Reform is tricky business and not for the fainthearted (Sarason, 1997). Although we must be willing to take risks, plunging ahead without considering potential consequences is foolish indeed. We attempt in this chapter to offer insights and ideas to prompt judgment-in-action regarding the renewal of roles, rules, and responsibilities. We believe in the power of collaboration and expect great things from the membership of the NEA. We are cautiously hopeful that the ideas contained in this monograph will incite educators toward redefinition of the structures framing our educational systems.

Teacher empowerment cannot be mandated. "Empowerment is about liberation" (Romanish, 1991, p. 57). However, policies, legislation, and organizational cultures and structures can be promoted that will encourage, rather than discourage, teacher empowerment. Instead of viewing teachers as "products" to be managed, there needs to be legitimate support of teachers’ professional judgment in the teaching/learning processes and relationships that encompass our schools.

Sarason (1997) reminds us that if systemic change focused on productive learning for students and teachers is our goal, then we can no longer ignore the interdependency of legislative bodies, colleges and universities, school boards, administrators, teachers, students, parents, and other community or business members. This is one of the assumptions that underlies this chapter. As educators, we need to reframe dialogues about empowerment and governance, realizing that instead of separate entities, we belong to one great intertwined system. There are several other key assumptions that frame the discussions within this chapter. First, we mention those suggested by Sarason (1997): a) "Education has multiple goals, but not all goals are equally important" (p. 34); b) "The overarching purpose of schooling and its governance is to support…" productive learning (Sarason, 1997, p. 34) and productive learning must begin with where the child is, progressing from there to "hook" the child; and c) The political principle that underlies any system of governance should be, "[I]f anyone or any group is going to be affected by a policy, they should have some role in the formulation and decisions about that policy" (p. 35). Additionally, Sarason suggests an assumption that is perhaps one of the most important, "[T]eachers cannot create and sustain contexts for productive learning unless those contexts exist for them" (p. 34).

In direct opposition to these assumptions has been a prevailing attitude that teachers are not as professional as they should be. This attack on teacher professionalism has been reinforced by media sound bites, opportunistic politicians, and misguided reformers. These attitudes have been created and/or reinforced by a multitude of players: textbook and standardized test publishers, policy makers who have focused on mandated minimum standards and quick fix reform strategies, administrators who have promoted top-down authoritative strategies to "manage" teachers, researchers who negate the expertise of teachers’ lived classroom experiences, and others. It is possible that many teachers or potential teachers have themselves begun to believe this prevalent rhetoric. Combined with low salaries, poor working conditions, and devalued worth by the public, we are now reportedly faced with a shortage of well-qualified teachers. The beginning of this past school year was marked by numerous press releases bemoaning the lack of certified teachers. Some districts went as far as offering signing bonuses, just like in professional sports, to certified candidates who agreed to teach there.

Many of the recent trends in educational policy have taken a deficit approach toward "fixing" schools. This approach is counter-productive to teacher empowerment approaches. There is a major political struggle between those who see policy and governance issues as a means for instrumental outcomes versus those who see the potential for human emancipation (Taylor et al., 1997). When considering economies of schooling, the focus for too many has been on dollars and cents, not on common sense. Public school policies have traditionally had two main functions: identifying desirable cultural norms for education and instituting mechanisms of accountability for measuring student and teacher performance (Taylor et al, 1997). "Educational policy has thus become a bureaucratic instrument with which to administer the expectations that the public has of education" (Taylor et al, 1997, p. 3). Kemmis (1990) has raised concerns that "policy is increasingly replacing educational theory as a source of guidance for practitioners" (as cited in Taylor et al, 1997, p. 3 ). To change this negative mindset, policy must be recast as "both a process and a product" (Taylor et al, 1997).

Policy reflects the economic, cultural, social, and philosophic values of those who create them, and as such, it is paramount that those who must implement them be involved in their creation. Policies influence who and what is included as well as who and what is not. Taylor et al (1997) reminds us that policy is "multi-dimensional" and "value-laden" (p. 16). This is in direct opposition to more traditional, "positivist" views of policy that state that policy must be value-neutral and grounded in facts. As we are becoming increasingly aware, this begs the question, whose facts?

