An optional learning program at the secondary level: A descriptive analysis

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content AN OPTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAM AT THE SECONDARY LEVEL:
A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
by
Mary Magdalene Digneo, CSJ
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Education)
May 1982
UMI Number: DP24820
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
U M T
Disseft&iion PubltsKrig
UMI DP24820
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest’
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346
UNIVERSITY O F SO U TH ER N CALIFORNIA
TH E G R ADUATE SC H O O L
U N IV ER SITY PA R K
LO S A N G ELE S. C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
Mary Magdalene Digneo
under the direction of h$.r ..... Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Graduate
School, in partial fulfillment of requirements of
the degree of
D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to the following
persons who have provided me with the much needed support and
encouragement during the various stages of development of the Optional
Learning Program:
First, to my parents who through their love of learning as truly
"educated" persons have inspired me to continuously pursue learning that leads
to truth and justice;
Second, to Kathy Cramer, who as an active participant in the planning,
designing, and implementation of the Optional Learning Program, has been the
primary source of support and encouragement to me in carrying out and in
completing this project;
.To William F. O'Neill, Ph.D., William Rideout, Jr., Ph.D., and Henry
Acland, Ph.D., who. as involved, stimulating professors of education at the
University of Southern California, have challenged me to view education from a
perspective that leads to "educating" rather than to "schooling";
To the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet who as sponsors of the
Optional Learning Program made it possible for me to spend six years seeking
the means through which to make education relevant to a special group of
tw elfth grade students; and
Finally, to the students who as participants in the Optional Learning
Program accepted the challenge and risk involved in seeking options to
traditional methods of education.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................................................................................. ii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................... vi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .............................................. 1
Schooling and Educating
The Role of Philosophy in Education
The Role of Social Scientists in Education
The Role of Educational Leaders in Educational Reform
Statem ent of the Problem
The Purpose of the Study
Significance of the Study
Questions to be Answered
Other Questions to be Answered
Delimitations
Assumptions
M ethodology
Definitions of Terms
Outline of Chapters
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE....................................................................... 37
Review of Literature on Alternative Schools as an Agent for
Change
Background Information on the Alternative School Movement
The Theory and/or Ideology of the Alternative School Movement
The Establishment of Alternative Schools
The Evaluation of Alternative Schools
Review of Literature on Descriptive Studies
Status of Empirical Studies Today
The Call for Descriptive Studies
Four Case Study Samples Reviewed
Review of Literature on Reform Recommendations for the High
School
The British Sixth Form
Summary
iii
III. THE METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 83
The Perspective of the Teacher
The Perspective of the Student
The Methodology of the Analysis
The Historical Perspectives and Social Structures
Conclusion
IV. THE PLANNING STAGE OF THE OPTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAM
IN THE CONTEXT OF CATHOLIC EDUCATION .............................. 97
Catholic Education in America
The Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet
The Planning Stage of the Optional Learning Program
The Educational Theory of the Optional Learning Program
V. THE NARRATION ...................................... 129
Year I: The Critical Year, 1973-1976
Year II: Decisions, 1976-1977
Year III: Challenges, 1977-1978
Year IV: In Search of Educators, 1978-1979
Year V: Residuals of Change, 1979-1980
Year VI: The Final Days, 1980-1981
VI. THE ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 173
The Organizational Structures
The Role of the Facilitator
The Role of the Learner
The Learning Environment
VII. SUMMARY, QUESTIONS, ISSUES,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 203
The Process of the Study
Summary
Questions and Issues
Recommendations
Conclusion
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 218
APPENDIXES ............................................................................................................... 236
A. School Pre- and Post-A ttitude Questionnaires .................................. 238
B. Working Draft Proposal ..................................................................... 241
iv
C. L etter from a Student, May, 1976 ........................................................... 248
D. Minutes from the October 12 and 13 Meeting held at the
Los Angeles Archdiocesan Board of Education .......................... 252
E. Western Association of Schools and Colleges
Evaluation Report ............................................ 255
F. The Optional Learning Program Follow-Up Report ........................... 260
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Daily Schedule Chart for the Optional Learning P ro g ra m ................. 126
2. Sample Schedule of Classes ...................................................................... 128
3. Student Enrollment, 1973-1981,
The Optional Learning Program .......... 130
4. Student Enrollment, Racial Composition,
The Optional Learning Program, 1973-1981 131
3. The Evolving Historical Perspectives
and Social Structures in American Society . 174
vi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Throughout the history of the world, education in its most pristine
form has been considered by men to be the effective means by which man
improves the quality of human life— intellectually, morally, and socially.
Teilhard de Chardin, one of the most advanced and optim istic thinkers of the
20th century, summarizes this view of education. He says, "Mankind, as we find
it in its present state and present functioning, is organically inseparable from
th at which has been slowly added to it and which is propagated through
education" (1964, p. 32).
This optim istic view of the power of education to transform man's life
has been especially characteristic of Americans.
The product of education is the creation or preparation of
individuals by which and through which society renews, changes,
improves, and extends itself. Thus does education become inextricably
linked with a concept of progress, a concept of mankind. (Brauner and
Burns, 1965, p. 23)
Believing that education was the means to improve society and to
provide equality of opportunity for all, early Americans were willing and eager
to invest tim e, energy, and monies for the development of an American system
of education. "Americans have believed that education, informal as well as
form al, could create an enlightened citizenry, expand political participation,
consolidate national feeling, and m eliorate a variety of social problems"
(Wexler, 1976, p. 12).
Until recently, education and ’’the good life” were therefore closely
correlated in the minds of most Americans. Cremin claims that "there is no
vision of the good life that does not imply a set of educational policies; and
conversely, every educational policy has implicit in it a vision of the good life"
(1965, p. 2). To be educated has been an essential part of the "American
dream," a vision through which the individual by achievement acquires money to
purchase property, com fort, freedom, security, and health. The term "to
educate," therefore, has stim ulated, challenged, and inspired Americans.
Today, education and "the good life," however, are not so closely
correlated. Many Americans no longer hold that education is an essential part
of the "American dream." No longer does the term "to educate" stim ulate,
challenge, and inspire Americans. Rather, today the term "to educate"
confuses and polarizes Americans. Several reasons for this polarization and
confusion about American education could be presented, but this introduction
proposes to examine the manner in which the. American public has been led to
believe that "to school" is synonymous with the term "to educate" and proposes
to examine the effect of this phenomena on educational reform today. The
discussion in this introduction, therefore, traces this process through an
examination of the role of philosophy in education, the role of social scientists
in educational research today, and the role of educational leaders in educational
reform .
This introduction, which also contains an outline of the plan for this study,
will serve as background for the descriptive analysis of the Optional Learning
Program for tw elfth grade students in Catholic high schools in the archdiocese
of Los Angeles which is the subject of this study. Descriptive analysis was used
2
as the method of study in order to provide a qualitative analysis in which the
complexity pf this educational program in its totality could be delineated with
its interrelated and interlocking elements, rather than a quantitative analysis in
which only numerical comparison of readily observable characteristics would be
presented.
Schooling and Educating
This descriptive study of an optional learning program takes as its
theme: Schooling in American society has become increasingly incompatible
with "educating." The following definitions are, therefore, offered as the most
commonly accepted definitions of these term s. "To school" is the means by
which a country or nation provides a formal educational system through which
the young become socialized, encultured, and equipped to uphold the ideals and
traditions held in high regard by the majority of the people in a particular
country or nation (Schwartz, 1975; Sexton, 1967). "To educate," on the other
hand, is a lifelong process by which the individual comes to the full realization
of his personhood which enables him to become a contributing member of his
social group (Ulich, 1979).
Although these term s are meant to complement each other, they
become incompatible and contradictory when the distinction between these two
term s are not clear. Too great an emphasis on "schooling processes" can negate
"educating processes." "Schooling," as recent critics have shown, can become a
tool for sorting, selecting, and certifying students, thereby negating the
"educating" process through which the individual realizes his full potential
(Bowles and Gintis, 1976, Carnoy, 1974; Freire, 1970; Illich, 1971). Educators
3
have also shown that the term s "to educate" and "to school" have become
increasingly incompatible in educational practices today (Dennison, 1969;
Goodman, 1964; Herndon, 1969; Holt, 1964; Levy, 1970).
The constant interchange of the term "to school" and "to educate" by
researchers, teachers, and school adm inistrators has made the distinction
between "schooling" and "educating" indistinguishable to most Americans. The
subtle effect of this interchange of term s has been that for most Americans
indictments against schooling are viewed as indictments against educating.
Since the effects of schooling have been declared negative by Illich (1971) and
ineffective by Jencks, Smith, Acland, Bane, Cohen, Gintis, Heyns, & Michelson
(1972), those who equate "schooling" with "educating" view educating in the
same light.
While disillusionment with "schooling" may result in serious
consequences to a society as a whole, such as cutbacks in school financing
which would result in a mediocre school system, students dropping out of a
school system as a reaction to its policy, or inappropriate certification
processes, disillusionment with "educating" results in far greater consequences
to mankind in general. Individuals begin to seek pseudo means for achieving
personal growth; intellectual development is abandoned for more concrete
physical and emotional development; and learning becomes a haphazard,
unstructured process which takes second place to the acquisition of m aterial
goods. A general malaise occurs characterized by a lack of goals and purpose.
"Educating" is a dynamic, evolving process which gives meaning and
purpose to life. It is essential, therefore, that "educating" as opposed to
"schooling" be returned to its original meaning.
The Role of Philosophy in Education
To begin to trace the process by which the term s "to educate" and "to
school" became indistinguishable and, therefore, interchangeable in American
society, it is necessary to examine the role assigned to philosophy in education.
Philosophy as a discipline is described as the love of wisdom w hich.
leads man to inquire about the nature of reality, truth, goodness, and beauty.
The philosopher through contemplation and inquiry brings greater clarity,
meaning, and understanding to these abstractions. But, a love of wisdom
presupposes a willingness to think critically about man and his world. A
philosopher is required to speculate, to analyze, to evaluate, and to integrate
his thinking. These are the tools of philosophy. Using these tools, a world view
or a body of thought that is internally consistent comes to be known as a school
of philosophy called idealism, realism , pragm atism , etc. (Morris & Pai, 1976,
p. 7). Each school of philosophy represents a different set of responses to
similar questions, thus, although the school of philosophy may be internally
consistent, its principles are inconsistent and contradictory to other schools of
philosophy. Those who subscribe to a particular school of philosophy often
become loyal adherents believing dogmatically in practices derived from its
theory. These schools of philosophy, therefore, come to exert much influence
and persuasion on various groups in society.
In the field of education, this has become a serious problem. The
domain of philosophy known as educational philosophy, which rightly belongs to
educators, has come to be popularly defined as a branch of philosophy since
there is no unanimity regarding its definition. Man's tendency to bring closure
to processes has, therefore, led most educators to accept this definition of
educational philosophy which makes it a product rather than a process of
philosophy.
Some thinkers are convinced that one can deduce a rather definite
system of educational principles and practices from general
philosophy. According to this view, a person will espouse a system of
educational principles and practices reflecting certain basic
philosophical beliefs. For example: a pragm atist will espouse a
system of educational principles and practices which are directly
derived from his general philosophy. (Dupuis, 1966, p. 4)
It is further claimed that this system ization, labelization, and categorization of
knowledge into philosophical systems provides man with a consistent world view
which when applied to various aspects of man's life brings greater clarity and
meaning to his life situation.
This practice of tying educational practices to a system of philosophy,
however, leaves little opportunity to philosophize about educational problems.
The tools of philosophy— speculation, analysis, evaluation, and integration— are
rarely used by the majority of educators. Educational practices are simply
fitted into static philosophical systems. Educational philosophy, therefore,
rather than becoming a process of posing meaningful questions and seeking
intelligent responses to those questions has become a sterile product of general
philosophy. Educational practices are adopted and accepted without question
since educators regard philosophies of the past as closed systems of thought
with answers to problems in education for all tim e. These systems are relied on
for "pat" answers to complex educational problems resulting in static
educational practices, in apathy toward rigorous thinking in education, and in
polarization within the field of education.
Reliance on these systems of philosophy often result in rigid imple
mentation of static educational practices since these practices are often not
critically examined, are out of context from the total philosophical system, and
are minimally understood by most educators and the general public. As isolated
educational practices, they are neither relevant nor meaningful to the current
educational scene. For example, the educational practice of demanding rote
drill, strict discipline in the classroom, and a reliance on memorization of facts
for learning is said to be derived from the educational philosophy labeled
"classical realism." This philosophy holds that the training of the mind is of
utmost importance to the development of man's nature. But this concept— the
training, of the mind—has very little meaning unless it is related to the body of
consistent, coherent principles leading to what is known as the realist
conception of the world. Extracting educational practices— the use of I.Q.,
tracking, and rigid adherence to a classical curriculum— from this one concept
leads to excesses in education which recently have been attacked as inhuman
and cruel by humanistic psychologists (Maslow, 1962; Rogers, 1969).
