrix..20

5 5 Chapter I Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to look at four different educational models and analyze the chief characteristics of each model. The four competing policy models are UFT Union Parent/Taxpayer Coalitions; Community Development: Civic Capacity; Community Development: Community-Based Organization; and Portfolio Management Model. In addition the report presents an analysis of each model in terms of Stone s framework for political rhetoric; that is, the strategic representations of school management, goals, problems, solutions that are made or implied by the advocates of the competing policies for management systems. This report is separated into five chapters: chapter one focuses on the purpose of the study; chapter two presents a review of Deborah Stone s framework; chapter three is the studies methodology; chapter four is the findings of the study; and chapter five is the researcher s conclusions and recommendations. Background Information It is important to establish a school system that meets the individual needs of every child. Every school system has a different idea of what will work for its community and students, dependent on the need most prevalent in the area. The NYC Traditional system (UFT Union/Parent Taxpayer Coalition) portrays a system where there are teacher unions, parent organizations, school boards and superintendents and bureaucracy that all have an equal stake in the school system. Clarence Stone (Community Development: Civic Capacity) clearly depicts a school system that has a shared understanding which unites everyone with a common goal and a shared vision. Paul Tough (Community Development: Community-Based Organization) examines an organization created by Geoffrey Canada which transforms every aspect of the

6 6 environment that children were growing up; to change the way families raised them and the way their schools taught them as well as the character of the neighborhood that surrounded them (Tough, 2008, p. 19). Bulkley, Henig and Levin (Portfolio Management Model) describe a school system that seeks to design interventions for different school models based on need. The system they describe is built for continuous improvement through expansion and limitation of the highest performing schools, closure and replacement of the lowest performing and a consistent search for new ideas. The central problem addressed in this research is which educational management system was the most effective when compared using Deborah Stone s framework in Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. Research Question This research was guided by one central question: how do the policy model / management system -- UFT Union Parent/Taxpayer Coalitions, Community Development: Civic Capacity, Community Development: Community-Based Organization and Portfolio Management Models compare, using Stone s model of political rhetoric for the analysis. A second concern dealt with the researchers assessment of the effectiveness of the models, presented as chapter five. Chapter II Review of Literature Introduction Educational organizations today are challenged with numerous disputes in politics, policy, and public interests. In Deborah Stone s book, Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making, she explains how decisions are influenced by many different factors. Stone contrast the market model and the polis model, and shows how the polis model can be used to describe how political decisions are made.

7 7 Stone states that, any model of society must specify its source of energy, the force or forces that drive change. In the market model, change is driven by exchange, which is in turn motivated by the individual quest to improve one s own welfare. (Stone, 2002, p ) Stone compares her concepts of society with the market model vs. the polis model. Sources of people s ideas and preferences in the market model occur when self-generation is within the individual. However, in the polis model influences occur from the outside. Stone shows that the very categories behind political analysis, equity efficiency, and liberty, are themselves paradoxical and are resolved through the political struggle. A paradox is a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true. Political life is full of them. Polis, meaning citystate, is used to do exemplify the heart of the political society. It describes a body small enough to have simple forms of organization, yet lard enough to represent the elements of politics (Stone, 17). She continues to demonstrate that the key methods of policy reform incentives, rules, facts, and rights -- are complex social processes. In particular, she presents how values are a part of policy design and implementation. This presentation of the Stone text is divided into three sections: Part I provides an explanation of the goals; Part II centers on the problems; and Part III is geared towards the solutions that they use in order to solve their problems. Part I- Goals Stone presents four concepts that are goals to attain objectives. These four concepts are equity, efficiency, security, and liberty. Collectively these concepts are used as justifications for a policy, a government action, or for a government not taking action. They are also used as