Although there have been calls to strengthen connections between public schools and communities, they remain largely disconnected (Brunner, 1998). Perhaps part of this problem is the result of the balkanization of our systems. Rather than continuing to focus on us versus them, we all need to recognize that community values, local politics, state legislators, school board members, parents, teachers, students, college and university faculty, and so on, are all interdependent.

The efficiency emphasis of the industrial age may have had some currency while our nation’s focus was preparation of assembly line workers, but times have changed. Our world has become increasingly complex. Rather than training students for industry, the emphasis has changed toward educating learners able to create products and services for sustainable and collaborative ends. The skills valued in the industrial age—attention to detail, perseverance, ability to work in isolation and follow directions—while important in some circumstances, are no longer enough. Today’s students must be prepared to exercise judgment-in-action as they encounter a world that is constantly changing. Students must understand how to judge the worth of information and goods, understand the forces that influence choice making, and be able to use information systems to offer access to knowledge needed to survive in today’s world.

For too long we have been focused on the hopelessness of influencing bureaucratic structures. It is time that we stopped trying to beat the system and instead began recreating the system. In order to accomplish these changes, teachers must not only be allowed, but encouraged, to exercise their judgment-in-action. As educators, we must take the lead in reforming systems and practices that no longer work. The NEA can play a key role in assuring that these new practices become the norm, not the exception.

Innovative reform efforts such as the Annenberg Challenge (Annenberg Institute, 1998) rely on teacher expertise about teaching and learning. As part of the evaluation plans for the partnerships in the challenge sites, teachers collect student work samples reflective of both typical and "challenging" assignments. Rather than being prescriptive, teachers determine what best represents learning in their classes. Additionally, the evaluation plan includes collaborative development of partnership portfolios (alongside business, community, college/university, and administrative constituents) that foster reflection about program goals and demonstrate how each partnership is accomplishing those goals (Auburn University S. Florida Annenberg Challenge Evaluation Team, 1998). These are examples of how teachers, working collaboratively with others, can be accountable while exercising their professional judgment-in-action. Unfortunately, these reform efforts are the exception rather than the norm.

New methods of teacher-designed and directed assessment must be legitimized and valued. Although there has been a great deal of work in the area of performance based assessment, many states only recognize the scores on standardized achievement tests. In the state of Alabama, for example, schools can be placed on academic alert or caution, based solely on student scores from standardized tests. These types of restrictive policies create an atmosphere that devalues the teaching profession. Teachers work with students day in and day out. Teachers know what is quality work and what is not. Teachers are "connoisseurs" (Eisner, 1991) of student achievement, and as such, their professional judgment should be valued and respected. This is an area where policies at the state level must be changed. Organized lobbying groups can do a great deal to draw attention to these issues and begin this process.

Part of being accountable is learning how to work collaboratively with others. Before we can begin to accomplish reform goals, a truce must be called. We must stop blaming and start doing. Rather than focusing on what others are not doing, there must be dialogues so that we may hear the expectations that others have of us, while we also have the opportunity to express our expectations of them. As others learn first-hand of the professionalism of teachers, views will begin to change. Trust will begin to develop. By welcoming creative tensions (Senge, 1990) and beginning to build common understandings about each others’ expectations, new visions for schools can be developed that will allow us to get beyond the bureaucratic structures that have become self-imposed over time. We must begin to think of students, parents, community members, business people, college and university faculty, and others not as the enemy, but as partners. Rather than erecting artificial boundaries, we must find meaningful ways to make spaces for diverse and multiple voices. Only then will we be able to identify the institutional and cultural barriers that prohibit learning. Only by focusing on continuous productive learning for all will be begin to create a critical mass and redefine what it means to be a professional teacher. Teacher unions and other professional groups can take the lead in organizing these types of dialogues and encounters.

While it is essential that we work collaboratively with others, we must also learn how to work more collaboratively within the educational professions. Some considerations for fostering teacher professionalism have included the use of career ladders, peer assistance programs, and peer evaluations. As Urbanski pointed out, there need to be ways to promote teachers without having them leave the teaching profession. In the past as well as in many present situations, the only way that a teacher could be "promoted" was to become an administrator. This serves to reinforce the hierarchical structures that have promoted top-down policy development and implementation.