Those who seek to impose certain educational practices extracted
from a system of philosophy on schools in general bring even less clarity and
greater apathy to the field of education. Their arguments tangled in esoteric
language, not totally understood by their audience, nor applicable to the social
period to which it is addressed, become empty phrases contributing little to
educational reform. This was the case in 1936 with the famous defense of
Robert Hutchins at the University of Chicago. He argued th at all schools
should continue the tradition of training the mind and of teaching the classical
curriculum which he called the depository of all knowledge. To those who were
7
unfamiliar with the realist world view or to those who rejected this world view,
this argument was an empty defense of an outdated educational philosophy
which favored cruel and inhuman educational practices. For, by this tim e in
many schools, the process of training the mind had become a sterile process of
teaching and drilling of facts. Hutchins' defense, therefore, was not one of a
philosophic inquirer seeking "to make things clearer, to sharpen awareness of
alternatives, to indicate relationships and connections, all in the hope of making
practical judgements that will affect the teaching act" (Greene, 1973, p. 121).
He, instead, set the stage for conflicts between educators entrenched in
"camps" or schools of philosophy. The 1930s and the 1940s was a tim e "when
education debate was most eloquent and articulate, when the educational
battles— especially between the 'Progressivists' and the 'Essentialists1 — were
most bitter" (Neff, 1966, p. 8). When the battle was over, only apathy, outdated
educational practices, and polarization remained.
Moreover, defending outdated educational practices from the
perspective of an educational philosophy labeled idealism, realism , or
pragm atism , etc. effects polarization through a blaming syndrome. The
idealists are blamed for the practices of elitism in schools; the realists are
blamed for creating conformists through their pedantic rote drill methods of
learning; the pragm atists are blamed for juvenile delinquency because of their
permissive classroom procedures; and the existentialists are blamed for the
"unschool" movement. Yet, it can be argued that
there is no formal, logical way by which teachers or adm inistrators
may deduce specific educational policies or practices from abstract
metaphysical, epistemological, or axiological premises. Therefore,
those who maintain that progressive education is the only, necessary,
and logical outgrowth of pragmaticism are as mistaken as those who
maintain that the more traditional forms of education are the only,
8
necessary, and logical consequences of the more traditional forms of
philosophy. (Brauner & Burns, 1965, p. 61)
The most intense polarization, however, takes place when a system of
philosophy, having acquired strong religious or progressive overtones, becomes
linked to a system of education. Thomism or classical realism is thus linked to
the Catholic system of education. Pragmatism is linked to the progressive
school of education. Existentialism is linked to the alternative school
movement. As such, these systems of education are looked on with suspicion
and with fear. Conflicts among educators in these systems become intense as
defenders of a specific educational philosophy lay claim to the "best" method of
educating.
The most critical problem in education related to educational
philosophy is, however, the failure of this philosophy to demand that
educational practitioners philosophize about educational problems. The current
confusion and polarization in education over "educating" and "schooling"
processes can be attributed to the fact that educators, those most directly
involved in shaping the generation of the future, refuse to question and
challenge distinctions between "schooling" processes which persist in school
systems as "educating" processes. "Too many teachers, when confronted with
educational problems seek refuge in tradition, authority, 'feeling' expedience,
and other substitutes for thought" (Neff, 1966, p. 6).
Therefore, "it is eminently possible, and perhaps highly desirable, for
each educator to build his own consistent, coherent, functional philosophy of
education to guide his educational activities" (Brauner and Burns, 1965, p. 25).
"The teacher can become self-conscious about his role in this sense-making
process. If he recognizes this role, he will have intensely personal reasons for
clearing up ambiguities and for raising questions" (Greene, 1973, p. 10).
9
Without the tools of philosophy, educators, however, have abdicated
their right to a professional status~ "the prerogative of the teaching profession
to govern its own work, to set standards, and to determine the nature of the
teaching practice" (Cremin, 1965, p. 95). They have become bureaucrats
aimlessly pursuing the goals of "schooling" rather than the goals of "educating."
The role of the teacher has become that of "jack of all trades"~collecting
monies, raising funds, chaperoning sport and social activities, and monitoring
tests. These "schooling" practices are thus equated with "educating" practices
by both teacher and the general public. "The leaders in education,
moreover, . . . have been concerned with building buildings, balancing budgets,
and pacifying parents, but they have not been prepared to spark a great public
dialogue about the ends and means of education" (Cremin, 1965, p. 117).
The defensive retreat behind static philosophical systems, therefore,
renders educators incapable of providing for the needs of students faced with
the critical problems of injustice, overpopulation, pollution, depletion of world
resources, and genetic engineering in American society today— problems which
demand not "schooling" but "educating" which liberates, opens new vistas,
changes with the tim es, and adapts to diversity.
The Role of Social Scientists in Education
Educators who continue to tie educational practices to philosophical
systems leave the posing of meaningful questions and the seeking of intelligent
responses to social scientists in the field of education. These social scientists
with their fragm ented and piecemeal research studies add to the confusion over
"educating" processes and "schooling" processes.
10
Despite the great number of research studies, educational sociologists
have come to few conclusions with little or no effect of this research evidenced
in schools. A sociologist, Sexton, complains:
Schools, of course, are relatively impervious to change. Although
the tim e lag in medicine between research and adoption is estim ated
at two years, in the schools it is estim ated at between 30 and 50 years.
The lag results not only from resistance in the schools but from the
clear inadequacies of educational R&D [research and developm ent, its
narrowness, fragm entation, and myopic concern for the classroom at
the expense of factors in the school system that affect the classroom.
(1967, p. I l l )
These same complaints against research and development— its
narrowness, fragm entation, and myopic concern for the classroom— have
reached critical proportions today. Spurred on by government incentives to
influence public policy regarding schools, educational researchers have focused
on obtaining grants from the federal government. These grants in high priority
fields— grants for science and m athem atics programs, grants for designated
purposes such as bilingual programs, grants withholding monies from schools
that do not comply with federal mandates such as desegregation, and grants
related to accountability measures such as the Program Planning Budgeting
Systems (PPBS)— not only continue the tradition of prioritizing research studies
on "schooling" rather than "educating" processes, but their method of reporting
— statistical reports— also give unnecessarily weighted importance to
"schooling" issues. Willis states that "many educators themselves now identify
all research and evaluation in education solely with techniques of
quantification" (1978, p. 5). Moreover, although the quality of education
depends on "educating" practices, statistical reports from quantitative studies
on "schooling" problems have become the accepted criteria for judging the
quality of education in America today.
11
Wexler (1976) succinctly summarized the process by which research in
education has reached this present status in American society. He believes that
the Progressives, the early social critics of America's large urban industrial
society, exerted a pervasive influence on the sociology of education. From its
complex myriad thrusts, the dominant themes of Progressivism emerged as
promoting social progress through government intervention, regulation of the
economy, and the full utilization of public education for progress.
In the 1930s the early sociologists of education were quick to translate
these themes into educational research topics which centered on the
relationship of schools to social inequality, to technological efficiency and
bureaucratic organization in schools, and to the body of knowledge acquired to
reflect academic excellence in schools. Research on these topics supported the
ideals of Progressive liberalism of the tim e— equality as m eritocracy,
bureaucracy as efficiency, and academic excellence as faith in scientific
knowledge. These themes became the mainstream of social thought. Studies by
social scientists rationalized, quantified, and attem pted to validate assumptions
related to these ideals.
When vocal minorities in the 60s and 70s challenged these ideals, these
topics became increasingly popular as topics for research. The studies of
revisionist historians of education like Katz (196S, 1971), Spring (1972), and
K arier, Violas & Spring (1973), and the radical political economists like Bowles
and Gintis (1976), affirm ed the fears of these minorities by arguing that "in the
past, as in the present, schooling in America functioned more as a mechanism
of social control than of social mobility" (Wexler, 1976, p. 25). They also
pointed out the sharp contradictions between classroom organization and
12
academ ic excellence in schools and equality of opportunity in contemporary
society. Other critics challenged the assumptions regarding the power of
education to transform society (Coleman, 1966), the rationality of
bureaucratically organized schools (Callahan, 1962), and the content of
knowledge used as the criteria for academic excellence (Bernstein, 1973).
Although these radical educational researchers questioned, challenged,
and attem pted to demystify the traditional mainstream paradigm of
sociologists, they continued to use statistical methods for reporting the results
of their studies. The few descriptive studies like Hollingshead's classic study of
Elmstown Youth (1949) which began to appear were quickly replaced by more
scientific statistical analyses. Coleman's impressive study of schools (1966) was
an example. Over 4000 schools and 600,000 students were included in this
nationwide, government sponsored study which documented precisely the
inequalities of physical facilities, the quality of teaching, and the kinds of
educational programs in schools. The statistics produced by these studies were
impressive, prolix, and awe-inspiring. Coleman, however, reported that school
characteristics— physical facilities, quality of teachers, and curriculum— were
less im portant in determining academ ic perform ance than the difference in the
social/economic context of schooling (Jencks et al., 1972).
The attem pt to replicate the Coleman study by Jencks et al. (1972)
resulted in an encyclopedic research summary called Inequality; nevertheless,
Michelson, a political economist of education, complained:
This book is about numbers. It is not about children, adults or
other kinds of people; it is not about school, families or other kinds of
institutions. . . .The work does not help us understand what structural
relationships are hidden behind the numbers. (1973, p. 56)
13
The general public also found on closer examination that the statistics
tended to fluctuate, to be inconsistent, and even to be contradictory. In a
recent study, Madaus, Kellaghan, Rakow & King (1979), reported that school
characteristics, as opposed to both the Coleman and Jencks reports, could
powerfully affect student outcomes; and, therefore, it might be possible to
break the link between class, race, and academic performance through
"schooling."
The general public confused and disillusioned by these fluctuating,
contradictory statistical reports, has lost confidence in "schooling" which they
have come to equate with "educating." Educators themselves unable to
distinguish between the goals of "educating" and "schooling" are not able to
bring clarity nor to restore confidence in education. In fact, few educators
have been concerned with the long range effects of this emphasis on
quantitative research as opposed to qualitative research which would clarify the
differences between "educating" and "schooling." Yet, the caveat is now clear
to those involved in educational reform ,
whereas in quantitative studies the logic of inference is one of
classification and seriation, resulting in numerical comparison; in
qualitative studies the logic of inference is one of direct comparison
resulting in new insights and reclassification (Willis, 1978, p. 2).
The excessive preoccupation with "schooling" processes has led the
American public to acknowledge the limits of "schooling" (Hurn, 1978, p. 2); but
it has not yielded the needed "insights" and "reclassifications" of the
"educating" process called for by the rapid changes in society today.
The Role of Educational Leaders in Educational Reform
Not only have educational philosophers and educational researchers
contributed to the confusion over the term s "to educate" and "to school," but
_______________________________ ; __________________________ : ___ _JA
educational leaders like Mann, Cubberley, and Dewey with their educational
reforms have also led the American public to equate "schooling" with
"educating."
Education throughout the 18th and 19th centuries included a variety of
educational institutions— the public town schools of New England, the private
entrepreneurial schools of New York and Philadelphia, and the field schools of
Virginia. Education included all aspects of life— the home, the church, the
workplace— all provided opportunities to learn. The school was only one part of
education, generally providing preparation for college. Mann, the father of the
American public school system, was the first educator to rule out this broad
interpretation of education and to restrict education to schools. The need to
educate the "masses," as the minorities who were coming to the U.S. from
Europe were called, became the personal crusade of Horace Mann, the educator.
He saw schools as the means to provide a sense of community for this nameless,
faceless group who were increasing in numbers, diversity, and who were
insistently mobile. "To be sure, Mann's own special crusade was for common
schools which he believed held the key to all human progress" (Cremin, 1965, p.
5). Yet, schooling continued to be only one part of the educating process. By
organizing public lyceums, founding mechanic institutes and agricultural
societies, and inventing penny newspapers and dime novels, the realm of
educating was extended to the outer realm of society (Cremin, 1965).
The late 1900s, however, saw the rise of industrialism, and Callahan
(1962) reported that schoolmen a t this tim e responded to public pressure for
school reform by adopting and adapting the popular principles of scientific
management to schools. During this tim e Cubberley, one of the forem ost
15
educational proponents of the "cult of efficiency," succeeded in turning the
schools into factories. He himself vividly described the schools as factories.
Our schools are, in a sense, factories in which the raw products
(children) are to be shaped and fashioned into products to m eet the
various demands of life. The specifications for manufacturing come
from the demands of the tw entieth-century civilization and it is the
business of the school to build its pupils to the specifications laid down.
This demands good tools, specialized machinery, continuous
m easurement of production to see if it is according to specification, the
elimination of waste in m anufacture and a large variety of output.
(Cubberley, 1916, p. 338)
From these remarks of Cubberley, Wexler (1976) concluded that ironically the
efficiency movement was more efficiently institutionalized in schools than in
factories. The schools to these educational reform ers became the great
instrum ent for shaping society with the factory as the model. These reform ers
realized that great commitment and personal loyalty were required to affect
production levels. The schools, therefore, began to encompass not only the
academ ic area of a student's life but areas of health, citizenship, and family
life. Education in its broadest interpretation from this tim e on was to find its
fullest expression in schools. It was, however, when education as schooling
became the major vehicle for individual economic competition and success and
the means for selecting the most talented for positions of advancement in
society that "schooling" and "educating" became firmly tied in the minds of
most Americans.
And one need not deny the continuing influence of ability, wealth,
status and luck to affirm the role of education in facilitating access to
positions of prestige, influence, and personal fulfillm ent. . . .Indeed, the
very nature of such positions were inextricably tied to the expansion of
education; not only were increasing numbers of such positions coming to
educational requirements for initial entry and advancement, but
education was itself helping to create more and more such positions.