8 8 criteria for evaluating public programs. In the polis, the concepts of equity, efficiency, security, and liberty are continuously constructed (Stone, 37). Equity Stone s first concept is equity, which is the goal for all sides in a distributive conflict; the conflict comes over how the sides envision the distribution of whatever is at issue (Stone, 39). According to Stone, one can tell the players in the great debate about equity by where they put the burden of proof. On one side, differences among people are considered the norm, and any deviation from these patterns must be justified. On the other side, equality is the distribution of certain crucial resources is considered the norm, and any deviations from equality must be justified in terms of other social goals (Stone, 60). For example, the chocolate cake sage, started with the simple idea that equality means the same slice for everyone. However, there were eight challenges to that idea or eight different visions of equality that would result in unequal slices but equality of something else. The paradox in distributive problems: Equality may in fact mean inequality; equal treatment may require unequal treatment; efficiency and the same distribution may be see as equal or unequal; depends on one s point of view (Stone, 41-42). Efficiency Efficiency in its common sense definition is defined as getting the most out of a given input or achieving an objective for the lowest cost (Stone, 61). According to Stone, efficiency is not something that is wanted for our own sake, but rather because it helps us attain more of the things we value. An efficient organization is one that gets things done with minimum waste, duplication, and expenditure of resources (Stone, 61). There are several complications that occur in the polis when it comes to input and output. Some examples are who determines what is the correct output goal, how should we value and compare multiple objectives, and how should we

9 9 count the virtually unlimited opportunity costs of resources used as inputs (Stone, 67)? For example, Herbert Simon speculated on how an administrator might apply the criterion to running a public library (Stone, 62). Security If we accept the symbolic dimension of need as important, then security means protecting people s identities as well as their existence. Issues of security then become fundamentally linked with issues of privilege, power, membership and mobility (Stone, 90). Need is commonly defined as what is absolutely necessary for physical survival. The problem is that human beings do not define their security as simple survival, if so; we would eat that terrible mixture she notes. The quest for security brings about a sense of urgency to politics, which in turn makes it one of the lasting sources of passion in political controversies (Stone, 86). In the polis, the boundary between needs and wants is unclear, unstable, and constantly contested (Stone, 97). Liberty Liberty, the final concept, is commonly defined as the ability to do as you wish as long as you do not harm others (Stone, 37). In the polis, restrictions of individual liberty are not meant so much to protect particular individuals from harm, but rather to protect social order itself (Stone, 115). Liberty in the polis is to an extent an attribute of roles rather than of individuals (Stone, 117). Part II- Problems Stone presents several problems that are defined and demonstrated in politics. A problem definition is a statement of a goal and the discrepancy between it and the status quo. According to Stone, it is a matter of observation and arithmetic measuring the difference between two states of affairs. According to Stone, this common sense notion of what a problem means comes

10 10 from the market/ rationalist view and is totally inaccurate. There is no accepted standard against which to calculate the gap. In truth, there is no such thing in the polis, because we cannot agree on what that standard or our aspiration actually is. Her major point is that the polis is not an arena for calculation. The polis operates on passion and loyalty, not measurement. Symbols There are various rhetorical devices that people in the polis go about making their strategic representations of the problem. Stone introduces symbols, or anything that stands for something else and it s meaning depend on how people interpret it, use it, or respond to it. It can be an object, a person, a place, a word, a song, and an event, even a logo on a T-shirt. The meaning of a symbol is not intrinsic to it, but is invested in it by the people who use it (Stone, 137). Four other devices that are especially important in the definition of policy problems. These four aspects are narrative stories, synecdoches, metaphors, and ambiguity. Definitions of policy problems usually have narrative structure; that is, they have a beginning, middle, and an end, involving some change or transformation (Stone, 138). Synecdoches are a figure of speech in which a whole is represented by one of its parts (Stone, 145). Metaphors are an implied comparison. It works by using a word that denotes one kind of object or idea to describe another (Stone, 148). Finally the most important aspect of all symbols, both in art and politics, is their ambiguity. Ambiguity is a source of richness and depth in art. Ambiguity enables the transformation of individual intentions and actions into collective results and purposes. Without it, cooperation and compromise would be far more difficult, if not impossible (Stone, 157). Numbers One common way to define a policy problem is to measure it. Most policy discussions begin with a recitation of figures purporting to show that a problem is big or growing, or both