Action research, a process of on-going data collection, analysis, interpretation, reflection, and use, has enormous potential for promoting the professionalism of the teaching profession. Through this process, teachers either working alone or with others, can begin to carefully evaluate teaching-learning practices. This results in opportunities for on-going productive learning for teachers. Action research is often one aspect of Professional Development School (PDS) work. In action research, when findings are shared with others, there is an increased accountability to self and others. As teachers better understand what works for their students, they are better able to redirect their teaching practices and resources toward productive learning. As teachers develop a better understanding of what works, they will likely be less willing to acquiesce to the demands of bureaucrats and others promoting standardized teaching and assessment practices.

Professional accountability systems require that those who teach or administrate are competent to do so (Urbanski, 1998). One way to ensure this is to involve teachers as members of accreditation and review boards. As mentioned earlier, teachers are best suited to know good teaching practices and organizational structures that encourage those practices when they see them. By including teachers on teams alongside administrators and others to accredit and/or review schools and systems, several issues are addressed. First, teacher professionalism will be increased. Teachers and administrators in other districts will need to be accountable to those who really know how systems work. Second, as teams review documents and make site visits, the dialogues that ensue will offer unique opportunities for creating insights between roles that likely would not have occurred otherwise. Third, as teachers visit other schools, they are afforded opportunities for professional development as they review what works, or does not, in other situations.

Redefining what it means to be a professional teacher will require considerable innovation and effort. Part of the redefinition also will require a revamping of the working conditions affecting our teaching forces. Unions traditionally have, and should continue to, play a key role in helping to reshape terms, responsibilities, and conditions for teachers. Part of this process must continue to include negotiations about issues of security financially and professionally--as well as ways to promote, preserve, and protect the professional judgment-in-action of teachers.

The educational reforms of the last decade have helped to set the stage for more compatible views of unionism and professionalism (Kerchner & Caufman, 1995). Through participation in innovative structures such as decentralization, peer review, and joint committees, teachers have been redefining what it means to be a professional and a member of a teacher’s union.

Teachers have historically struggled to be recognized as the professionals that they are. Kerchner & Caufman (1995) suggest that teaching "failed… major definitional tests" (p. 108). By better understanding these conditions, which are discussed below, perhaps new insights can be gained that will be useful for promoting contractual civility and security. The first of these tests is employment conditions that define professionals. According to Kerchner & Caufman, although, "professionals are usually viewed as individual practitioners, treating patients or working with clients in ways that are self-monitoring, self-policing, and above all, supremely independent" (p. 108), this is not necessarily the case. "The key professionalizing element in law and medicine is not the autonomy of individual conduct but the collective establishment of widely recognized rules of good service and standards for admission to practice" (p. 108). The notion of common understandings about appropriate "service" and standards is consistent with Urbanski’s (1998) calls for the inclusion of teachers in the development of shared knowledge, peer review, and establishment and monitoring of rigorous standards for teaching professionals. A second test mentioned by Kerchner & Caufman (1995) deals with issues of expertise. Schon (1983) suggests that reflection-in-action, or a learning from one’s interactions with others, is indicative of professional expertise. "It is precisely the critical reflection that raises teaching from craft to profession" (Kerchner & Caufman, 1995, p. 110).

The traditional language of negotiations, which conjures images of industrial unionism, tends to put administrators and school boards on the defensive. Scenarios are created that foster competition on both sides, depicting images of protecting turf and amassing resources. Historically, the role of unions has been to protect the rights of a work force from the management group that would take advantage of them. "Unionism was the worker’s counterpart to scientific management" (Kerchner & Caufman, 1995, p. 110). Rather than engaging in antiquated "us versus them" dialogues, we should focus on ways to reframe those sessions, such as practices that foster reflection-in-action.