(Cremin, 1977, pp. 86-87)
Even though "to school" signified to most Americans a five hour school
day in a classroom where com petition for the few rewards demanded harsh
16
disciplinary methods, this process of schooling-participating in a series of
"schooling" practices that ended with the reception of a diploma of graduation
marking the completion of 12 years of schooling— became with increasing
insistency the mark of an "educated" person in American society.
The few educators who were aware of the subtle interchange of the
term "schooling" for "educating" attem pted to redirect the emphasis to a study
of the development of the child. From Europe came the educational theories of
Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, and M ontessori. Their theories focused on the
development of the child in regard to their inherent qualities and the method of
how to build from these qualities specific educational theory (Ulich, 1979). To
these educators, the term "to educate" meant structuring the child's growth and
development so as to bring about learning. Schools were not systems to be
experienced by all but places where the structuring of learning appropriate to
the child's development took place. The diversity of methods developed by
these educators spoke to the diversity of learning needs inherent in children.
The educational practices of these educators, however, were not easily
adaptable to the American educational scene which was intent on discovering
the "one best system" of educating (Tyack, 1974). Their educational ideas
would have to wait to find expression in the educational works of Dewey
(Dewey & Dewey, 1962).
John Dewey, the eminent and perhaps only educational philosopher in
America, did promise for a brief period of tim e, however, to bring true reform
to schooling in America. In Democracy and Education, called the most
significant work on education w ritten in the 20th century, Dewey began this
work by assuring that all life educates.
17
In the final account, then, not only does special life demand
teaching and learning for its own permanence, but the very process of
living together educates. It enlarges and enlightens experience; .it
stim ulates and enriches imagination; it creates responsibility for
accuracy and vividness of statem ent and thought. (Dewey, 1939, p. 7)
Dewey, nevertheless, ended this book by returning to the school as the
institution best organized to serve democracy's cause.
In his enthusiasm to contribute to the creation of the m etropolitan,
he calls on schools to become an embryonic social community active
with types of occupations th at reflect the life of the larger society and
perm eated throughout with the spirit of art, history, and science.
(Cremin, 1977, p. 94)
Dewey, thus, effectively removed the agencies of informal education from the
purview of public education.
Nevertheless, a new age was dawning. The concept of a pragm atic
man was too limiting in a world that had taken a step on the moon. Dewey's
educational theories were, therefore, forgotten or dismissed in the race to the
moon with the launching of Sputnik by the Russians in 1958. The new emphasis
in schooling became an upgrading of m athem atics and science programs
m otivated by funds from the National Science Foundation. Traditional
educators recovering from their struggles against progressive educators and
believing th at this new emphasis would return the classical method of educating
to the forefront of education, sat back to watch the return to the traditional
schools.
The door to new thinking had been opened, however, and a new
concept of man challenging the static concept of man was voiced. The
philosophic question, "what is man?" on the lips of a new generation which was
experiencing drugs, nuclear weapons, and space age technology challenged the
newly awakened thinker. These new thinkers, called the existentialists, argued
18
th at man from the anguish of prevailing circum stances chooses his existence,
and thus determ ines his essence (Kneller, 1964).
These ideas gave birth to a new concept of freedom . Educators calling
them selves libertarians (Graubard, 1974), educational psychologists like Maslow
and Rogers, and creative educators who were impressed by the innovations of
schooling by Neill at Summerhill (1960) and the British open classrooms called
for an alternative to the traditional school. Thus, the free school movement
was born. The free school movement, which is best characterized as a reaction
against the established educational systems, had as its major goal to free the
children in schools and to seek out the possibility of bringing delight into every
form of learning. M At its best, its most effective, its most unfettered, the
moment of learning is a moment of delight" (Leonard, 1968, p. 20).
The movement took many forms, and, ultim ately, has been called the
alternative school movement. The goals of this movement set out directly to
counteract the goals of "schooling"—conform ity, passivity, and uniformity— with
the goals of "educating"— openness, change, diversity, and freedom.
Reaction to this movement varied. Confusion over the term s
"educating" and "schooling" had reached a high point with the proliferation of
empirical research studies and the polarization of educators explained as a
controversy between educational schools of philosophy— liberals vs.
conservatives. Thus, confusion continued to cloud responses to the movement,
but in 1971, Illich called for the "deschooling of society," thereby clarifying the
issue and centering the controversy on "educating" vs. "schooling." It became
clear to educational reform ers th at "educating practices"— open structures,
exploratory learning, self-directed learning—were, indeed, incompatible and
19
contradictory to "schooling practices"~red-tape procedures, grading, and
testing. Illich (1971) had concluded that to effect the goals of education,
"educating" had to be taken from the grips of "schooling" which had almost
usurped the field of education. Reform in education— education defined as the
unifying force through which man conquers each preceding stage of civilization
and raises himself to a higher stage of consciousness— could only be achieved by
"educating" rather than by "schooling" (Teilhard de Chardin, 1964).
Statem ent of the Problem
This study was concerned with the confusion and polarization which
centers on equating "educating" with "schooling." It has, therefore, attem pted
to address this problem by describing and analyzing an Optional Learning
Program for tw elfth grade students in the Los Angeles Catholic high schools.
By presenting a descriptive study of this Program, the "educating" aspects of
this Program rather than the "schooling" aspects have been highlighted. Thus,
by bringing into sharper focus "educating" practices as opposed to "schooling"
practices regarding this innovative Program's organizational structures, the role
of the facilitator, the role of the learner, and the nature of the learning
environment, it attem pted to bring greater clarity and understanding to the
process of "educating."
The Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study, therefore, was to present a descriptive
study of an Optional Learning Program for tw elfth grade students, including a
comprehensive analysis of the major "educating" aspects of this Program.
20
Through the use of descriptive study methods, it aimed to bring
greater clarity and understanding to educational adm inistrators and teachers
regarding the goals of "educating" as opposed to the goals of "schooling"
described in this Optional Learning Program.
It sought to provide for teachers and adm inistrators a rationale and a
model for qualitative research in education. Finally, it aimed to raise the
awareness of teachers and school adm inistrators in high schools about the
"educating" needs of tw elfth grade students in relation to the changing social
scene in America.
Significance of the Study
The major significance of this study is th at, as a descriptive study of
an Optional Learning Program, it takes its place among the growing body of
qualitative research studies which seek not to provide solutions to educational
problems, but to provoke thought .about current educational practices.
Although the study of one particular educational program does not
allow for generalizations to other, educational programs, the structure of this
study included subjective and objective methods of research which allowed the
researcher to explore in depth a complex educational process. Thus, a
qualitative tool has been made available to other educators to enable them to
explore problems in "educating" and "schooling."
The growing need for more descriptive studies in education to balance
the proliferation of empirical studies in the field of education has also been
addressed in this study.
21
Finally, by placing this study in its historical perspective, the
confusion over the term s "to educate" and "to school" were brought into sharper
focus so as to enable educators to proceed with the tasks of "educating" in the
21st century.
Questions to be Answered
The major premise of this study was that the development and
im plementation of an educational program which gives priority to "educating"
practices as opposed to "schooling" practices would radically change school
organizational structures, the role of the teacher, the role of the student, and
the curriculum. The following questions were, therefore, posed:
1. What was the educational theory on which this educational program
was based?
a. Who designed it?
b. For whom?
c. Why?
d. How, when, and where?
2. How was the educational program implemented?
a. By whose authority?
b. By whom was it implemented?
c. To what extent was it implemented?
1. m aterially
2. individually
3. socially
d. What outcomes resulted?
. 22
1. internally
2. externally
Other Questions to be Answered
Answers to the following questions were also sought in this study.
1. What were the components of this tw elfth grade optional learning
program which aimed to "educate" rather than to "school?"
2. Where did this program fit in the structure of an existing school
system?
3. What research design was used to evaluate this educational program?
What changes in organizational structure, in the role of the teacher,
the role of the student, and in curriculum were needed to implement
this program?
5. What educational resources in the community were available for use in
this program?
6. What were the socioeconomic factors which influenced the
im plementation of this program?
7. What factors in the traditional school setting affected the
implementation of this program?
8. What were the social, economic, and "educating" needs of tw elfth
grade students th at influenced the design of this program?
9. What outcomes resulted from focusing on openness, diversity, change,
and freedom in education as opposed to closure, uniformity, status quo
and conformity in schooling as criteria for developing educational
practices?
23
Delim itations
This study was designed to describe and to analyze the interactive
"educating" aspects of the Optional Learning Program for tw elfth grade
students in Catholic high schools in the archdiocese of Los Angeles located at
the Doheny Campus of Mount St. Mary's College during the years from 1975 to
1981. It was lim ited to a description of the major components of the Program—
its organizational structures, the learners, the facilitators, and the learning
environment.
Lim itations
This study cannot be expected to offer research from which
widespread generalizations can be made. The in depth involvement with this
one specific educational program made it impossible to use contrasting
situations. This involvement allowed only for a characterization of the unique
features of this Optional Learning Program. In describing and analyzing this
Program, the researcher's attitudinal and integrative skills affected this study.
In regard to the students in this Program from whom interviews,
questionnaires, observations, and study m aterials were obtained, their biases
regarding "educating" and "schooling," their attitude toward change, their
degree of open-mindedness, their sophistication and intelligence in interpreting
what was happening to them educationally, and the lim ited number of students
also affected this study.
24
Assumptions
Two types of assumptions were made in this study, namely, those
regarding descriptive studies in education and those regarding the tw elfth grade
participants. The assumptions regarding descriptive studies in education were
the following:
1. A descriptive study as a research method is an accepted and appropriate
research tool by which to analyze innovative educational programs.
2. Descriptive studies in education can make qualitative contributions to the
study of educational issues which result in "new insights and
reclassifications."
3. A descriptive structure in which to describe the contents of this
educational program could be designed which would comprehensively
"illuminate" the "educating" processes in this Program.
4. A descriptive analysis of one educational program for tw elfth grade
students would reflect certain trends and issues p rev alen t to education in
Am erica today.
The assumptions regarding the tw elfth grade participants and the
educational program designed were as follows:
1. The educational program designed for the Optional Learning Program was a
significant educational program for tw elfth grade students in contemporary
American society.
2. Twelfth grade students were appropriate subjects for an experim ental,
experienced based educational program.
3. Existing tw elfth grade educational programs need revision in order to
provide for societal changes in the 1980s.
23
M ethodology
Since the objective of this study was to provide in depth research on
the dynamic educational processes of the Optional Learning Program, this
descriptive study required intensive observation, interviewing, documentation,
research, and analysis. The procedures, therefore, included both historical and
descriptive research methods.
The observation of the Program was accomplished by the investigator
of this study during her six years from 1975-1981 as designer/director/teacher
in the Optional Learning Program. From this privileged position, the
investigator had access to m aterials, both form al and informal, from these six
years. These m aterials included:
1. Documents, public relations m aterials, tapes, notes, and letters
regarding the Optional Learning Program,
2. Study projects and the academ ic files of the students who participated
in this Program during the entire six years,
' 3. School pre- and post-attitude questionnaires collected from each of
the participants during the six years,
4. Notes and tallies of remarks from interviews with students,
facilitators in the Program, and other school personnel from the home
school,
5. W ritten follow-up questionnaires collected from the first and fourth
group of participants.
During the year 1981-1982, the investigator reviewed these m aterials.
The literature on the status of descriptive studies, the literature on the
26
alternative school movement as an educational reform movement during the
past 20 years, and the literature on recom mendations from National
Commissions on the reform of secondary schools provided the background for
the analysis. From this study and review of m aterials, the design for this study,
which is described in detail in Chapter III, was selected. This design included an
analysis of the accepted and evolving historical perspectives and the social
structures of this period in American education, a narration of the major events
of each of the six years of this Program, and an analysis of the changes in the
organizational structures, the role of the teacher, the role of the student, and
the curriculum designed for this Optional Learning Program for tw elfth grade
students.
Definition of Terms
Since the definitions of term s were essential to the specific meanings
and understandings of each chapter, educational term s which could be
interpreted in various ways were clarified according to the connotations used in
this study in the context of each chapter.
Also, in order to allow for the broadened meanings given to the
educational practices in the Optional Learning Program, the following term s
are used in place of more conventional restricted term s. The place of learning
is referred to as a learning environment rather than as a school building. A
teacher is called a facilitator; students are learners; adm inistrators are
directors; and the curriculum is referred to as a course of study.
27
In addition, the following term s are defined here for greater clarity.*
1. A lternative: Various possibilities of action with reference to the same
object, situation, or problem, all of which are approved by the society
in question, that is, the individual has a choice among a number of
perm itted courses of action.
2. Academic high school program: A traditional high school curriculum
which offers academ ic courses in the following areas: English,
science, m athem atics, social studies, foreign languages, and some
courses in the fine arts.
3. Catholic education: The comprehensive system established by the
Roman Catholic Church in Am erica. The program includes the
establishm ent and m aintenance of school and other educational
agencies to provide religious information in accord with the Christian
ideal and ethic, and to m aintain a com plete educational service in
accord with the goals of American society.
4. Classical realism: A philosophy holding that the aim of education is
the acquisition of verified knowledge of the environment and
adjustm ent to the environment; it recognizes the value of content as
well as the activities involved in learning and takes into account the
external determ inants of human behavior; it advocates freedom of the
individual, limited by the consideration of the rights and welfare of
others.
* Definitions for these term s were found in Good's Dictionary of Education
(3rd ed.), 1973.
28
5. Comprehensive high school: A secondary school th at includes both
general education courses and specialized fields of study in its
program and thus offers academ ic, com m ercial, trade, and technical
subjects.