11 11 (Stone, 163). Numbers are the opposite of symbols they are not ambiguous. Numbers are assumed to be clear, but what truly matters is the notion of counting as. According to Stone, all policy debates revolve around boundaries: what is included and what is excluded. The definitions we use for counting determines what the count becomes thus, an individual can tell whatever story he/she might want to tell by changing the definition of what is counted. The person doing the counting would like for others in the polis to think otherwise. In short, numbers are used to tell stories of our own choosing. Something is either counted or it isn t, but deciding the boundaries on what to count is the trick (Stone, 165). According to Stone, counting can be used to stimulate public demands for change (Stone, 186). Causes Policy debate is dominated by the notion that to solve a problem, one must find its root cause or causes; treating the symptoms is not enough. According to Stone, the effort to define a problem by identifying the causes of bad conditions rests on a certain conception of cause. In this conception, any problem has deep or primary causes that can be found if one only looks hard enough and does enough careful research. In the realm of common sense or the rationalist market view of the world, causes are objective and can, in principle, be proved by scientific research (Stone, 188). Once the cause is identified, policy should seek to eliminate it, modify it, reduce it, suppress it, or neutralize it, thereby eliminating or reducing the problem. In politics, we look for causes not only to understand how the world works, but also to assign responsibility for problems: to blame somebody, if we can (Stone, 189). We use different senses of cause in the polis by challenging or protecting an existing set of rules, institutions, and interests; assigning blame and reasonability for fixing a problem and compensating victims; legitimize certain actors as fixers of the problem, giving them new authority, power, and resources; and create new

12 12 political alliances among people who perceive themselves to be harmed by the problem (Stone, 209). In other words, if we might be seen at fault, we try to persuade others that the matter is the result of something else. Accidental causes include natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes. These phenomena are lacking of purpose, either in their actions or consequences. One cannot speak of activities here, but only of occurrences. Politically, this is a good place to retreat if one is being charged with responsibility, because no one is responsible in the realm of fate (Stone, 190). At the opposite pole politically are intentional causes. It lays the blame directly at someone s feet, and it casts someone as willing or knowingly causes harm. Problems or harms are understood as direct consequences of willful human action. When the consequences are seen as good, this is the domain we know as rational action. But when the consequences of purposeful human action are perceived as bad, we have stores of oppressors and victims (Stone, ). Inadvertent causes are the unintended consequences of wild human action. The consequences are predictable but still unforeseen (Stone, 192). Mechanical causes include things that have no will of their own but are designed, programmed, or trained by humans to produce certain consequences. Somebody acts purposefully, but their will is carried out through other people, through machines, or through automatic social procedures and routines (Stone, 193). Interests The sides in politics are said to be interests. They are groups that have a stake in an issue or are affected by it. Interests, in the language of politics, are the active side of effects, the result of people experiencing or imagining effects and attempting to influence them. Effects do not become important in politics until they are translated into demands (Stone, 210). In political science, the process by which effects and experiences are converted into organized efforts to bring about change is called mobilization. According to Stone one of the enduring questions of

13 13 politics is whether certain types of interests are more likely to mobilize than others, more likely to draw a large number of active adherents, and therefore more likely to win in the sense of finding expression in public policy (Stone, 217). Stone focuses on two types of interests: objective and subjective. Objective interests are those effects that actually impinge on people regardless of people s awareness of them; subjective interests are of course, those things that people believe affect them (Stone, 211). What matters in the polis is how the complex ball of wax that is objective effects and conditions is perceived, interpreted, and acted upon (Stone, 217). Decisions There are many ways in which people can go about making decisions: by habit, social custom, impulse, intuition, or procrastination; by consensus, delegation, bargaining, mediation, trial, voting, or flipping a coin. According to Stone, a rational decision model portrays a policy problem as a choice facing a political actor. The actor is someone an individual, a firm, an organization, or any entity capable of making a decision who must choose a course of action in order to attain a desired end. The actor then goes through a sequence of mental operations to arrive at a decision. In the polis, some people try to persuade the others that there is only one way to go about making a decision and that is to follow the model they present. If the presenter can get away with convincing us that his way of stating the problem as a rational process of calculation then he can also get the solution he wants thru his process. The whole presentation is itself only a political ploy. We could just as easily make the decision by flipping a coin, not using his sequential process that leads to his solution. His strategic representation works only if you buy it.