"Because unionism has been accepted as a protection for employees, unions have been more powerful at preventing things from happening than in getting things done" (Kerchner & Caufman, 1995, p. 112). To move beyond this mindset, school district leaders, both administrators and teachers, should strive toward proactive stances when addressing roles, rules, and responsibilities. Key issues should emphasize ways to foster contractual civility while protecting rights and working conditions. Negotiations should address ways to encourage inclusion of diverse voices without fear of retribution. Additionally, there is an obligation to address how reform efforts can be institutionalized, rather than remaining dependent upon one leader’s skills and inclinations. Many unions have been addressing these concerns by "moving toward a collective mode of operation" (i.e., school-site decision making), "fostering flexibility and commitment", and "rethinking ideas about rights and responsibilities" (Kerchner & Caufman, 1995, p. 112). However, the reality is that in many districts, practice is still guided by expectations of coercion and compliance, rather than cooperation. In too many districts, there has been a long and well-established history of labor-management conflicts. In order to move beyond these practices, there needs to be a willingness to establish communication, trust, and a focus on a central purpose—productive learning opportunities for students and teachers. Appropriate to these ends are negotiations focused on access to resources, information, and expertise if needed, and the ability to get needed cooperation. Incentives and rewards relative to changing roles and expectations are also areas that should be pursued by unions.

There is a caution, though, that has been expressed by some researchers that collective bargaining alone will not help teachers to achieve the professionalism they desire and need if school renewal is to become a reality rather than an exception. Koppich and Kerchner (1988) have suggested that there are three reasons why new relationships and patterns of communication must be developed, rather than depending solely on negotiations. These include: a) "schisms between teachers and school management" that develop from the "we-they mentality of formal bargaining" (p. 9); b) the limited scope of legal bargaining that remove most teachers from participating in important decisions about their professional lives; and c) the "rigidity of conventional labor contracts" that limits their use for innovation or reform (p. 9).

To move beyond these limitations, some unions have changed the language of negotiations from contracts to constitutions. An example of this was in Glenview, Illinois, where the constitution made the union a "full operating partner" (Smylie, 1991 as cited by Kerchner & Caufman, 1995). Through negotiations, there must be a shift in thinking about teacher roles and responsibilities. Suleiman & Moore (1996) suggest that teachers must move "…out of the passive managerial paradigm into an active leadership role. Included in this active leadership role is the notion of the teacher as an active participant in their own classroom research" (p. 10).

A focus for negotiations might include increased teacher participation in decisions pertaining to selection and placement of administrators within a district. Too often, school leaders have been viewed as interchangeable parts and moved seemingly in random fashion to accommodate the whims of the school board. Teacher involvement in this process would likely encourage careful selection and movement of administrators within a district to better accommodate philosophical and practical matches with building cultures. This would be a step toward ensuring that difficult reform work does not go down the tubes when a new principal takes the helm.

Conley and Bacharach (1990) remind us of the need to differentiate between two very different modes of participation: traditional collective bargaining and participatory decision making (p. 540). Each implies something very different in terms of working relationships between teachers and administrators. Negotiation is the mode of operation in traditional collective bargaining. This is appropriate for strategic issues such as salary, class size, and role redefinition. However, it is not as appropriate for day-to-day management decisions (Conley & Bacharach, 1990). Participatory decision making, according to Conley and Bacharach, is more appropriate for issues of daily school governance because it infuses a "process of advice and consent" (p. 540). A danger of participatory decision making models, however, is the dependency on an administrator’s willingness to consider teacher views. This often rests on the administrator’s view of teachers as professionals.

Hallinger and Richardson (1988) identified four models of shared leadership that encourage teacher empowerment and varying degrees of participation in decision-making: the Principal’s Advisory Council, the Instructional Support Team, School Improvement Teams, and Leader Teacher Committees. The first three models imply that teachers serve in primarily an advisory capacity and that no formal contractual negotiation is required. The fourth model, however, implies actual decision making authority and necessitates formal contractual agreements.

The Principal’s Advisory Council generally focuses on ways to improve the school climate through involving teacher representatives (or others) in decision-making processes. These representatives serve in a purely advisory capacity, unless the principal extends more authority to them.

The intended purpose of Instructional Support Teams is to encourage instructional improvement within a specific curricular area through teamwork. This model offers teachers an increased instructional leadership role within that defined curriculum domain. The primary responsibilities of teachers in this model include diagnosing and solving student problems, coordinating curriculum, and improving instruction. This model has also been referred to as a "community of learners" which implies a high level of professional interaction (Hallinger & Richardson, 1988).