6. Continuation programs for the delinquent adolescent: A program
designed for the pre-delinquent or delinquent adolescent. It is a
twelve month program which provides intense help both academically
and therapeutically.
7. CSJ: Congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph.
8. Descriptive method: The general procedure employed in studies that
have for their chief purpose the description of phenomena in contrast
to ascertaining what caused them or what their value and significance
are.
9. Diocesan high school: A secondary school operated by the Roman
Catholic Church under the jurisdiction of the diocesan authority and
open to children from several neighboring Catholic parishes.
10. Drop-out: An elem entary or secondary school pupil who has been in
membership during the regular school term and who withdraws for any
reason except death or transfer before graduation from secondary
school.
11. Education: The aggregate of all the processes by means of which a
person develops abilities, attitudes, and other forms of behavior of
positive value in the society in which he lives.
To educate (the idealist): The teasing out of internal powers so as to
unfold and develop all the potentials of the child.
29
To educate (the realist): The injection of information about the
external universe so as to enable the student to understand and control
th at world.
To educate (the pragm atist): The transaction between man and his
environment so as to improve his relationship with human and
environing conditions (Brauner and Burns, 1965, p. 18).
12. Eight Year Study: The Eight Year Experimental Study of Secondary
Education (1933-1941) of the Progressive Educational Association. It
was a plan for experim entation in term s of new understandings of
learning and youth needs by which 30 secondary schools throughout the
nation were perm itted by representative colleges to experim ent with
school content and instruction.
13. Existentialism: The theory in modern philosophy that man has no fixed
nature and th at he shapes his being by the choices he makes as he
lives.
14. ESEA: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The
ESEA emphasized categorical aid for the enhancement of educational
opportunity, particularly for children who had traditionally been
discrim inated against on racial or economic grounds (H erriott & Gross,
1979, p. 50).
15. ES: Experimental Schools (ES) program. A major vehicle for testing
the efficacy of the research initiative of the National Institute of
Education. From January, 1971 through June, 1972, eighteen schools
were chosen in a cooperative effo rt between the federal government
and local school districts to field experiment comprehensive
educational changes (H erriott & Gross, 1979, p. 51).
30
16. Historical research: The type of research th at has as its chief purpose
the ascertaining of facts that fit into a significant tim e sequence and
the relationship among these facts.
*
17. Individualized study: A plan th at responds to the different learning
styles of the student. The student designs a contract for learning
which allows him to elect courses for credit a t a junior college, to
study independently at a library, or to take a seminar with volunteer
professionals in the community.
16. Idealism (Platonic): The concept that "reality" consists of
transcendent universal, form s, or ideals which are the objects of true
knowledge, while "appearances" consists of human sense impressions
which are like shadows or im itations of ideas.
17. Integrated curriculum: A way to organize the content and sequence of
what the student studies. The intent is to help the learner make some
kind of sense out of their studies and to make connections among the
concepts, methods, and data being explored in relation to a career
goal.
18. Lifelong independent learning: the process by which the individual
continues to seek out the means by which to educate himself
intellectually, culturally, physically, and mentally throughout the
various stages of life so as to continue positive growth and
development of the self as a contributing member of society.
19. NCEA: The National Catholic Education Association.
20. NDEA: The National Defense Education Act. An act of the U.S.
Congress, passed in the post sputnik era (1958) authorizing Federal
31
funds for educational purposes in the form of loans and grants. This
act provided funds for strengthening specific educational offerings in
science, m athem atics, and foreign languages in both public and private
schools on the basis of National interest.
21. NIE: The National Institute of Education. C reated in 1972 as a
subordinate unit for the U.S. D epartm ent of Health, Education, and
W elfare (HEW) to support research and development in education.
22. Optional Learning Program: An alternative program designed for
senior students in the Los Angeles archdiocesan school system with the
goal of facilitating transition from high school to college through
experiential, individualized learning.
23. Open Campus: A plan for learners in which they are free to leave the
campus to go to a library, a laboratory, or another place for study.
Learners learn how and choose how to use their unscheduled or free
tim e during school hours.
24. Open classroom: A relatively large instructional area or multiple
classroom space not separated by walls in which a variety of groups or
classes may be working a t the same tim e.
25. OE: Office of Education — reorganized in 1965 as a subordinate unit
for the U.S. D epartm ent of Health, Education, and Welfare to
consolidate research functions in the Bureau of Research.
26. Paradigm: A representation, a model of a theory, or an idea, or a
principle.
27. Philosophy of Education: A careful, critical, and system atic
intellectual endeavor to see education as a whole and as an integral
32
part of man's culture, the more precise meaning of the term varying
with the system atic point of view of the stipulator.
28. Fragm aticism : The philosophical position, founded in the U.S. by
Charles Pierce and continued by John Dewey and given a different,
more psychological interpretation by William Jam es which holds that
the meaning of an idea consists in the conduct it designates, th at all
thought distinctions consist in possible differences in thinking, that
thinking is a functional process for guiding action, and th at truth is a
social value which ideas earn as they are verified by com petent
inquiries in the open forum of thought and discussion.
29. Programmed instruction: Instruction utilizing a workbook, a textbook,
or a m echanical aid/or electronic device programmed to help pupils
attain a specific level of perform ance by providing instruction in small
steps and enabling students to progress at their own pace.
30. Q ualitative: Distinguished by differences in attributes rather than by
num erical differences: differing in kind rather than in amount.
Q ualitative measure is the degree of presence or absence of a tra it or
characteristic without reference to amount. Q ualitative change is the
change in the nature or function of a structure or of the organism as a
whole.
31. Q uantitative: Concerned with m easurem ent. Q uantitative method is
a method of research based on the collection and statistical analysis of
numerical data. Q uantitative change is a change in the size of a
structure or in the numbers of structures.
32. Reconstruction of experience (Dewey): The conception th at education
is to provide for growth or the continuous enlargem ent and enrichm ent
33
of human experience as opposed to conceptions th at identify a
term inal or fulfilled end of the educative process.
33. Schooling: The social process by which people are subjected to the
influence of a selected and controlled environment (the school) so that
they may attain social com petence.
34. School-within-a-school: An organization which creates one or more
smaller schools within the context of a larger school. These smaller
schools are semi-autonomous units for managem ent, support, and
instructional purposes. They are primarily self-contained, but the
students are provided with access to other resources within the total
school program.
33. Self-directed learning: The act of inciting and effecting growth and
development of oneself through one's own m otivation. A person
chooses himself as the stimuli to which he will attend. He determ ines
within himself the kind and intensity of the remolding of himself that
will take place.
36. Statistic: A value or m easure th at describes or characterizes a
particular series of quantitative observations or th at characterizes the
universe from which the observations were drawn or is designed to
estim ate the corresponding value in th at universe.
37. Traditional high school: A high school composed of grades 9 through
12 th at is characterized by a philosophy, programs, and practices of
long-standing and in which there is little tendency toward innovation
or experim entation.
34
38. UNESCO: The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization formed primarily to serve as a clearinghouse of
inform ation and ideas relating to education in the various member
nations.
39. WASC: Western Association of Schools and Colleges. An internal
evaluative assessment program for private schools.
Outline of Chapters
A fter this introductory chapter, the structure of this study is as
follows:
Chapter II reviews the literature on the history of descriptive studies
and its contribution to educational research. It also reviews the literature on
the alternative school movement as an educational reform movement and the
literature on the recommendations for the reform of secondary school by
various National Commissions. The Optional Learning Program, which is the
subject of this study, is analyzed in the perspective of these movements.
Chapter III explains the descriptive methodology designed for this
study. Chapter IV relates the planning stage and the educational theory of the
Optional Learning Program in the context of the history of Catholic education
in America and of the history of the Sisters of St. Joseph in secondary schools
in Los Angeles.
Chapter V narrates the major events of each of the six years which
contributed to the goal of "educating" the tw elfth grade learner in this
Program. Chapter VI analyzes the organizational structures, the role of the
teacher, the role of the student, and the learning environment in relation to the
35
accepted and evolving historical perspectives and social structures in American
society.
Chapter VII summarizes the major ideas in this study, raises questions
and issues related to this study, draws conclusions, and makes recom mendations
for further research.
This study concludes with a comprehensive bibliography and
appendixes.
36
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter proposes to review literature on the alternative school
movement as an agent for change in education, to review the literature on the
role of descriptive studies in effecting school reform s, and to review the
literature on the need for change in the high school as it relates to the tw elfth
grade level.
The literature on the alternative school movement summarizes
representative literature on theoretical and practical changes which this
movement has effected in education.
The literature which summarizes the need for and the present status
of descriptive studies in education focuses on representative case studies and
their contribution to change efforts in education. It reviews the literature
which summarizes current methodologies emphasizing the benefits and
lim itations of descriptive studies in education today.
The literature on the need for reform on the high school level traces
major documents which call for changes in organization, curriculum offerings,
and program approaches in the high school today.
In conclusion, this overview of the literatu re in these three areas
serves to place the Optional Learning Program, an innovative learning
experience for tw elfth grade students, in the perspective of these three areas.
37
Review of the L iterature on A lternative
Schools as Agents for Change in Schooling
In this section, a review of literature focuses on the alternative school
movement as an agent for change from the traditional school. It attem pts to
clarify the relationship of this movement to the Optional Learning Program,
which is the subject of this study, and to place this Program in the perspective
of this movement. It also continues to clarify the distinction between reform s
in education that address "educating" problems and reform s that address
"schooling" problems. Three areas of literature on the alternative school
movement are reviewed: (1) literature dealing with the theory and/or the
ideology of the alternative school movement, (2) literature dealing with the
practice and im plem entation of this theory in alternative schools, and (3)
literature dealing with the evaluation efforts of alternative schools which has
led to the body of literature in educational research which defines change in
education as a dynamic, on-going, comprehensive process.
Background on the A lternative School Movement
In reviewing the literature on the alternative school movement, it
became evident th at most reform s in education during the past 20 years have
come under the ubiquitous title of alternatives to traditional education. The
reason for this, as is now commonly acknowledged, is th at piecem eal,
fragm ented innovations of the 1950s and 1960s, such as com puter-based
instruction, a new m athem atics curriculum , and work study programs were
largely unsuccessful attem pts at reforming the existing system .
What are hailed as new methods of organization, new
technologies, and new concepts of the role of the teacher turn out, on
38
exam ination, to be more gimmickry and packaging than substantive
change....M ost, such as team teaching, instructional television, and
teacher aides, were techniques to increase efficiency which left both
the content of the curriculum and the process of instruction untouched
and, for the most part, unexamined. (Silberman, 1970, p. 160)
Moreover, Fantini, form er program officer for the Ford Foundation's
Division of Education and Research, acknowledged that early educational
reform s had "strengthened the status quo, enabling the system to b etter serve
those who it has always served best" (Morisseau, 1975, p. 10). Also, as the
movement evolved, its roots were found to be embedded in a wide variety of
movements aimed at reforming the traditional school— the free school
movement, humanistic education, voucher programs, perform ance contracts,
and the move toward community control of education. Furtherm ore, the major
thrust of this movement centered on the argum ent th at the monolithic,
institutional nature of the traditional school negated the effects of change in
school. All these factors contributed to the fact th at during the 1970s, change
in education centered on the alternative school movement.
The history of this movement, however, shows that educational
reform s which began outside the system soon found their way into the existing
school system . The movement began slowly in 1960 with the publication of
Neill's account of his free school, Summerhill, in England, and gathered
momentum with the writings of Holt, Kohl, Dennison, Herndon, and Kozol
whose access to the press made it possible for their writings on the negative
effects of "schooling" to gain the attention of the general public. During the
1960s there also arose out of the civil rights movement the creation of free
community schools, for example; Harlem Prep in New York, the CAM Academy
in Chicago, and the Nairobi Community School in East Palo Alto. These schools
_________________________________________________
also gained the attention of the public. C ertain them es began to emerge in the
form of attacks and responses to the inadequacies of the existing school system
which brought together these disparate experiences of schooling under the
umbrella of alternatives as radical reform s or free schools. In 1974 Graubard in
Free the Children wrote:
the key to these institutions is th at they are alm ost always the result
of voluntary grass-roots efforts to build schools where children and
young people are not oppressed by the arbitrary discipline and to tal
power characteristic of most public schools and where the possibilities
for experimenting and searching for new and b etter ways for children
to live and learn can be explored, (p. x)
This description of free schools made it possible for both out-of-school
reform s and in-school reform s— such as "schools-within-schools" and "class
rooms within schools" which aimed a t liberating the child from the classical
curriculum and rigid schooling practices— to be included in the reform move
ment known as the alternative school movement. By 1979 (Corsini < 5 c Ignas)
with the publication of A lternative Educational Systems, however, the term
"alternative" was changed from the meaning of reform in education to the
meaning of choice or options in public education. Thus, now under the umbrella
of alternative school systems are included traditional education, individually
guided education, open education, the Montessori method of education,
psychotherapeutic models, behavioristic education, and education by
appointm ent.