14 14 Part II- Solutions Policy solutions, in the polis are ongoing, changing and complex. There are many components to policy solutions, such as inducements, rules, facts, rights and powers. Solutions are designed to influence groups and get them to act or behave in a manner in which they otherwise would not do (Stone, 2002, p. 261). According to Stone, there are no true solutions to problems. There are only temporary resolutions. Once a solution is arrived at, the whole process of debating the nature of the problem and the preferred solution starts again. In effect, those people most displeased with the temporary resolution try again to get their preferred answer. Inducements Inducements are incentives that are designed by one set of people, applied by another set and received by the third (Stone, 2002, p. 274). In the polis both the giver and the target may be a collective entity that has multiple internal views on the inducement. Stones describes the meaning of the inducement is interpreted differently by different individuals. The resulting rewards from the inducement may also create alliances among the winners. Finally, inducements can also be offered through negative sanctions. Rules Rules are indirect commands that work over time (Stone, 2002, p. 284). They derive their power from their legitimacy. The political nature of rules is that they include and exclude, unite and divide. Since policy problems are complex and varied, rules are best to be flexible enough to accommodate many situations. Since rules benefit some and exclude others the enforcer of rules are subject to many outside pressures (Stone, 2002, p ).

15 15 Facts Facts are pieces of data that exist in the polis to be interpreted differently by various constituent groups (Stone, 2002, p. 309). In the polis they are rarely neutral and are often used to manipulate. The dominant group may have more influence over the dissemination of facts than the lesser groups. Rights In the polis rights can be both positive (an entitlement) or negative (freedom from restraint) (Stone, 2002, p ). Procedural rights guarantee the manner in which decisions will unfold and substantive rights guarantee the essence of an idea, action or entitlement. In the polis rights are rarely stated clearly as they need room for interpretation (Stone, 2002, p. 352). The amount of power one has in the polis directly affects the degree to which one benefits from various rights. Power Defining who has membership in the polis and his/her role is directly related to power. The power to make decisions can be held by different types and sizes of groups. In addition, power is also affected by the centralization and decentralization of decision-making ability (Stone, 2002, p. 374). Strategies are often developed with the aim of redistributing power to the prevailing interest groups. Summary Stone uses the term goals because for her, policy making is a matter of laws of passion and values, not rational calculation. Her goals of equity, efficiency, security, and liberty are justifications for a policy, for a government action, or for the government not taking action (Stone, 37). In the problems section, Stone touches on five major devices for constructing

16 16 strategic representations for problems: Symbols, Numbers, Causes, Interests, and decisions. According to Stone, Symbols and Numbers are about verbal and numerical languages, respectively, and both examine devices of symbolic representation within those languages. We also define problems in terms of what causes them ( Causes ), who is lined up on each side ( Interests ), or what kind of choice they pose ( Decision ) (Stone, 12-13). Stone s final section deals with solutions. Solutions are the temporary resolutions of conflict (Stone, 13). In this section, Stone focuses on five major solutions: Inducements, Rules, Facts, Rights, and Powers. All policies involve deliberate attempts to change people s behavior, creating incentives and penalties ( Inducements ), mandating rules ( Rules ), informing and persuading ( Facts ), stipulating rights and duties ( Rights ), and reorganizing authority ( Powers ) (Stone, 13). In Stone s presentation of the common sense, rationalist view of policymaking, one would say, We have a goal; we have a problem, which is a discrepancy between the goal and reality; and we seek a solution to erase the discrepancy (Stone, 11). Stone, on the other hand, sets out to explain how the paradoxical nature of the polis complicates and undermines this simple notion.

17 17 GOALS LIBERTY SECURITY EQUITY EFFICIENCY PROBLEMS SYMBOLS NUMBERS CAUSES INTERESTS DECISIONS SOLUTIONS INDUCEMNTS RULES FACTS RIGHTS POWER

18 18 Chapter III Methodology The research data was based on Stone s framework to determine which education management system can most effectively meet the needs of children in economically diverse school districts. Comparisons are made based upon the political rhetoric set forth by Stone in Policy Paradox in four competing policy models: UFT Union Parent/Taxpayer Coalitions; Community Development: Civic Capacity; Community Development: Community-Based Organization; and Portfolio Management Model. Utilizing the categories of goals, problems and solutions we will analyze the various educational management systems in order to measure the effectiveness of each model. The matrix provided below as Table 1 indicates how the data will be presented in chapter four. Table 1 Product matrix (F. Smith, class notes, 2012) Author(s) Competing Policy Models What are the Chief Characteristics of the model? D Stone: Goals What goals does the model implicitly/explicitly seek? D Stone: Problem What/how presented? D Stone Solution What resolution offered? I. NYC Traditional System UFT Union/ Parent/ Taxpayer Coalition 2. Clarence Stone 3 Tough/ Canada Community Development: Civic Capacity 4 cases, not NYC Community Development: Community-