School improvement teams usually work with the principal to lead improvement and development activities for the school. School improvement teams usually meet regularly to make decisions about the direction of teaching and learning for the building. The principal plays an active role in this model, as in the other two models described above. Typically, administrators receive training in skills and procedures to enhance the effectiveness of school improvement teams. There is usually an emphasis on goal setting, team work, feedback, and positive working relations between teachers and administrators. Although the decision making authority of school improvement teams varies greatly, "teacher input and support is needed to bring about changes in policy and practices" (Hallinger & Richardson, 1988, p. 10). The school improvement team model is frequently associated with school-site management (Hallinger & Richardson, 1988).

The last model discussed by Hallinger and Richardson (1988) is the Lead Teacher Committee. They state that this "proposes the most radical change in the organizational structure of schools" (p. 10) although the model is limited to "prescriptive models in the literature" (p.10). The stated intent of this model is to improve educational outcomes for students through the involvement of teachers’ professional expertise. Another aspect of this model is the intent to widen accountability within the school site. An implication of this model that is different from those described above is the assumption that the school board has vested formal decision making power to this group. According to Hallinger and Richardson, there was some contractual experimentation with the Lead Teacher model in Rochester, New York. Lead teachers were expected to teach 50% of the time and to provide instructional leadership the remainder of the time. Their role offered a "formal voice in policy making at the school site" (Hallinger & Richardson, 1988, p. 11). These four models offer a progression from purely advisory to collaborative process models.

Koppich and Kerchner (1988; 1990) have suggested yet another model to foster teacher empowerment and develop new forms of school organization. This model is called an Educational Policy Trust Agreement. The intent of this arrangement is to develop new patterns of teacher-administrator relationships while expanding the range of labor-management discussions about education. For example, within the six California school districts studied, there were at least five different foci for reform. These included peer assistance and review, professional development, staff evaluation, a career development program for teacher aides, and the development of an interdisciplinary literature-based reading program at an elementary school. While these may not sound like monumental accomplishments, the process used to formalize procedures for these was monumental.

Educational Policy Trust Agreements are a collaborative effort between teacher unions, school management, and the school board. Through a process of discussion and negotiation, a "negotiated compact" is developed that delineates the purpose of collaborative reform efforts, the resources that will be provided (including money, time, personnel, and authority), statements of structure and responsibility needed to accomplish the stated agenda, and procedures for resolving disputes that might arise as the groups work together on the issue (Koppich & Kerchner, 1988, p. 31). Implicit in the design of Educational Policy Trust Agreement is the focus on collective work regarding educational policy. Koppich and Kerchner (1988) developed seven tentative conclusions about these agreements:

1. "Trust agreement discussions are substantially different from contract negotiations;
2. Strong union and district leadership are necessary components of trust agreement success;
3. Determining the policy area for trust agreement work is not nearly as thorny as developing a successful process by which to reach agreements;
4. The definition of a trust agreement is dependent on school district context;
5. Developing a network among participating districts is an essential element of the program;
6. Trust agreements may not be prerequisites to reform, but they serve as catalysts to speed change; and
7. Trust agreements produce role changes" (p. 5).

It is encouraging to note that Koppich and Kerchner (1990) have found that trust agreements have fostered long-term and comprehensive changes in decision-making processes of the districts who have been involved. Additionally, the trust agreements have promoted collective responsibility for educational outcomes. This model appears to offer great promise.

The first three models discussed here—Principal’s Advisory Councils, Instructional Support Teams, and School Improvement Teams—usually require no formal bargaining and focus on participatory decision making. The last two models, Lead Teacher Committees and Educational Policy Trust Agreements, do require formal negotiations. While the first three models are perhaps easier ways to begin, without establishing official rules and responsibilities, they will be at the mercy of the administration. Even past practice clauses may not be enough to retain the spirit of these models in practice. Formalizing processes, while time consuming, offers greater guarantees of consistent practice and means for addressing concerns if the process breaks down.