Although the scope of the alternative school movement spans only a
period of 20 years, there is now a vast amount of literature on its evolution,
development, im plem entation, and evaluation. These writings include the
writings of radical educational critics, writings about the establishm ent of
various types of alternative schools within and without the system , and
40
strategies for evaluating alternatives which led to the body of research focusing
on the dynamics of change in schools. The literature on the various aspects of
this movement, however, is not linear. The rapidity with which this movement
swept the educational world, and the gap between theory and practice which
continues to plague the field of education has resulted in much overlapping of
ideas, reiteration of major issues, and the reinvention of the wheel regarding
the establishm ent and evaluation of alternative schools. In this section,
therefore, only representative literature on the alternative school movement is
reviewed which has served to set the tone for reactions to this movement as
change in education.
Moreover, it is im portant to recognize th at even reactions to this
movement are dependent on the degree and kind of exposure to any or to all
aspects of this movement— its ideology, the establishm ent of alternative
schools, narrations, and statistical attem pts to evaluate effective schools.
Even today, therefore, reaction to the alternative school movement continues
to vary from excited com m itm ent, to hostile vindictive attacks by those in
traditional schools who are threatened by the movement, to serious reflection
from those who see hope in the new methods and approaches to education for
reform .
The Theory and/or Ideology of
the A lternative School Movement
It is im portant, therefore, to restate the theoretical basis which gave
rise to this movement which aimed to reform educational practices. The
aggressive attacks on the public schools were based on valid responses to social
injustices which were being perpetuated by the established school systems.
41
Clark, professor of psychology at City College of the City University of New
York, as early as 1967, summarized the major thrust of this movement in saying
th at city school systems
protected public monopolies with only minimal com petition for private
and parochial schools. . .(The result, he added, is an inefficient system
that) destroys rather than develops positive human potentialities,
consumes funds without dem onstrating effective returns, and insists
th at its standards of perform ance should not or cannot be judged by
those who must pay the cost. (Morisseau, 1975, p. 2)
These criticism s of city school systems have now been documented with
countless theoretical argum ents, with case studies and analyses of alternative
schools, and with statistical studies on the effects of schools. The result of all
this activity has forced the American public to reexam ine their basic attitude
toward public education so as to include these challenging concepts.
1. A lternative schools as day or residential private schools or parochial
schools have always existed in America, but not as choices open to the
general public.
2. The social fact of the demand for more education by larger and larger
segm ents of the population who had been promised a share in the ’’ good
life" has made it impossible for "all" to obtain a share of the "good
life" through schooling.
3. M aintenance of the status quo in schools did not denote simply
preserving tradition but, in fact, had come to be interpreted as greater
social control of the "masses" through the processes of schooling.
4. The learning needs of students— an enriched supportive educational
environment, a variety of teaching and learning styles, and a response
to the expanding pool of knowledge—were being addressed primarily
through the alternative school movement.
42
The literature on this movement, therefore, reflects these four points as
concerns about the practices and theory of the traditional school which, under
the scrutiny of w riters, researchers, and educators, were revealed to the
general public.
In reviewing the literatu re on the theory and/or ideology of this
movement, literature from various sources must be cited. First, the writings of
\
Silberman and Fantini are examples of exposes which through specific incidents
describe the negative effects of schooling. The blatant emotional writings of
Holt who is reported to have said th at schools are places where children learn
to be stupid and Goodman who said th a t he would not give a penny to the
present adm inistrators of the public schools and would dism antle the present
school machinery are examples of those who attacked the bureaucracy in
school. The writings of Kozol, Herndon, and Dennison are examples of those
who describe how schools destroy the minds and hearts of minority children.
The reports by M osteller and Moynihan (1972), On Equality of Educational
Opportunity, point out the futility of egalitarian school reform . Several reports
on the reform of secondary education like th at of the National Commission on
the Reform of Secondary Education (1973) are examples th at express concern
with the tension between a rapidly changing society and a slowly changing
school. On an international level, The Faure Report of 1972 calling for lifelong
education, a riddance of the classical curriculum , and a reemphasis on the
human resource potential in education is representative of the concerns about
"educating" and "schooling." These early writings, either as attacks, or
summaries, or recommendations, attem pted to spell out the theory and ideology
of the alternative school movement. U ltim ately, they served to shake the
43
educational world, abruptly and rudely, with a declaration th at the world was
experiencing an educational crisis.
It is true th at national educational system s have always seemed
tied to a life of crisis. Each has periodically known a shortage of
funds, teachers, classrooms, teaching m aterials~ a shortage of
everything except students. It is also true th at these systems have
usually managed somehow to overcome their chronic ills or else have
learned to live with them . The present case, however, differs
profoundly from what has been commonplace in the past. This is a
world educational crisis. (Coombs, 1968, pp. 3-4)
The Establishm ent of A lternative Schools
The literature on the establishm ent of alternative schools, likewise,
includes intuitive spontaneous accounts of the founding of these schools as well
as reports of . carefully planned programs for the incorporation of alternative
schools within the system . An example of the literature on the form ation of
small alternative schools is Rasberry Exercises. This book, like so many others,
was w ritten by a group of idealistic educators in the 1970s dedicated to "the
millions of children still in prison in the United States" (Rasberry & Greenway,
1970). It comprises mainly of accounts of the what, why, and how of their
school; and recounts in a poetic m anner, as do many other self-published
narrations on this topic, revelations of the "happenings" in this school. Most of
these narrations, therefore, included personalized accounts of the rationale for
founding the school, the im plem entation of a particular design in an actual
setting, and advice on how to sta rt your own school.
Along with these intuitive rom antic narrations by founders of
alternative schools cam e reports of serious attem pts to incorporate the new
ideas from these schools into the existing school system . The term "school-
within-a-school" was coined and reports on the effects of these schools began to
44
appear. Typical of these narrations is the thrust expressed by Conrath seeking
to separate these schools from the negative image of the early alternative
schools. He said:
We understood th at as a school-within-a-school we were a
satellite school and not an alternative school. If we could pull off an
effective operation with 150 kids, a teaching staff with a student-
teacher ratio no more favorable than the rest of the district, and offer
high quality education, then we could hold ourselves up to Adams, the
Portland School D istrict, and the world as a model of reform .
(Conrath, 1972, p. 2)
From these narrations, the literature moved to include descriptions on
the district level of networks of schools in a district. An example of these
narrations is The Mini-School Experiment (Morisseau, 1975). This book
describes the Mini-School Project, a cooperative effort of the New York Urban
Coalition and the New York City Board of Education. Haaren High School
located on M anhattan’ s West Side was divided into 12 mini schools which
enrolled an average of 150 students with its own distinctive academ ic program
and teaching staff. The author realizing the misconceptions regarding
alternatives felt th at ’’ the fullest possible docum entation of the Haaren
experim ent is an absolute essential" (Morisseau, 1975, p. ii). The following
form at, as was explained, addressed this need.
This book outlines the shortcomings of the existing system th at
gave rise to the alternative-school movement, traces the history of
the early alternative schools, citing their successes, shortcomings, and
failures, and discusses the reasoning behind the Haaren project. From
there, it proceeds to a full and frank analysis of the Haaren
experience, identifying both the successes and shortcomings of the
project, then takes a look at the future, not only of the Mini-School
Project but of alternative education and school renewal in general and
the potential im pact of the alternative school movement on
established school systems particularly in the inner city. Finally, the
concluding chapter is presented as a guide or "cook book" for
educators. (Morisseau, 1975, p. ii)
45
Another aspect of the literature on the establishm ent of alternative
schools is exemplified in the recent book, Deal < 5 c Nolan, A lternative Schools;
Ideologies, Realities, and Guidelines (1978), w ritten as a collaborative effort by
an educational practitioner, Robert Nolan and by an educational theorist,
Terence Deal. Nolan is principal of Mar Vista High School and Deal is the
associate professor at the Harvard School of Education and form er research
associate at the Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching.
The attem pt in this book is to bring together a series of case studies of schools
throughout the nation that showed a marked departure from bureaucratic
practices. The ideas and experiences of 27 educators from the field of
alternative education were collected for analysis in this book. In this way, this
book is purported to have greater validity than the more spontaneous, intuitive
accounts of alternative schooling.
In summary, the literature on the establishm ent of alternative schools,
like the literature on the ideology of the alternative school movement, moves
from an emphasis on subjective accounts of "happenings" in schools to more
serious technical reports by professional educators as the movement was
incorporated into the existing school structure.
The Evaluation of A lternative Schools
The literature on the evaluation of alternative school followed a
similar course in th at initial efforts of evaluation of these schools were
contained in the descriptive accounts which emphasized the affective goals of
these schools. These descriptive evaluations, however, were dismissed by
researchers as unscientific, subjective evaluations which were of little value to
______________________________________________________________________ 46
the educational world. Nonetheless, as the movement gained forced
acknowledgment in educational circles, educational researchers, who were
prim arily educational sociologists, began to suggest more hard-data methods for
the evaluation of these schools. The reaction to this suggestion was
summarized by Hickey in an article w ritten for the Educational A lternatives
Project in 1972. The major thrust of this article suggests th at the prevailing
attitu d e of alternative educators toward em pirical methods of evaluation was
"reactionary defensiveness" or outright resistance on the basis th at evaluation
as em pirical comparison was philosophically antithetical to the freedom and
lack of structure of alternative schools. This accusation was later confirm ed in
the Review of Research (1980) which stated:
A review of practices of researchers and evaluators reveals that
the outcomes most attended to are few in number: cognitive skills,
subject m atter achievem ent, attitu d e towards school, and the self
concept. The means employed for assessing ends are equally
restrictive. The field is dominated by an adherence to indirect
measures: standardized achievem ent tests and L ikert-type scales. . . .
It comes as no surprise that studies (especially, large-scale, policy-
oriented surveys of schooling practices) focus on conventional
outcomes in very conventional ways. However, this emphasis
perm eates the research and evaluation efforts surrounding less
traditional programs as well, especially those investigating open
educational practices. . . .The general picture suggests a symbiotic
relationship between educational research and policymaking, a
situation th at appears to conserve the "status quo". (Weiss, 1980, p.
446)
From a distance of ten years, this symbiotic relationship between
educational research and policymaking now em erges as one of the major
factors which hindered the development of an adequate instrum ent for the
evaluation of alternative schools. The process by which this relationship
developed is essential to understanding the kinds and amounts of literature on
the evaluation of alternative schools.
47
This relationship between educational research and policymaking
evolved from the new role in education which the federal government assumed
a fter the passing into law of the National Defense Education Act of 1958
(NDEA) and the Elem entary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).
These acts prompted the federal governm ent to give financial aid to school
districts to enhance the educational opportunities for specific groups of
children, namely, the gifted or those discrim inated against on racial or
economic grounds. Until this tim e, the traditional role of the federal
governm ent in education had been restricted to th a t of a judiciary function, but
these acts changed this role to th a t of a legislative/regulatory function. This
new role of the federal governm ent opened the door to policymaking research
which would tie equality of opportunity and school effectiveness (the main
thrust of these legislative acts) to a new demand for accountability from
educators. As more and more research was m otivated by policymaking, the
subtle assumption th at politicians and regulators knew the best mix of
educational variables to achieve equity and quality in education, began to
em erge. This attitu d e was to have a serious im plication for educational reform
from th at tim e on.
One of the least desirable consequences of direct efforts during
the last two decades by politicians and social scientists to improve
American schools has been the intensification and perpetuation of the
belief th at research and evaluation in education are defensible only
when their methods lead to quantificable results. (Willis, 1978, p. 5)
The new role of the federal governm ent as the protector of equal
rights using monies as the means to compel public schools to comply with
legislation was further affirm ed by the creation of the National Institute of
Education (NIE) in 1972. The well-documented, incisive account of the creation
48
of this institute by Sproull, Weiner, and Wolf (1978), Organizing an Anarchy,
reveals the shortcomings of the federal governm ent’s efforts to support
research in education. Nevertheless, the rationales of m ainstream social
thought—equity, efficiency, and academ ic excellence— as well as the rationale
for the creation of this new institute—to bring greater coherence a t the federal
level and to provide opportunity for initiative at the local level for educational
reform —clouded the inadequacies of research sponsored by the federal
government for policymaking studies.
The Experimental Schools (ES) program became the major vehicle for
testing this new strategy. By June of 1972 eighteen projects were selected for
long term funding—eight urban and ten rural. This program set the pace for
obtaining grants from the federal governm ent. Colleges and universities which
were beginning to experience the rising cost of education also became involved
in capturing grants as sources for additional monies from the federal
government and from foundations which were aware of the financial
implications for the equity/quality issue in education. With policymaking
decisions guiding educational research there was little room for creative
evaluations; thus em pirically oriented studies swamped the field of education.
This type of research conducted on a large scale, e.g. the Coleman Report
(1966) and Jencks et al. (1972) brought quick concrete evidence to policy
m akers who could then make decisions regarding schooling practices.
What we test for influences our notion of schooling; in other
words, there are political consequences of the use of conventional
procedures. The Coleman Report is perhaps the best example of a
study employing instrum ents severely lim ited in what they measure,
not just from a technical standpoint but from a curricular perspective.
The results were enormously influential on policymakers and educators
alike. (Weiss, 1980, p. 419)
49
As alternative schools began to seek financial aid from the federal
governm ent, there was a demand for more objective evaluations of alternative
schools. The founders of these schools became painfully aware th at they had
neglected to include evaluation as an essential component of these schools, thus
there were no clear guidelines for evaluation. These schools, therefore, had to
be subjected to the prevailing accepted methods of ev alu atio n -statistical
m easurem ent— and thus cam e under further serious criticism because of their
. vulnerability to this type of m easurem ent.