19 19 Based Organization 4. Bulkley/ Henig/ Levin Portfolio Management Model: NYC case In order to complete the matrix each educational management system was evaluated based on their connection to Deborah Stone s Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. Each management system was compared based on Stone s goals, problems, and solutions. The researchers were looking to identify chief characteristics for each educational management model. They also sought to answer three central questions: (1) What goals does the model implicitly/explicitly seek; (2) What/How was the problem presented; and (3) What resolutions were offered? Chapter IV Findings of the Study To compare the New York City Traditional System, Clarence Stone, Tough and Canada, and Bulkley, Henig, and Levin, a product matrix was used to identify their connection to the goals, problems, and solutions as discussed in Deborah Stone s Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. The completed product matrix, table 2, demonstrates how each literary example is directly related to the goals, problems, and solutions that are presented by Deborah Stone. This is a completed comparison matrix of all four educational management models based on their comparisons to Deborah Stone s framework of goals, problems, and solutions. The matrix also includes the chief characteristics of each model, as well as the competing policy models for

20 20 each management system. The complete matrix is presented first; followed by an explanation of each management system; and concludes with a comparison of all four management systems. Table 2 - Completed Product Matrix Author(s) I. NYC Traditional System 2. Clarence Stone Competing Policy Models UFT Union/ Parent/ Taxpayer Coalition Community Development: Civic Capacity 4 cases, not NYC What are the Chief Characteristics of the model? Teacher unions Parent organizations School Boards Superintendents Bureaucracy Reforms begin at university El Paso Collaborative for Academic Excellence Government and nongovernment groups Use of educational data Standardsbased schooling Focus on teacher-prep with universities Parent involvement Stakeholder buy-in Funding for D Stone: Goals What goals does the model implicitly/explicitly seek? Equity Equal education for all Liberty Right to receive an education Equity Educate the students D Stone: Problem What/how presented? Numbers Test scores are used to justify equitable relationship Teacher evaluation system is based on test scores Interests New changes or legislation cannot be put into effect unless the UFT and other centralized systems are in agreement unless it has been collectively bargained Numbers Low-income Limited English proficiency Causes Poverty D Stone Solution What resolution offered? Incentives Merit pay Threat to close schools if they do not meet state standards Powers Civic Capacity Community effort El Paso Collaborative for Academic Excellence

21 21 3 Tough/ Canada Community Development: Community- Based Organization initiatives Used entire resources of community Visionary leadership Focus on college and career ready Enhancing student achievement High standards, expectations, and rigor Increase accountability Implement early intervention programs After-school help Equity Community oriented project Start as civic enterprise Robin Hood Foundation Promise Academy Lottery Efficiency Drunkenmiller Charter Schools The Conveyor Belt Escape Velocity Interests Not all included Drunkenmiller Market-Approach Corporate Model Numbers Episodic Programs Test Scores Resources Graduation rate Symbols Uneven playing field Baby College Bad Apples McKesey as Sheriff Robin Hood Foundation Victor Jr. Powers Corporate programs took over Non-public schools Robin Hood Corporate Charter School with external funding Test preparation Incentives Baby College Start of Promise Academy Raffles Promise students will graduate Facts Scores on standardized tests 4. Bulkley/ Henig/ Levin Portfolio Management Model: NYC case Mayoral Control Chancellor with business experience Performancebased Regional rather than community Autonomy for schools Schools responsible for performance Portfolio of different types of schools Centralized system of authority Weakened union Table 2 - Completed Product Matrix Efficiency Mayoral Control Chancellor appointed School reforms based on market theory School Autonomy Increase responsibility for performance Accountability systems Divide city into 10 regions Move from centralized system to decentralized portfolio Interests Political interests- Mayor Test results and accountability Parent involvement/comm unity boards School closings Corporations For-profit schools Decisions Mayoral control Hire chancellor from outside education Decentralize to portfolio management Powers Mayoral control Closed door decisions No community input Regional districts Accountability systems Closing of schools Autonomy