Negotiating role changes, whether in educational policy trust agreements or through lead teacher contracts, appears to be a key focus that unions need to tackle. Another way that educators have begun to work collaboratively and have effectively redefined roles is through the development of Professional Development Schools (PDSs). PDS work involves building and changing relationships between teachers, administrators, and university faculty. In this model, members of school systems, alongside college/university faculty, develop partnerships designed to recreate schooling. Implicit within this is a renegotiation of the roles that each member plays. The underlying purpose of the PDS movement is the simultaneous renewal of teaching and teacher preparation (Darling-Hammond, 1994). This work is grounded in other efforts aimed at rethinking educational systems at the K-12 and post-secondary levels such as the NEA’s Mastery Learning Project, the 21^st Century Schools Project, Goodlad’s Network for Educational Renewal, and AFT’s Professional Practice Schools (Darling-Hammond, 1994, p. 19). Typical roles of researcher, teacher, and administrator are redefined in the PDS organization. For example, school district faculty often serve as clinical faculty at universities, either teaching or team teaching classes. Clinical teachers are able to bring a sense of urgency and realism to their work which professors may not be able to offer. Another benefit is that the "partners" conduct research "on site" as a collaborative process. This, too, leads to increased "professionalism" on the part of public school teachers and administrators as well as college/university professors. This recognition that all entities must work together to redefine educational systems at all levels is indicative of a larger movement toward developing sustainable, and mutually beneficial reform processes. PDSs simultaneously help to create new organizations and refocus those that already exist.

Rather than only focusing on changing roles for teachers, though, perhaps considerations should be given to how others’ roles might be modified as well. If teachers are to take on more responsibilities, it would make sense that this would allow others to redefine their professional identities as well. For example, what would happen if administrators were to teach at least one class? Would this allow them to join the "ranks" of teachers? Would it help to establish trust and respect? Would it help administrators to keep in better touch with what is occurring in the classrooms? Perhaps unions should break new ground and offer incentive grants to administrators willing to experiment with new forms of governance. Rather than outside funding agencies or the district offering incentive grants to teachers, perhaps teacher unions should take the lead, reinforcing their role as professionals, and offer incentive grants to administrators. Changing roles, rules, and responsibilities means breaking free from the mental models that have constrained our thinking about possibilities.

Charter schools have become a rallying cry for many seemingly oppositional groups. Charter schools offer the possibility of creating new organizations that are designed by and responsive to the needs of the teachers, administrators, parents, and others. They are often viewed as a means of by-passing restrictive and prescriptive policies and practices that have limited reform efforts aimed at creating productive learning environments for students and teachers. Each school must develop its own "charter" that specifies how the school will be governed, who will govern it, and delineating new procedures and practices for the school. Many charter schools have been organized around particular themes, such as arts education or math/science. Some charter schools have long waiting lists for admission. Concerns arise, though, over underlying reasons for the organization of some charter schools. Who has access to these schools? Are they a means of legalized segregation? Are they offering educational opportunities for only the elite at taxpayers’ expense? Are the charter schools an off-shoot of a particular political group or business? Are they developed for the sole purpose of union busting? As with all of the options discussed in this section, there are huge ethical dilemmas that must be identified and discussed.

Following on the heels of the Charter School movement, came deregulation initiatives. The stated intent of these types of initiatives is to remove the organizational, cultural, and structural barriers that prohibit educational reform efforts. Deregulation initiatives must receive the blessing of school boards. Additionally, if the intent is to also by-pass state and/or federal regulations, then waivers must be sought allowing them to do so. The jury is still out on the effectiveness of deregulation initiatives.

Privatization of public schools appeared to be a booming wave of educational reform. Some privatization efforts, such as the one in Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania, offer teachers in that building "ownership" in the company managing the school (Alternative Public Schools, Inc., 1994). This particular case was especially interesting because it represented the first time that a private company had hired their own faculty rather than retaining the services of faculty already employed by the district (Vail, 1995). When Alternative Public Schools, the company hired to run one of the elementary schools in the district, took the reigns, teachers in that district had been without a contract for several years. As a result, the district became embroiled in a bitter battle with the teachers’ union, amid charges of union busting and claims by some that teachers were unwilling and/or unable to educate the students in that district. This is a very complicated case, deserving of at least a chapter all its own. The point to be made, however, is that unless we as educators take the lead in educational reform, others will step in and do it for us.