When educators began to sense the inadequacies of what was then
coming to be known as quantitative research, there was a demand made for
qualitative research and for instrum ents to m easure non-conventional outcomes
of learning. The writings of Eisner (1979), Guba (1978), Hamilton et al. (1977),
Smith (1978), Stake (1978), and Willis (1978) on qualitative approaches to
educational research began to receive a hearing even in policymaking circles.
An example of this is the direction the Far West Laboratory has taken.
One of the seven regional research laboratories established by the Office of
Education, the Far West Laboratory, now claims th at they are entering the
1980s well prepared to find "educational alternatives to what exists" and to
make certain th at educational research finds its way into practical use outside
the laboratory (Far West Laboratory, 1980b, p. 5). With the growing recognition
D f alternatives as reform or change agents in education, the Far West
Laboratory issued Educational Programs That Work (1980a) which included a
section on alternative schools. This is a hopeful sign th at perhaps the search
lor equity and quality in schools by the government which began by providing
50
funds for large scale surveys will result in seeking reports on alternative schools
which provide quality education for all students.
In this search for effective schools by social scientists, a serious
problem on the nature of change in schools was identified, namely, th at
traditional schools were largely immutable institutions, unresponsive to the
changes demanded by the tim es. R esearchers, therefore, began to study the
nature of change in schools. Notable among the literature of change in schools
are the works by Baldridge < 5 c Deal (1975), Goodlad (1970), Havelock (1973), and
H erriot & Gross (1979). The works of these men seek to reveal the complex
interlocking elem ents th at must be dealt with in an attem pt to bring change to
the institution of the school. Today, this literature is serving to ward off the
current pessimism regarding the survival of alternative schools. Baldridge &
Deal (1975) claim th a t the movement deserves a second chance through which
guidelines would be spelled out to address the organizational difficulties which
impair and impede the attainm ent of the goals of education. In these books the
lim its and possibilities of current descriptive m easure of evaluation are also
revealed.
We have m aintained th at the findings of inquiries on educational
change, whether based on case studies or sample surveys, do not and
cannot provide a set of educational change efforts. This statem ent,
however, should not be interpreted as implying th at such investigations
are of little value to the educational practitioners. Quite the
contrary, studies of this kind can be of great im portance and utility to
men and women who manage educational innovations because they
offer them fresh perspectives, sensitize them to types of variables
which otherwise might easily be ignored, and suggest functional ways
of conceptualizing the change process. (H erriott < 5 c Gross, 1979, p. 40)
The literatu re on the evaluation of alternative schools, therefore, can
be summarized as a research process in which the deficiencies of personalized,
subjective accounts of what happened in alternative schools moved to more
51
scientific studies under the impetus of policy-making grants from the federal
governm ent, and finally to a process in which series of case studies became the
means to identify quality changes in education. Nevertheless, there is still no
consensus as to the most effective means to evaluate schooling processes.
Conclusion
The literatu re of the alternative school movement which includes a
vast number of narrations and studies on the theory, im plem entation, and
evaluation process of the alternative school movement has served to set the
tone to reactions toward change in schooling for the m ajority of American
teachers and parents. Three distinct attitudes toward change which this
literatu re has affected are: (1) for those who have accepted the alternative
school movement as a natural outgrowth of the dem ocratic process, the
literature serves as a support to the need for diversity in education; (2) for
those who are challenged by the movement, the literatu re serves as the basis
for additional comprehensive experim entation with change in schools; (3) for
those who are threatened by the movement, the literatu re has uncovered
paradoxes in education which then lead to confusion and a confirm ation of the
deficiencies of the American school system 's power to "educate all equally."
These attitudes triggered by the vast amount of literature on the
alternative school movement continue to influence new options in education,
which, like the Optional Learning Program , fall under the umbrella of the
alternative school movement. These options, therefore, in addition to the
obstacles embedded in the traditional structures must also confront the
prevailing social attitu d e toward change in education.
32
Review of L iterature on D escriptive Studies
In order to develop a rationale for the use of the descriptive method of
research in this study, a review of the literatu re regarding the need for
descriptive studies in education, its present status, its scope, its benefits, and
its lim itations was undertaken in this section.
The Status of Empirical Studies Today
To begin: a concise summary with docum entation on the lim itations of
em pirical research methodology as opposed to descriptive methodologies and
the resultant effect on educational reform is contained in a recent book,
Beyond the Numbers Gam e, (Hamilton, MacDonald, King, 3enkins, P arlett,
1977). The editors' view of the value of em pirical research to education voiced
the concern of many educators today, and was expressed in this book through an
explanation of the selection of the title.
Beyond the Numbers Game is, however, a much more accurate
title for a book charting a paradigm shift from an evaluation
methodology valuing numeracy to one valuing literacy. But the social
irony is not accidental. The real "numbers game," like psychom etric
evaluation, is in cultural term s as American as violence or apple pie.
(Hamilton et al., 1977, p. 4)
Moreover, the major thrust of this book was representative of a new
voice in educational research that is gaining support and affirm ation in
educational circles today.
"Evaluation as illumination" advocates a to tal reappraisal of the
rationale and techniques of programme evaluation. C haracteristically,
conventional approaches have followed the experim ental and
psychom etric traditions dominant in educational research. Their aim
(unfulfilled) of achieving fully "objective methods" has led to studies
th at are artificial and restricted in scope....A ttem pted m easurem ent
of "educational products" is abandoned for intensive study of the
53
programme as a whole: its rationale and evolution, its operations,
achievem ents and difficulties. The innovation is not examined in
isolation, but in the school context or "learning milieu." (Hamilton et
al., 1977, p. 4)
Furtherm ore, recent trends in education— the rise of the school
adm inistrators as leaders in education, the new role of the federal governm ent
as legislator/regulator, and the role of educational researchers in policymaking
studies which have resulted in excessive reliance on em pirical methods for
reporting academ ic success in schools— calls for a new direction for research.
A brief review of the development of these three trends gives scope to this
argum ent.
Callahan (1962) in his thorough documentary on the schooling process,
Education and the Cult of Efficiency, traced the process through which school
adm inistrators became leaders in educational reform . In the early 1900s, the
leaders of education, impressed by the leaders in industry who applied the
principles of scientific m anagement to increase production, followed their lead
and becam e business managers of schools rather than scholars in education.
Their vulnerability to social criticism caused by their financial dependency on
taxes for schools from the American people was cited as a major factor for
their assuming this role in education. As a result, reform in education focused
on "schooling" reform s, rather than on "educating" reform s since 1900.
Currently, a similar problem has arisen in education. This tim e,
however, the federal government, vulnerable to criticism of equity and quality
in education, has assumed the leadership role in educational reform with similar
consequences. The federal governm ent realized th at efforts for educational
reform s in response to NDEA (1958) legislative demands for b etter quality in
the teaching of m athem atics and science were largely unsuccessful,
_________________________________________________________ 54
fragm ented efforts. It therefore assumed the role of legislator/regulator in
response to ESEA legislation (1965) which was directed at providing "equality of
opportunity for all" through schooling in an attem p t to e ffe ct comprehensive
changes in education by providing funding as an incentive to school districts to
comply with the legislation. The history of the reorganization of the O ffice of
Education (OE) into the National Institute of Education (NIE) which would
direct these change efforts reveals the fate of the Experim ental Schools (ES)
program, the major organ for planning, implementing, and evaluating
comprehensive changes in education. H eriott and Gross (1979) documented the
process by which this program becam e entrapped in bureaucratic entanglem ents
necessitated by the reorganization process. As a result of these entanglem ents
the federal government was never able effectively to assume a leadership role
in educational reform s through this organ. Thus, the leadership role in
educational reform fell into the hands of educational researchers who were
evaluating these innovative programs.
Traditionally, educational researchers confined them selves to
presenting educational theory and left educational practice to educators. The
new role of the federal governm ent, however, included evaluation of new
programs. Educational researchers were, therefore, called on to provide
research not only in theory but also research on program development and
evaluation in their new associative role with the federal governm ent.
In the 1900s demands from the new school adm inistrators had called
for research to provide objective measures for reporting academ ic achievem ent
in schools. S tatistical tools for the m easurem ent of school success were,
therefore, rapidly developed.
55
The application of the statistical method to problems of school
adm inistration came as a result of some work of Thorndike's. He had
been teaching statistics to his psychology classes a t Teachers College
in 1902-3, and in 1904 he published his Introduction to the Theory of
M ental and Social M easurem ents. "This work," said Cubberley,
"marked the beginning of a new era in the study of educational
problem s...the first fruits of this method as applied to school
adm inistration came in 1905." (Callahan, 1962, p. 189)
In 1965 with the demand from the federal governm ent for studies from
researchers th at would affect policymaking decisions related to equity and
quality in education and the increasing need for accountability for rapidly
diminishing funds, educational researchers responded by continuing this
tradition of using statistical methods of research for reporting. Capitalizing on
the long-standing aura which surrounds em pirical research studies with their
promise of scientific, objective reporting, educational researchers were able
with these reports to capture the power to sway public opinion regarding
educational practices for a tim e. The practice of conducting large-scale school
surveys also helped to place educational researchers as leaders in educational
reform s.
M en...usually professors of education from the leading universities
and most often specialists in adm inistration, but frequently a
prominent superintendent...w ere engaged, and occasionally men from
the education foundations such as Carnegie directed or participated in
surveys. (Callahan, 1962, p. 112)
In the eyes of the public these school surveys and statistical reports became the
. means for evaluating, not just "schooling" successes, but "education" in general.
The Call for D escriptive Studies in Education
The response of educators to this shifting of leadership in education to
various political groups was a determ ination to restore leadership in educational
reform to the hands of teachers. One of the tools emphasized as a means to
56
achieve this reversal is the use of descriptive studies for reporting. The reasons
set forth are as follows: descriptive studies, unlike em pirical studies, do not
rely on technical language and artificial skills. Descriptive studies as
narrations of actual educational situations are comprehensive and inclusive
tools readily adaptable to the needs of teachers in the "educating" process. The
narrations can include reports from key figures and actual participants. They
reveal the internal and external factors which affe ct the educational program —
the underlying organizational structures as well as the attitudes and the
political bias—which are essential to the "educating" process. The reporting
form at—narration and analysis—is less form idable and more understandable to
the general public than are em pirical reports. These reports, however, do not
simplify the "educating" process, but reveal its com plexities including not only
the cognitive aspects but the affective aspects of education and social and
political events of the historical period as they relate to the "educating"
process. With educators as evaluators of the "educating" process using
descriptive studies as the tool for analysis, an exam ination of existing priorities
in education can be revealed which will allow for a more enlightened resetting
of priorities.
Three recent works—Directions for Doctoral Research Case Study
(Hampson, 1972), Beyond the Numbers Game (Hamilton et al., 1977), and
Q ualitative Evaluation (Willis, 1978) have been selected for review in this
section as representative of the most current and salient issues surrounding
descriptive research today.
Directions for Doctoral Research Case Study by Hampson was
presented in 1972 in Boston. A group of distinguished educators—Lee 3.
57
Conback, David Tyack, Elliot Eisner, and Elizabeth Cohen from the Stanford
School of Education— outlined briefly through this paper a new direction for
education research. Rejecting the heavy borrowing from behavioral sciences in
the past by educational researchers, this panel recommended th at new
methodologies be used in educational research. D escriptive studies in the form
of case studies were noted for their benefits.
The case study is particularly suited to examining institutions,
communities, incidents and social processes a t work in their field
setting. It allows the researcher to live and breathe with his research
problem and to probe beneath the cultural, political, social, and
psychological layers th at so often impede our vision of the true nature
of how decisions are made, change is undertaken, and history made.
(Hampson, 1972, p. 3)
These distinguished educators heralded the "coming of age" of the field of
education through the use of the descriptive methodologies. Education, as a
social process with many variables and differing environm ents, would benefit
from the case study m ethod, used as the beginning methodological tool for
descriptive studies in education. Through the skillful use of this research tool,
needed scarce data could be provided, hypotheses generated, dynamic processes
th at are crucial to the understanding of the to tal educational situation would be
examined, and theory would be verified. In this way, they explained,
descriptive research studies m ark the "coming of age" of the field of education.
These educators, however, warn of the three critical factors which
lim it the choice of this method.
1. The problem studied should be one in which an intensive investigation
of the organization in a field setting is called for.
58
2. The researchers must be skilled in the arts of interviewing,
observation, docum entation, document search, and analysis, and have a
receptive attitu d e rather than a testing attitu d e toward evaluation.
3. The researchers must have the ability to draw together inform ation
from many sources and integrate them into a whole piece from which
generalizations should not be expected.
The second more recent work which reflects this same attitu d e toward
descriptive studies is Beyond the Numbers Game (Hamilton e t al., 1977). It
contains a m anifesto in the preface which is a synthesis of the affirm ative
position toward descriptive studies by educators today. The authors of this
m anifesto were chosen to attend a conference on December 20, 1972, at
Churchill College, Cambridge, because of "their known reservations about
established evaluation practice or because they had suggested or experim ented
with new approaches" (Hamilton et al., 1977, p. vii). The m anifesto declares
th at those who are serious about the reform of education should "arm"
them selves with the tools of qualitative research methods in the light of the
present day inadequacies of quantitative research methods.