22 22 NYC Traditional System The NYC Traditional System is comprised of Teacher Unions, Parent Organizations, School Boards, and Superintendent Bureaucracy. The main goal of the NYC Traditional System is equity defined in several different ways, but primarily as everybody gets the same thing through standardization. Stone defines equity as the study of who gets what, when and how (Stone, 39). However, the paradox in distributive problems is that equality may in fact mean inequality; equal treatment may require unequal treatment; and the same distribution maybe seen as equal or unequal, depending on one s point of view (Stone, 42). In the traditional system, equity as standardization was undermined by the federal policy designed to alleviate poverty. Schools with poverty students were to get more money. The greatest inequity, however, was in teacher competency; more effective teachers went to wealthier schools. Strong teacher negotiated contracts governed how teachers could be assigned and moved, thereby locking in the inequity. The traditional system as a whole functioned on the basis of a powerful appointed board, balanced by a strong set of unions, most notable among them the teachers union. Parents had some organized power, but it was mostly symbolic, absent any real influence. Commercial enterprises that supplied standardized materials, such as texts and tests, also wielded considerable power over what teachers in the schools could do. Clarence Stone- Civic Capacity Clarence Stone argues that urban education is in urgent need of reform and although there have been plenty of innovative and even promising attempts to improve conditions, most have been doomed. The reason for this, they argue, lies in the failure of our major cities to develop their civic capacity. Civic capacity is the ability to build and maintain a broad social and political coalition across all sectors of the urban community in pursuit of a common goal. Stone draws

23 23 upon an eleven-city study funded by the National Science Foundation. His work challenges citizens to rethink approaches to the crisis in schools. Stone contends that it is essential for all, or most, important actors in an urban community to join together in their shared vision of what is wrong with the system of education, a part of which is the school; to determine how to fix, the system, not just the schools; and to pursue that vision strongly and systematically over a long period of time. This is only possible; however, if those same actors develop the ability and willingness to set aside narrow aims and opportunistic behavior, in favor of pursuing the collective good. In Kent County and in El Paso, Stone clearly depicts a school system that has found the proper mix and amount of resources to raise the standards of the schools. The idea that reform is a shared understanding, mobilizing cross-sector allies, and backing the process with sufficient resources, has assisted Kent in establishing a system, which unites everyone with a common goal and a shared vision. Unlike many other reform types, Kent did not attempt to reinvent the wheel, or even pass blame on anyone, rather it searched to find a common understanding and build on that. This reform would never have worked if it had not had economic and political support, which made it so successful. Stone reminds one to look beyond pedagogy and management theory for solutions to problems that are immune to the usual remedies. In the section about the El Paso school system, Clarence Stone demonstrates that effective civic coalitions can be built and that the struggle for reform can be won (Stone, 2003). Tough/ Canada In Tough s Whatever It Takes, he recounts how Canada created a lottery for the Harlem Children s Zone. Canada s goal was for all the students from the community to have an equal opportunity to apply to his school. This is one version of equity. Canada knew his target group, and he realized that in order to get support, financially as well as communal, he had to produce

24 24 bottom lines. This business model was an example of efficiency. Relating to Stone s symbols, Canada viewed the competing paradigms between himself and Grey as a problem. His principal was not supporting his education view and philosophy. The goal of Grey s progressive model was to educate the child as a whole and to not let bottom lines interfere with education. Canada incorporated a results oriented approach, which would ensure that he would raise scores. The conveyor belt was a symbol as well. It supported the philosophy that the earlier the intervention, the more there would be to develop on, thus creating a positive learning cycle. Every child, who entered the school, could not be left to the equity of a chance lottery. Canada s vision included the Baby College, which allowed parents to Go to School to become more effective parents. Under Stone s solutions, Canada s inducements were the promise that all of his children would succeed and they would be provided with the best resources to compete with students in New York City and around the country. Under Stone s Power, Canada gave in to Druckenmiller because he realized that his model would not be effective without money. In doing do Canada had to sacrifice much of what he believed in. Bulkley, Henig, Levin The Portfolio Management Model is defined by Bulkley, Henig, & Levin as: A district that provides schools in many ways including traditional direct operation, semi-autonomous schools created by the district, and chartering or contracting to independent parties but holds all schools, no matter how they are run, accountable for performance. In a portfolio district, schools are not assumed to be permanent but contingent: schools in which students do not learn enough to prepare for higher education are remunerative careers are transformed or replaced. A portfolio district is built for continuous improvement via expansion and imitation of the highest-performing schools, closure and replacement of the lowest-performing and constant search for new ideas (Bulkley, 4). The three core elements found in PMM are: The creation of new schools that operate with increased levels of autonomy, usually coupled with an emphasis on school choice that moves away from