The privatization case in Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania illustrates the importance of the composition of school boards. Intended to be the "link between the community and education" (Harvey, 1991, p. 7), school boards have great discretion in terms of the degree of judgment-in-action teachers and administrators are officially afforded. So, who should be allowed to run for school boards? School boards represent a view that school decisions, even though many are made at the state and federal levels, should remain decentralized. Local values and ideals are important to our concepts of American education. Yet, questions about how school boards are organized abound. What happens when special interests dominate discussions about school policies and practice? Should school boards remain as they are or would it make more sense to establish new forms of governance? Should school boards utilize ad hoc work teams, specifically organized to tackle certain issues? Should there be informal groups that have the authority to make decisions about certain types of issues?

Hansen and Liftin (1991) suggest that there are three different types of governance models: representational, at-large, and functional (p. 118). Although they suggest these models in terms of ways to organize school-site decision making, perhaps they make sense for us to use as a means of redefining the functions of school boards. Briefly, representational models include groups who have been elected by their peers. At-large models also select members through elections, although these are not constrained by geographic or role representational concerns. Functional models include members, usually elected, who satisfy functional or expert roles needed for the task at hand. Perhaps more functional models should be utilized to address specific concerns about education. In this case, it would make sense that teachers, in their roles as teaching-learning experts, would take their place at the table. While some would suggest that this could create a conflict of interest, especially when contractual issues are being determined, why not consider a different system of school board management that takes on a layered, problem-solving approach. By this, we mean perhaps school boards should be restructured so that they have different committees that make recommendations about differing areas of concern. Teacher, administrator, university, and parent/community representatives could officially serve as ad hoc school board members to recommend initiatives and policy concerning teaching-learning issues. These recommendations could then be presented to a "governing" board comprised of at-large elected representatives from the community. Although there is a danger of creating more layers of bureaucracy, if handled properly, this ad hoc model could increase the numbers of voices considered when making policy decisions at the local level.

There are, of course, specific legal responsibilities (e.g., budget, personnel issues, etc.) currently entrusted to school boards that would have to be considered. However, as state-mandated reform efforts are implemented, this often suggests redefinition of how those responsibilities are carried out. The case of the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) is useful in illustrating this point.

Elizabeth Harvey, in a guide to the Kentucky School Boards Association (1991) suggests that, in terms of school-site decision making, careful consideration needs to be given to this redefinition of responsibilities. KERA has created school councils, policy making bodies at local school sites. This has been viewed as "…an extension of a national movement to restructure schools with the objectives of opening schools to greater participation by parents, reducing outside regulation that can stifle innovation and creativity in instruction and programming, and increasing accountability for the quality of classroom instruction" (Harvey, 1991, p. 8). KERA’s school council model includes two parents, three teachers, and the principal. In Kentucky, school councils have been mandated to adopt policies to be implemented by the principal in the following areas:

1. "determination of curriculum, including needs assessment, curriculum development, alignment with state standards, technology utilization, and program appraisal within the local school board’s policy;
2. assignment of all instructional and noninstructional staff time;
3. assignment of students to classes and programs within the school;
4. determination of the schedule of the school day and week, subject to the beginning and ending times of the school day and school calendar year as established by the school board;
5. determination of use of school space during the school day; planning and resolution of issues regarding instructional practices;
6. selection and implementation of discipline and classroom management techniques, including responsibilities of the student, parent, teacher, counselor, and principal; and
7. selection of extracurricular programs and determination of policies relating to student participation based on academic qualifications and attendance requirement, program evaluation, and supervision" (KRS 160.345(2)(j)1-8 as cited by Harvey, 1991).

Typically, school boards have concerned themselves with district-wide issues such as strategic planning, policy development, management and finance, contractual negotiations, and capital construction, although there are many boards who appear to micromanage the school systems. Under KERA, the micromanaging of schools by school boards is eliminated. Harvey’s recommendations to school boards suggests that they be "facilitative and permissive toward school-based decision making" (Harvey, 1991, p. 12). Additionally, she recommends that there are "four points at which the school board might exercise oversight of a school council (p. 13):

1. school council plans;
2. appeals of a school council;
3. policies of a school council; and
4. failure of a school to meet the required threshold improvement level."