By discarding a spurious "technological" sim plification of reality,
and by acknowledging the complexity of the educational process, the
illum inative evaluator is likely to increase rather than to lessen the
sense of uncertainty in education. On the other hand, unless studies
such as these are vigorously pursued there is little hope of ever moving
beyond helpless indecision or doctrinaire assertion in the conduct of
instructional affairs. (Hamilton e t al., 1977, p. 22)
The book contains five sections which give validity to this m anifesto
and serve to sum m arize current debate regarding descriptive studies. Section
one deals with evaluation as "illumination" of innovations; section two critically
appraises current objective methods of research by returning to their source;
59
section three introduces five prom inent advocates for change in research
procedures— 3. Myron Atkin, Elliot Eisner, Lawrence Stenhouse, Michael
Striven, and Robert Stake. Coming from a variety of disciplines and
backgrounds these men bring different experiences and ideas to the central
problem in descriptive research— alternative ways of evaluating educational
problems— and thus give insight to the intellectual debate surrounding
descriptive studies from their special perspective. Section four of this work
centers on concerns with alternative methodologies in descriptive research.
Methodology in descriptive studies is linked to other intellectual disciplines,
which not only broadens the available methodologies for use in education—
participant observation from sociology, ethnographic field work from social
anthropology, literary criticism and film documentary from the hum anities, and
historiography from social studies— but also brings out the inherent weaknesses
of each.
The methodological ragbag is more of a problem, as research
methodology is an area in which it is reasonable to expect a low
tolerance of imprecision. Insofar as there is loose general research
strategy behind illum inative evaluation, it arises from the many
intellectual traditions which encourage holistic descriptions and
explanations of human acts. These substantive traditions provide an
intellectual basis for constructing an interpretive account of an
educational programme interacting with its social context. The aim is
to unravel its day-to-day realities. (Hamilton et al., 1977, p. 167)
The final section of this book contains actual case studies through
which an answer to the question is evoked: Are illum inative, interpretive,
descriptive, analytic types of evaluation more useful, more inform ational, more
profound than traditional types of research? The reader—aware of the
prem aturity of this question in the light of the small number of non-traditional
studies, the lack of research on research, especially in descriptive studies, and
60
the issues which arise and can be confronted only as they arise~ is left to
answer this question through the exam ination of several different types of
evaluative reports which give expression to a "new paradigm" of descriptive
studies. A reading of these reports brings out the problems of ordering,
weighing, and selecting, and of orientation and approach the authors experience
when they attem p t to use this "new paradigm."
The final book chosen in this section as a representative summary of
the status of descriptive research in contem porary education is Q ualitative
Evaluation (Willis, 1978). This book moves the debate on descriptive studies one
step further in th at the editor, Willis, was willing to take a definitive stand
regarding what constitutes a descriptive study. He claimed th at qualitative
criticism and curriculum criticism were to be viewed as synonymous term s.
Curriculum, however, was defined as an artistic object broadly encompassing
the educational environment itself. Thus, the researcher must become a
curriculum critic in the same sense as th at of an artistic or literary critic. This
viewpoint was traced to an article by Mann w ritten in 1968 called "Curriculum
Criticism ." In this article, curriculum criticism is th at form of criticism which
provides a critical understanding of how meaning is constituted and applied to
educational situations. Eisner from Stanford University was to become the
most active spokesman for this viewpoint during the 1970s. This viewpoint was
now given full expression in this book through a series of essays th at (1) outlined
the general concepts regarding qualitative evaluation as curriculum criticism or
th a t discussed underlying issues regarding this interpretation; and (2) illustrated
the variety of approaches th at could be drawn from literary, a rtistic, or social
critical sources and applied to education.
61
Willis introduced the concept essays--the essays which address "a
series of issues concerning the personal basis for meaning, the embodiment of
meaning in form , and the relationship to and the uses of meaning in the world"
by defining and distinguishing betw een qualitative evaluation and quantitative
evaluation and by tracing their role in contem porary education (Willis, 1978,
p. 19). He concluded:
Educational evaluation in the United States will not develop into a
m ature and socially responsible enterprise until it widely adopts
artistically developed and skillfully employed techniques of qualitative
evaluation th at directly confront both the significance of and the
qualities of personal experience within education. (Willis, 1978, p. 9)
This book, therefore, linked educational reform directly to qualitative
evaluation of educational programs by educators who were involved in the
educational program.
In this way, curriculum criticism encourages personal and
aesthetic responses to both the natural and the artistically arranged
configurations of educational environments or their specific qualities,
but the responses include social and political insights, which lead to
public consequences. (Willis, 1978, p. 13)
The com m ent section of this book on Q ualitative Evaluation contains
three articles which summarized the most serious criticism against the use of
descriptive studies in education. Daniel Kallos, the first contributor in this
section, spelled out a serious recurring criticism against qualitative evaluation,
namely, that "a critical approach misses its targ et if the critique is aimed a t
unim portant or insignificant aspects of the object under scrutiny" (p. 469)
Kallos argued th at the object of case studies were often unim portant and
insignificant.
Kallds brought substantial international perspective to this argum ent
since he studied the development of case studies in the Federal Republic of
62
Germany, in France, in Sweden and in the United States. His point cannot be
dismissed easily. Willis, nevertheless, refuted this point with the observation:
Heightened cognizance of the aesthetic and the personal
dimensions of experience may thus act as a catalyst to a kind of
critical consciousness and, in this sense, be both logically and
psychologically prior to political or social awareness. One might
speculate, then, th at attention to the quality of lived experience is a
powerful way of reform ing the political and redistributing the m aterial
aspects of society as attention to the political and m aterial is of
improving the qualities of living. (Willis, 1978, p. 470)
M ichael Apple, the second contributor in this section, brought up a
second serious argum ent against descriptive studies in education. "Emphasizing
experience tends to confound educational experience with everything we do
making values relative and tending to preclude serious ethical, political, or even
aesthetic dialogue" (Apple, 1978, p. 493). But, he argues:
Almost nothing is really known about how individuals constitute
meanings within educational contexts, which are, afte r all, part of
broader social contexts. . . .Knowing something about these
comm onalities may be an im portant step toward knowing how
individuals are in fact connected with educational and social contexts.
(Apple, 1978, p. 493)
This book does not claim to be exhaustive or definitive, but as with Beyond the
Numbers Game it linked significant theoretical and practical examples of
qualitative approaches to educational evaluation. These books were based
on the assumption th at educational evaluation is essentially reflection
about context and meaning in both senses; and th at external world of
educational "object" and social milieu, internal world of personal
values and perceptions and resulting judgments and social actions are
inextricably linked together . . . qualitative often being, in fact, the
more powerful mode of evaluation precisely because qualitative
methods tend to emphasize these linkages whereas quantitative tend
to tre a t contexts and meanings as isolated. (Willis, 1978, p. xviii)
In conclusion, these summaries on the present status, need, lim its, and
possibilities of descriptive studies show th at although there is still much
controversy and intellectual debate regarding the status, the methodologies,
63
and the orientation of researchers toward descriptive studies, there is a growing
consensus among educators and researchers th at through descriptive studies the
educator will be restored to a leadership role in educational reform .
Four Case Studies Reviewed
U ltim ately, these discussions on the theory of descriptive studies must
be effected in actual practice where their contribution to education will be
verified. Therefore, to conclude this review of literature on descriptive
studies, four representative studies which have provided direct experience
accounts, "resulting in new insights and reclassifications rather than
classification and seriation, resulting in num erical comparison" have been
selected for review here (Willis, 1978, p. 2). They are Boys in White, (1961)
Learning to Labour, (1977) Teachers Versus T echnocrats, (1977) and Growing Up
American (1978). These studies show not only th at their researchers are skilled
in the a rt of observation, interview, analysis, and descriptive reporting, but th at
they also possess the sensibilities needed to perceive relationships betw een
reliefs and practices, and organizational patterns and the responses of
individuals in a particular educational situation. These studies, therefore, have
made valuable contributions to the field of education as their findings indicate.
Boys in White by Becker, G reer, Hughes, and Strauss (1961) focused on
the perspectives of pre-m ed students and the changes these students underwent
n the reality of the pre-m ed school. Thus, it gave insight into the question:
"What effects do institutional practices and traditions have on students'
perspectives during the course of their training?" This descriptive study
64
Drought out th at highly m otivated, idealistic pre-m ed students during the
process of "schooling" developed perspectives th at were opposed to the long
range idealistic goal~ to become skilled in medicine so as to restore health to
the sick. The im m ediate goal in medical school became th at of survival. The
student was willing to do alm ost anything in order to get through m edical school
which had become a meaningless, unnecessary, repetitive, and even harm ful
process with tasks to be m astered.
Over the period of just one year the perspective of the student toward
the practice of medicine was altered because of the reality of medical school
with its institutional practices th at created situational constraints. The
personal life patterns of the student and the quality of his group membership
were also altered. By using a sociological mode of analysis in which structured
sets of interacting social relationships were revealed, it was shown th a t the
subtle interactive and interrelated factors which gradually evolve in an
institutional setting are deeply rooted in organizational culture and structure
and are supported by vested interest groups. It was concluded th at situations
and circum stances, which people must contend with on a daily basis in
institutions, change people's behavior and attitudes in ways th at tend to
reinforce "schooling" attitudes as opposed to "educating" attitudes.
A second descriptive study which contributes to the body of
"insightful" descriptive literature is Learning to Labour (1977) by Willis. In this
case study the research question was posed: "Why do working class students end
up in working class jobs?" Learning to Labour is an ethnographic study of a
school situation describing and analyzing the inner meaning, the rationality, and
the dynamics of the cultural processes within th at setting th at a ffe ct the
65
working class youth as he makes his transition from school to work. It was
assumed that labor is not a universal transhistorical, changeless, human
activity, but th at labor takes specific forms and meaning in different societies.
It was, therefore, concluded th at
it is their own culture which most effectively prepares some working
class lads for the manual giving of their labour power; we may say th at
there is an elem ent of self-dam nation in the taking on of subordinate
roles in Western capitalistic society. However, this damnation is
experienced paradoxically as true learning, affirm ation appropriation,
and as a form of resistance. (Willis, 1977, p. 3)
By faithfully recording the dialogues of the students which capture the
unique meanings, the innuendos, the unspoken fears and hopes of these students,
the factors which lead them to accept lower class jobs was revealed.
The principal visible criterion is th at the particular job must pay good
money quickly and offer the possibility of "fiddles" and "perks" to
already acquired smoking and drinking habits and to nourish the sense
of being "on the inside track" of knowing "how things really work."
Work had to be a place, basically where people are "alright" and with
whom a general cultural identity can be shared. (Willis 1977, p. 96)
The practices and procedures in the school culture became the
objective basis through which subjective and cultural processes were affirm ed
and supported. The final statem ent of the study reiterated the finding
regarding the hidden curriculum in schools.
The particular scope and meaning of the role of institutions in
reproduction may be less to do with their form al nature and m anifest
communications than with the unintended and often unseen results of
their relationships and habituated patterns of interaction with located
and informal cultures. (Willis, 1977, p. 176)
Another descriptive study which has provided valuable insights on a
current educational problem is described in a book called Teachers Versus
Technocrats (1977) by W olcott. This study revealed the growing division th at
continues to exist between teachers and technocrats. This situation became
66
critical during the im plem entation of a m andated federal program called PPBS,
an acronym for planning-program m ing-budgeting-system .
The project was an outgrowth of the trend toward accountability th at
gained momentum in the late sixties, first in the federal governm ent,
and later in public education. Specifically, the project was an attem p t
to devise a comprehensive system th at would help schools plan,
budget, operate, and evaluate their to tal educational program.
(Wolcott, 1977, p. 1)
W olcott was called on to evaluate the program and his descriptive account
uncovered what had long been suspected: "m oiety," defined as "one of two
mutually exclusive divisions of a group," existed among the teachers and
technocrats and was heightened in the im plem entation of this program . The
term "moiety" taken by W olcott from anthropological studies on the Tewa
community was applied to the educational situation in the analysis and revealed
the kinds of divisions between the technocrats (those com m itted to rational
models of curriculum) and teachers (those com m itted to "educating" models of
curriculum). This descriptive study clearly showed th at the goals of "schooling"
as upheld by the technocrats in a school setting were opposed to the goals of
"educating" as upheld by the teachers. In the im plem entation of PPBS in this
particular school setting, the participants were not "partners in a venture, but
victim s in th at venture" (Wolcott, 1977, p. xi).
The final book chosen for this section deals with m aintaining the
status quo in American schools, an im portant existing problem in schools today.
Peshkin in Growing Up American (1978) revealed all the factors in a school
setting th at made the relationship betw een school and community mutually
beneficial, but in this study he also showed the effects the M ansfield
comm unity, a stable rural conventional comm unity, had on Mansfield High
School's policies and traditions. Although M ansfield High School was portrayed
67
more as a haven than an anachronism, Peshkin adm its th at m aintaining the
status quo in high schools can stifle or restric t behavior in other settings. So
involved were the participants in the m aintenance of their subgroup in
American society th at they disregarded the reality of the highly mobile world
of transient personal relationships where social com m itm ents are "ad hoc" and
alienation is common (Peshkin, 1978). Peshkin, who was concerned with the
reality of the existence of millions of Mansfield high schools, which rigidly
maintain the status quo in the midst of extrem e change throughout the U.S.,
called for more case studies of particular schools so th at the fact th at
maximizing intellectual achievem ent and maintaining a high intergenerational
stability can be seen as incom patible and that the fac t th at schools like
Mansfield High School with their traditional customs and practices (football
games, proms, static curriculum) are failures. They can "school" but they can
never "educate."