25 25 neighborhood zoned schools and toward choice as a way families can find a school suited to their children s interests and as a way to create more competition in the public system. The development or use of a clear and rigorous accountability system based on student and school academic performance. The closure of school and/or end of partnerships for the management of schools when they do not meet accountability standards (Bulkley, 6). A portfolio of schools is much more than a mix of schools among which students choose. It is a strategy for creating an entire system of excellent high schools that uses managed universal choice as a central lever in a district change process (Bulkley, 7). Under the Portfolio Management Model, the mayor is the one who has ultimate control of the education system. He can appoint a chancellor, rather than voters electing individuals as members of School Board, and having them determine who will become Superintendent. Based on Stone s framework, the mayor would reach his goals by incorporating efficiency within his methodology. Efficiency is defined by Stone as getting the most out of a given input or achieving an objective for the lowest cost (Stone, 61). Under PMM efficient organizations are ones that are able to get things done with a minimum amount of waste, duplication, and expenditure of resources (Stone, 61). Mayor Bloomberg named Joel I. Klein as chancellor of the New York City education system in In 2001, Klein unveiled his first wave of education reform for NYC. The reforms aimed to impose rigorous centralized control to completely transform the structure and philosophy of a school system that long allowed localized decision-making about everything from budgets to textbook selection (Bulkley, 95). Klein began by regrouping the city s thirtytwo independent districts into ten regions. Each region then controlled about one hundred schools, which were led by a superintendent. Along with this first wave of changes also a general curriculum for reading and mathematics developed. This change was designed to offer the NYC

26 26 Traditional System equity, defined as greater standardization: the same thing for everybody. Shortly, it was clear that this definition of equity was a failure. As a result of his evident failure in the first strategy, in January 2006, Klein announced his second sweeping reorganization of the NYC education system. The proposal included $200 million in cuts to central and regional offices and increasing the Autonomy Zone to over three hundred schools (Bulkley, 103). According to Stone s framework Klein s proposal would clearly relate to the problems that the district was encountering in the area of interests. Some of the districts interests were test results and accountability, parent involvement, and school closings. Because both Bloomberg and Klein had such a vested interest in the NYC public school system, their reforms needed to be successful in order for them to succeed politically. According to Stone, Bloomberg and Klein represent interests or people and organizations who have a stake in an issue or are affect by it (Stone, 210). In the end, Bloomberg and Klein s solution was to concentrate on Stone s theory of powers. They were both seeking to take control of the NYC school system. Bloomberg and Klein achieved this through closed-door decision making, mayoral control, no community involvement, and closing schools all without consideration of or consultation with the previously strong teachers union. These strategies are usually promoted as efficient mechanisms for producing better decisions, but they are fundamentally ways of restructuring political power hence the name powers (Stone, 262). In each of the four models discussed, the authors represented each model in such a way that its effectiveness was evident. Each model was successful; however, each had different interests. All of the models included the efficiency of a business approach. In addition each model focused on improving the achievement of low-income children.

27 27 Chapter V Kimberly Carroll The purpose of this investigation was to use Deborah Stone s Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making to analyze four competing policies: the NYC Traditional System, Clarence Stone s civic capacity, Tough and Canada community based organization, and Bulkley, Henig, and Levin s Portfolio Management Model. This research found that after reviewing Deborah Stone s framework and the four school governance models, Clarence Stone s Civic Capacity model was the most effective governance system. The results of this research clearly unveiled that there were many problems within the four school communities. The most significant problems included: how to improve student achievement, how to ensure equity, and how to maintain a balance of efficiency within the school system. The NYC Traditional System s goal was equity and providing an equal education for all children. However, in the end, equity was not established and poor academic achievement continued. Geoffrey Canada and his community-based organization used a lottery system in order to attempt to achieve his goal of equity. After several years of lottery drawings, Canada realized that he could not achieve equity in this manner and he was unable to save all of Harlem s struggling students. Bulkely s, Henig s, and Levin s Portfolio Management Model (PMM) attempted to obtain equity by incorporating a business approach to education. The mayor and the chancellor were the one s who decided which type of educational model would be put in place in every neighborhood throughout the city. PMM failed to obtain equity because the schools that are successful are allowed to maintain the status quo, while the poor performing districts are forced to accept new educational plans.

