Evans, P. M. (2002, February). A principal’s dilemmas: Theory and reality of school design. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(5), 401 – 406.

Summary of content.

Paula Evans’ chronicles of her recent struggles (1999 – 2001) at the Cambridge Ridge and Latin School (CRLS) are simply fascinating. I filed them under “Compulsory Reading” in my Principals file. Paula Evans is now director of the New Teachers Collaboration in Devons, Mass. and consultant to schools in the midst of school redesign. She is a former high school teacher and principal—the period of this article—and she directed professional development at the Coalition of Essential Schools and at the Annenberg Institute for School Reform. Since the constraints of this paper do not permit me to share all the grueling details of her two-year stint as principal, I shall limit my remarks to philosophical comments on their struggles—referring to the struggles between her and the Superintendent, the older and change-resistant teachers, several factions of parents, and the many students who did not wish to further integrate.

Paula Evans’ objectives were clearly defined and simple enough to understand. She wanted to take advantage of the new “Mall School” phenomenon where students are observed to be (a) more academically challenged, (b) take higher intellectual risks, and (c) engage in more authentic learning . . . all presumably because of an environment where all adults know all of the students (with the latter accomplished by expecting all adults to help with the teaching). Her five tenets were: (1) On Challenge: CRLS would become more academically rigorous for all students, (2) On Connection: Each student would be known well by the adults in the small school and would have an individual advisor, (3) On Community: The small school would provide the chance to be a true part of a meaningful group, to learn firsthand the responsibilities and opportunities of democracy, (4) On Fairness: The schools would be of equal size, permitting a fair distribution of students, teachers, and resources, and (5) On Teaching: The school would give teachers new learning communities of their own, with more time to plan and coordinate their work together so that they could better prepare to teach students.

So why was it so difficult to implement these seemingly noble goals? Ultimately, politics; on a day-to-day basis, apathy, resentment, and the dreadful fear of change. Politics because Paula Evans’ superintendent could not live up to her verbal promises—specifically those dealing with full autonomy. Rightly or wrongly, Evans felt she needed that power to fully implement the reform. She was resolved to split their school of 2000 into five smaller ones of equal size and cultural makeup. And to do that, she felt she had to be able to replace some of the teachers who were too set in their ways. The article did not mention teacher unions per se, but the struggles sounded to me to be those typical of those between natural warring factions.

The day-to-day struggles, well chronicled in Paula’s article, are too diverse and numerous to report but, in essence, they were always directly or indirectly about the forced integration of two traditionally unlike cultures who, at least in appearance, had dissimilar goals and aspirations.

It is pertinent to this evaluation to note that the school had had several years of wanting to change. They even had detailed plans for implementing the changes. What they were missing was a passionate and competent leader who could culminate the various plans and help them [at least some of them] come to fruition. For two full years, Paula Evans was that leader, relentlessly pushing and prodding . . . always encouraging and reassuring that this change was indeed worth supporting and fighting for.

Naturally, her premature resigning leaves this qualitative research project far less than a true beacon for others to follow, but her detailed account of what actually transpired on a day-to-day basis between all concerned will become a classic I am sure. It should help all reformers in planning their complex endeavors. I for one will forever look to Paula Evans as a mentor for my upcoming enterprises.

To officially comment on my reactions to the article, allow me to rate the 20 tenets she created to set the pace for the project. I shall use “y” to mean excellent and “n” for ill-chosen. She divided her topics into Structure, Program, and Staffing and Support.

Structure. The structure of your small school must:

_y_ Represent a cross-section of the population;

_y_ Have a low student/teacher ratio (maximum load of 80 students per teacher);

_y_ Employ flexible, heterogenous grouping;

_y_ Use a flexible schedule and flex time for teachers; and

_y_ Integrate special education

Program. The program of your small school must:

_y_ Include a grade 9-12 advisory;

_y_ Have a grade 9-10 core program and teach either together or separately;

_y_ Offer opportunities for integrated curriculum and interdisciplinary projects;

_y_ Give reading, writing, math, and other academic support as needed;

_y_ Offer field experience—internships, community service, and so on—through outreach to institutions and industry and through “inreach” (bringing the outside into the school);

_y_ Use authentic assessment in the form of student portfolios, exhibitions, and presentations;

_y_ Make use of a senior project and exhibition or portfolio;

_y_ Allow for college and career exploration;

_y_ Foster strong parent involvement; and

_y_ Enable strong student participation in governance.

Staffing and support. The staffing and support in your school must:

_y_ Allow all faculty and staff members to teach; (assuming they are working toward accreditation)

_y_ Enable all faculty and staff members to serve as advisors;

_y_ Provide common planning time for teachers;

_y_ Make room for regular teacher meetings focused on teaching, learning, curriculum, and students; and

_y_ provide for teacher training, resources, and ongoing support.

I had not intended to agree on all points but could not earnestly find any ill-chosen ones.