|
Education and Urban Renaissancereviewed by Marilyn Gittell - 1970 ![]() Author(s): R.F. Campbell, L.A. Marx, R.O. Nystrand Publisher: John Wiley, New York ISBN: , Pages: , Year: Search for book at Amazon.com The consensus of opinion by the authors of these papers that
education can no longer be insulated from other urban
services and needs is a most welcome change of attitude,
particularly for the professional educator. There, is a general
acceptance of the urban school as a community-based institution.
The editors tell us that the conference was originally conceived to
discuss the characteristics of the ideal urban school and was later
revised to relate specifically to the Model Cities legislation.
Only one of the authors questions the neighborhood confines of the
Model Cities Demonstration Project as a satisfactory geographic
boundary; as such, David Lewis' paper presents an important
contrast to the other views. One would have expected that the
papers would combine a realistic or practical evaluation of
education reform and some innovative alternatives for
structural and educational change. The Bourgeois paper, which was added after the conference,
provides a discussion of some of the organizational problems
faced by the Model Cities group in St. Louis, but its emphasis is
on structuring the Model Cities agency. There is no insight
provided in any of the other papers about the context of
educational change in large urban school systems, the kinds of
political forces and pressures which might influence the
development of a meaningful Model Cities Demonstration. Certainly
the experience of the poverty program and the attempts at school
reform offer a significant background for appreciation of the
problems which might affect the plans under Model Cities. Yet all
of the authors seem to purposely eschew the subject of school
reform. Bailey alludes to the fact that cities have never been
asked to do this before, but somehow he anticipates that a new
found sensitivity will emerge among city and education
bureaucracies to carry the program ahead. The several sociologists and political scientists assigned the
task of discussing school organization and governance are certainly
attuned to the political nuances and institutional conflicts in
cities, and yet they chose to write about their subjects in a
political vacuum. We get no indication of the constraints of civil
service regulations, bureaucratic procedures, union contracts
and the complex of political vested interests to be confronted. It
is also surprising that experienced social scientists like
Janowitz, Cunningham and Bailey completely neglect the community
control issue. Every Model Cities planning group in the country
spent an inordinate amount of time on the question and means for
balancing the professional and citizen role in policy-making. Most
recommended a highly developed role for the community. In the
five papers directed at this general area there is almost no
mention of the question except a perfunctory approval of greater
parent participation. There is no discussion of the concept of
community control or the alternatives for mechanisms to
achieve meaningful community participation in
policy-making—and this is the heart of the
matter. The summary essay statement on public accountability is somewhat
telling of the general attitude towards the role of citizens in
education in the volume; it defines accountability as a
willingness by professionals ". . . to explain the basis for
(such) judgments upon the requests of concerned citizens and that
they take into account public concerns." Considering the events in
education reform over the last four or five years, this statement
is certainly archaic. There is a similar omission of concern for
the role of students. At the time of the conference, student,
parent and community groups in several cities were demanding or had
achieved some direct roles in the operation of schools, and
indications of how such arrangements could best be developed should
certainly have been a priority for this collection. At least part
of the problem was the non-existence of community representatives,
parents, teachers, black leaders, and students at the conference to
raise these issues. It is also unfortunate that the same academic
celebrities are constantly pressed into service to answer all our
problems. For the most part, their recommendations are a repeat of
the professional inventory, their insights and concepts of reform
are predictable. They could gain immeasurably from a hearing of
some of the views of those directly involved in local school
struggles. Presumably these papers were to serve as a resource for Model
Cities groups to draw upon for ideas regarding structure and
programs. Unfortunately, they do not provide the range of
alternatives they should. Experiments throughout the country, such
as the school without walls in Philadelphia, student run schools in
Washington, D. C., community control districts in New York City,
Follow Through and Headstart models throughout the country, offer a
wider range of choices than one can get from these essays. Only the
Great High Schools Plan in Pittsburgh is described in any detail.
Too many of the articles run over too quickly any new ideas for
curriculum or changing professional roles. The most sensitive piece is written by Williard Congreve who has
worked with community schools in Chicago. He is the only author who
stresses the need for fundamental change in attitudes and
educational goals. His emphasis on the learning process, how
to learn rather than what is learned, is basic and yet so often
by-passed. Recognition by the teacher that learning does not always
center around him and his set of values can, according to Congreve,
change a tuned out student to a tuned in learner. Obviously,
Congreve has been captured by the British Infant School model which
has proved so successful in English working class communities. The
approach embodies a philosophy as well as a process and stresses
the individuality and dignity of each student. The listing of recommendations in the concluding essay suggests
the rather prosaic quality of the papers and the generally
superficial analysis of issues. Too many of these items have long
since been accepted as truisms, i.e., "The urban school must
become a center for community life . . .; the urban school must
develop closer working relationships with other human service
agencies"; "Instruction in the urban school must be student
centered" and yet the how to to accomplish these ends
is ignored—in terms of politics, process and
alternative programs.
|
|
|