28 28 Clarence Stone s civic capacity model made the greatest strides in achieving equity and providing students with an equal education. This aspect was proven by the research that Stone conducted in the city of El Paso, Texas. They were able to gain significant community support and sufficient resources, despite the fact that a majority of their community population was comprised of Limited English Learners and people beneath the poverty line. In this system everyone worked collaboratively, including teachers, parents, and community members to reform the educational system. There was no blame placed on anyone, instead they all worked together to develop a plan of action for improving student performance. By using Deborah Stone s framework of goals, problems, and solutions we were able to collect data, create explanations, and draw conclusions. Based on this research we are able to conclude that all four of the urban school communities faced comparable problems. However, they all instituted different solutions to solve each of their problems. Under Stone s civic capacity school districts attempted to solve their problems by using the power of a community. The school districts within the El Paso educational system were constantly seeking to provide students with the most efficient and equitable education possible. In order to make more informed decisions, the whole community was involved within the El Paso educational system. However, they never placed specific blame on anyone and they all worked together in order to develop a plan of action. Further research needs to be conducted in order to prove the sustainability of Clarence Stone s civic capacity model over time. Recommendations for future research consist of: continued and more advanced teacher training and the community involvement needs to be duplicated. In the end, we have to remember that all of our decisions should be based on what is

29 29 in the best interest of the child, especially in the areas of curiosity and creativity, and what solutions will provide them with the best and most equitable educational opportunities. Keith Fasciana Deborah Stone s framework from, Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making was used to determine the effectiveness of four education management systems. An analysis and comparison was done of each model to conclude which was most effective. Each author provided a strategic representation of his or her model in great depth. Given the four competing policy models; UFT Union/Parent/Taxpayer Coalition, NYC Traditional System; Community Development: Clarence Stone s Civic Capacity; Community Development: Tough and Canada s Community Based Organization; Bulkley, Henig, and Levin s Portfolio Management Model, it becomes clear that each model was a resolution of effectiveness for its particular situation. In the UFT Union/Parent/Taxpayer Coalition, NYC Traditional System model decentralization of power to the local school board resulted in a variety of school level effectiveness and produced results however in neighborhoods with less parental involvement and weaker political forces there were poor results. Bulkley, Henig, and Levin s Portfolio Management Model allows for a business approach to education. The person in charge decides which type of educational model will produce the best results in each neighborhood. This model generally allows the successful districts to keep the status quo and the less successful districts to adopt new educational management models. In Tough and Canada s Community Based Organization of the Harlem Children s Zone, Paul Tough describes a model based on efficiency and equity. The model allows the local Community Based Organization leader to have the resources to create an educational

30 30 management system that fills in the lack of student support from the family and the community while at the same time provides the necessary parenting skills for the future. The funding in this model is used to create a system where parents are given parenting skills in Baby College. This continues through a nursery program and then into elementary, middle and high school. Many extra-curricular programs supplement the school day. The Clarence Stone Model is described as the Community Development: Civic Capacity. This model welcomes and fosters the collaboration of all the stakeholders in the community. It is similar to the Polis Model where the community is at the center of the change. Business, educational, collegial, government and community leaders are all involved in helping develop educational reform. In this model, the entire community collaborated to reform the school system. They did not blame the school or the teachers for the low student achievement. Instead teachers helped develop a plan that focused on improving student achievement. To duplicate any success that Stone described, the entire community effort must be duplicated. In each of the four models discussed, the authors represented each model in such a way that its effectiveness was evident. Each model was successful; however, each had different interests. All of the models included the efficiency of a business approach. In addition each model focused on improving the achievement of low-income children. Only the model presented by Clarence Stone is a true collaborative community approach. In this model the school and the teachers were not blamed for the low student achievement rate, instead teachers helped develop a plan that focused on improving student achievement through improving instruction. I think this model is the most effective of the four models analyzed. In order for this model to be successful an entire community effort must be duplicated. I would like to see this model implemented in my school community.

31 31 References Bulkley, K. E., Henig, J. R., & Levin, H. M. (2010). Between Public and Private - Politics, Governance, and the New Portfolio Models for Urban School Reform. Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press. Stone, C. N. (2003, June 24). Civic Capacity - What, Why and Whence.. Stone, D. (2002). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (Revised Edition ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Tough, P. (2008). Whatever It Takes. New York: Houghton Mifflin Hartcourt Publishing Company.