Reform initiatives such as KERA challenge traditional views about and roles of school boards. These types of initiatives offer great hope regarding means of restructuring our current systems so that they are more reflective of the complex world in which we live. School councils legitimize the judgment-in-action of parents, teachers, and others. They appear to offer one means of creating renewal in our schools.

An important question addressed earlier in this book is the concern about the role that schools should play to preserve and protect ideals connected with promoting democracy. This question prompts many more questions. Whose ideals should be promoted? Under what circumstances? How can teachers and administrators protect those who need to be protected? Who needs to be protected? Who decides? What criteria is used to make these choices? Collaborative discussions about these types of questions are essential, yet rather than open the topics to public dialogue, we tend to run from them, hoping that they’ll return to dark crevasses of autocratic leadership. "Just tell us what to do" becomes more comfortable than dealing with the diversity aroused by these discussions. But, we cannot have it both ways. If one of the goals of teacher professionalism and school-site decision making is redefining turf, then these are issues that must be addressed. In fact, these are the core issues that must be addressed if we are to work toward school-site level democracy.

One way to increase the level of involvement is through increasing access to information. Technology offers many possibilities. One such possibility is through the creation of informal organizations joined together through networked intelligence (Morgan, 1997). By posting information on a common website, many people can have access to important information. Additionally, through the use of interactive web sites and on-line discussion groups, new voices can be heard and considered. Japanese firms used a technique called ringi (Morgan, 1997) to encourage increased ownership of ideas. Ringi involves offering ideas out for feedback, then as changes are suggested or new ideas are added, redistributing them to all involved until a consensus is finally reached. While it is unlikely that total community consensus would be reached on most important school community issues, electronic ringi offers a means of increasing the rate of participation in decision making. Due to rapid improvements in technology, as we redefine our schools and school communities, we are limited only by our imagination as to the ways to increase participation.

Increased participation allows us to reframe our policy practices. As stated earlier, policy should be viewed as a process and a product (Taylor et al, 1997). As we work to develop school-site democratic practices, it becomes increasingly important that individual rights and talents are considered along with larger community interests. Rather than fostering "we got ours" mentalities, it will be especially important to be networking with others. If we begin to think of our school communities as interdependent systems, and focus on ways to sustain development without harming others, then we will be on the right road. By expanding our school communities and working to develop a community of learners, we can all benefit. All of this, of course, centers on issues of trust, responsibility, and efficacy. We must learn to trust one another through increased opportunities to interact in meaningful ways. If we could borrow from the notion of negotiated compacts, and create a new compact that includes all members of our school community, then we could begin to redefine who is responsible for what in new ways. Rather than assuming that a job is someone else’s responsibility, diverse groups could work together to foster productive learning for students, teachers, and the community at large. We must create opportunities for all involved to experience situations where what they have done really made a difference. By addressing issues of trust, responsibility, and efficacy, we can all help to redefine educational organizations and policies.

As new models are considered, all should remain mindful of the need for creation of self-correcting systems. Our world changes constantly. What works one minute might be antiquated the next. On-going means of assessing and evaluating our systems must be established. Without a constant cycle of information to consider when making important educational decisions, there is little or no growth. On-going assessment and evaluation implies that everyone has a responsibility to be actively involved. It also implies that we have an obligation to include as many voices as possible so that multiple and diverse needs are incorporated into our practices and organizations.

Rather than reworking present antiquated systems, perhaps it is better to create a new system that meets our needs. This process should begin by connecting with others to redefine roles, rules, and responsibilities that have fostered isolation and devaluing of the expertise that all bring to the table. We are hopeful that NEA and other lobbying organizations will be broad-minded enough to look beyond only the needs of their memberships and begin to recast our ways of being. We have a unique opportunity to instill a spirit of mutual respect and trust in our schools that extends beyond the four walls of the school. Let’s remember that we need to redefine educational policy and practice so that it no longer is solely viewed as an end product, but also as the process used to get there. How we go about making these changes is as important as the changes themselves. Let’s hope that we are all up to the challenge that awaits us as we revision our worlds. Let’s work toward creating systems that are respectful of judgment-in-action of all who are involved.