Summary
In summarizing the theory and practice regarding descriptive studies,
a review of the literature reveals the following facts:
1. There is a growing acceptance among educators for descriptive studies
in preference to em pirical studies since it is seen th at through the
refining of the methodology of descriptive studies, education with
teachers as leaders will "come of age."
2. The growing acceptance of descriptive studies has resulted mainly
from the acknowledgment th at education is a complex process which
68
can be reform ed only when insights into the to tal process have been
studied.
3. The highly flexible, undefined methodology of descriptive studies
which draws from many disciplines makes it adaptable to the study of
unique educational programs.
4. The lim itations of descriptive studies—its specificity, its inclination to
bias, its lack of contrasting situations, e tc .—are overridden by its
strengths, namely, th at "recom mendations entailed in qualitative eval
uations may thus be based on direct perceptions of causality and
meaning, which may in tim e prove to be the basic need for substantial
improvement of American schools" (Willis, 1978, p. 8).
The review of four descriptive studies in this section showed the positive
contribution th at actual studies in real educational settings made to the body of
research defined as accounts of "direct experience, resulting in new insights and
classifications" for persisting educational problems. Problems of organizational
structures, the influence of the hidden curriculum , the dichotomy between
teacher's goals and adm inistrator's goals, and the influence of a status quo
position m aintained in schools were carefully analyzed and documented in these
descriptive studies in a manner not possible in quantitative studies.
This study, therefore, in view of the scope of methodologies, the need
for descriptive studies in education, the status of descriptive studies in
education, has chosen this approach for the study of the Optional Learning
Program . Through this methodology the interrelated structures which affect
the new roles given to the facilitato r and the learner in a new learning
environm ent broadly viewed as the entire learning milieu can be revealed.
69
Review of the L iterature
on Reform Recommendations for the High School
To conclude this chapter on the review of literatu re, the literature of
form al reports which contain recom m endations for the reform of the high
school during the past ten years are presented in this section. This review of
reports which contain recom mendations for reform of the high school reflect
the broad direction of the changes im plem ented in the Optional Learning
Program during its six years of existence.
The following reports are reviewed in this section:
1. The American High School Today (1959a) by J. B. Conant, the first
report on high schools presented to interested citizens; and a
representative rebuttal to the recom m endations in Conant's report
from Edgar Z. Friedenberg in Coming of Age in Am erica (1963);
2. The Reform of Secondary Education by the National Commission on
the Reform of Secondary Education (B. F. Brown, Chairman), (1973):
Youth: Transition to Adulthood by the President’ s Science Advisory
C om m ittee (Jam es Coleman, Chairman), (1974): The Education of
Adolescents by the National Panel on High Schools and Adolescent
Education (J. H. M artin, Chairman), (1974); and a representative
rebuttal to these recom mendations Youth Policy in Transition, by
Timpane, Abramowitz, Bobrow, & Pascal, a Rand Report (1976);
3. The Transition of Youth to Adulthood: A Bridge Too Long (1980) by
the National Commission on Youth (B. F. Brown, chairman); and a
series of reports of the sixth form in British education.
70
The sixth form is the British equivalent of the American senior high school.
This sixth form in Britain has been characterized by change and innovation. In
fac t, many of the recom mendations suggested by Am erican national educational
com m ittees have been incorporated into actual practice in this sixth form .
Although educators in Am erica enthusiastically adopted and implemented
recommendations from national educational commissions in the beginning,
today in spite of the urgent tone surrounding these recom mendations, most
educators are unaware of the existence of these recom mendations or look on
them with fear and suspicion. A review of the British sixth form is presented
here in order to bring out the fa c t th at the recom mendations of these
com m ittees are not radical attem pts to overthrow the long-established public
school system in Am erica, but are instead p art of the natural process of change
th at must be implemented in any system of education.
Recommendations from National Commissions on the
Reform of Secondary Education
Historically, the American high school did not take its place as the regular
continuation of the elem entary school until the later part of the 19th century.
Up to this tim e, high schools were places where the select few could prepare
for college entrance. In the early 20th century, however, high schools entered
into the spirit of larger social reform . The reform movement called
progressivism reached into the high schools with a report from the National
Education Association (NEA) called Cardinal Principles of Secondary Education
(1918). These cardinal principles, seven in number, sought to broaden the
academ ic curriculum of the secondary school so as to provide a comprehensive
curriculum to m eet the needs of all American youth. This action—the issuing of
71
recom mendations for high schools by national educational commissions— -was to
be repeated several tim es during the 20th century when a national crisis seemed
em inent.
Such was the case in 1958 with the launching of Sputnik by the
Russians. The American high school becam e the focus for reform in this
national crisis. Jam es Bryant Conant, the past president of Harvard— -that
honorable institution which had set the tone for much of what was taught in
high schools during the past hundred years--m et the challenge swiftly and
deftly.
It was a period of crisis in American education. . . .In this context
Jam es Bryant Conant issued his report in 1959 to the American people
• on The American High School Today. Calmly, Conant said th at the
comprehensive high school was a basically sound and dem ocratic
institution in need of minor repair, especially in its failure to
challenge talented youth. (Tyack, 1967, p. 362)
Conant cam e with high credentials to calm the Am erican public
regarding the status of American high schools. "At the summit of a career of
distinguished service to education and to the nation, Mr. Conant's capacity to
command public confidence is great and well-deserved," said John W. Gardner,
President Carnegie Corporation of New York (Conant, 1959a, p. ix).
Conant had system atically conducted a large scale school survey
visiting 55 high schools in 18 States. He used a 15 item checklist as c riteria to
answer his research question: "Can a school . . . provide a good general
education for all pupils as future citizens in a democracy" (Conant, 1959a, p.
15)? He then confidently issued 15 recom m endations which he felt responded to
the needs of all American high school students. Com placently, Conant
concluded his report with the following observations:
72
I believe no radical alteration in the basic pattern of American
education is necessary to improve our public high schools. . . . (p. 4)
There is no such thing as a typical Am erican high school. . . .Avoid
generalizations; recognize the necessity for diversity; get facts about your
local situation; elect a good school board; and support the efforts of the
board to improve schools. (Conant, 1959a, p. 96)
What did, in fac t, occur was that Conant's recom m endation to
consolidate small high schools into large comprehensive schools with senior
classes over 100 led to greater uniform ity and the bureaucratization of the high
school. With the increasing numbers of students in high schools, red-tape
procedures for efficiency and the specialization of teachers1 jobs became
standard procedures in the high school. M oreover, the power of the school
adm inistrator was increased. Callahan (1962) explains:
In the years betw een 1912 and 1916 school adm inistrators were
told repeatedly by leading educators th at the survey was an excellent
device to use in defense against hostile critics. . . .It was a valuable
instrum ent for obtaining money for the school, (p. 115)
In 1959, high school adm inistrators accepted Conant's 21 recom men
dations for the reform of the high school in the same spirit, and the American
public was calmed. N evertheless, these were the last set of recom mendations
which were adopted and im plem ented on a national scale for the next 20 years.
In the 1960s, educational critics like Friedenberg began to attack
reform movements in education which aimed a t providing mass education for all
American youth. In the book, Coming of Age in Am erica (1963), Friedenberg
questioned the efficacy of Conant's plan to change all high schools into
comprehensive schools. Friedenberg's research question was: "What does it cost
individuals in freedom and dignity to provide justice and equality for the
masses" (1963, p. 26)? His investigation led him to nine comprehensive high
schools where he interviewed students. He questioned the students' about their
73
values "as these affect, and are expressed in the choices they make about
school situations and their attitudes toward school and the possibilities it
affords" (Friedenberg, 1963, p. ix). His conclusions focused on the students
rather than on the school. He said, "What is learned in high school, or for th at
m atter anywhere at all, depends far less on what is taught than on what one
experiences" (Friedenberg, 1963, p. 40). He described the typical high school
which he visited as a sterile, inhuman place where personal rights were
sacrificed to the rules of the masses. Schools, he concluded, do not liberate,
but instead enslave man to a m ediocre mass culture.
Although Friedenberg's recom m endations had a fam iliar elitist ring—
the cost of justice and equality in a mass society was too great in relation to
the individual’s loss of freedom and dignity— they found a responsive audience in
the American public. Most Americans had come to acknowledge th at the
realities of the diversity in American society was not being addressed in the
public school system.
Alvin Toffler, a popular futurist, expressed it in this manner:
Today, one billion human beings, the to tal populations of the
technology-rich nations are speeding towards a rendezvous with super
industrialism . . . .What passes for education today, even in our "best"
schools and colleges is a hopeless anachronism. . . .The vast energies in
schools are applied to cranking out Industrial Men— people tooled for
survival in a system th at will be dead before they are. (Toffler, 1970,
pp. 398-399)
National educational commissions began to address these new needs.
In 1972, the International Commission on the Development of Education,
established by UNESCO under the leadership of Edgar Faure, released a
significant report called Learning to Be: The World of Education Today and
Tomorrow (Faure, H errera, Kaddoura*- Lopes, Petrosky, Rahnama, and
__________________________________________________________________________ 74
Champion, 1972). This report gave shape to the responses which educational
critics in Am erica were voicing. This International Commission called for a
restructuring of education to remove all barriers, requirem ents, and distinctions
which denied to all people access to the kinds of schools they wanted and
needed. It said th at the central purpose of education was self-education.
Students must begin to learn by teaching them selves; they must become
involved in educational decisions which a ffe ct them . They them selves must
decide what they want to learn, and how and where to learn it.
In 1973, the National Commission of the Reform of Secondary
Education chaired by B. F. Brown echoed this demand for a total reform of
education in The Reform of Secondary Education. This commission complained:
Two decades ago the cities operated the best school system s in
the United States. Today these high schools are at the bottom in
academ ic accom plishm ent. . . .Average daily attendance as a
percentage of enrollm ent runs as low as 43% in some urban schools.
Among those who do come to schools, tardiness and class cutting are
common. (National Commission on the Reform of Secondary
Education, 1973, p. 8)
This commission, therefore, issued 32 recom m endations to correct what they
perceived to be the major problem in the high school.
The Commission recognizes the historic and significant role the
comprehensive high school has played in American education.
However, it believes th at the near monopoly of secondary education by
th at institution with its relatively standardized form ats and restricted
options must now give way to a more diversified system of alternative
schools and programs. (1973, p. 99)
In 1974, two additional reports, one from the President's Science
Advisory Com m ittee Panel on Youth, Youth: Transition to Adulthood chaired
by J.S. Coleman, and another from the National Panel on High Schools and
Adolescent Education, The Education of Adolescents chaired by 3.H. M artin,
75
emphasized the need for sweeping reform s in public educational policy to
provide a wide variety of alternatives.
The heterogeneity of adolescents is greater than the institutional
structures of secondary education encompass. . . .The institutions of
adolescent education should strive to create an educational environ
m ent which honors and respects differences. This has been asserted
but not honored in the United States for alm ost a century. (National
Panel on High Schools and Adolescent Education, 1974, p. 7)
The report from the President's Science Advisory Com m ittee (1974)
broadened the argum ent by saying th at education was not lim ited to the
development of the intellect but was designed to cultivate other aspects of
m aturation necessary for successful transition to adulthood.
Since these reports posed a serious th reat to the monopoly which the public
school system had exercised in American society during the first half of the
20th century, they were not left unchallenged. The defense of the public school
system cam e from the Rand Corporation who was under contract with the
O ffice of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, D epartm ent of
H ealth, Education, and W elfare. Timpane et al. in Youth Policy in Transition
(1976) attacked these reports which called for alternatives in education in the
following way:
The task of our analysis has been to carefully go through three
national commission reports on youth and school. We have suggested
th at some of their findings are overdrawn or rest on weak research
base and th at some proposed reform s may be less necessary or feasible
than they think, or would have effects other than those intended.
(1976, p. 151)
They questioned the qualitative approach which they contrasted with
the cost efficiency approach which had become the accepted criteria for school
reform .
76
On the whole, the reports' recom m endations flow more discernibly
from qualitative judgments about the sta te of the world than from the
social science evidence addressed. . . .There is no consideration
w hatever of the economic, political, or social costs of any of the
proposals, and no consideration of their technical or m anagerial
feasibility. (Timpane e t ai., 1976, p. 13)
This report like so many other reports concerned with technical and m anagerial
feasibility called for more grants for priority and for problem areas. It
suggested th at researchers could develop program designs which would be more
in line with the American tradition of supporting one public school system of
education for all Americans rather than providing the options the commissions
called for.
The call for alternatives, however, was not to be stifled. In 1980, the
National Commission on Youth chaired by B. F. Brown issued a second report
addressed to educators, sociologists, legislators, and youth policymaking bodies.
This report called The Transition of Youth to Adulthood: A Bridge Too Long
had 27 recom m endations most of which dealt with developing new educational
environm ents for youth and the creation of a comprehensive national youth
policy emphasizing the human aspects of schooling. It called for the creation of
transition schools and optional learning centers for the final years of secondary
education.
As can be seen from this review of recom m endations from national
educational commissions, the major thrust of these recom mendations has been
toward change, diversity, and the creations of options to m eet the needs of all
American youth. Yet, the history of high schools in the United States shows a
strong resistance to change. M ost educators in American high schools would
prefer to ignore these recom m endations. In Britain, however, with their long
tradition in both the im plem entation of alternatives and the development of
77
instrum ents to evaluate these alternatives, there exists a body of literature
which addresses the outcom es of the options in the sixth form, the British
equivalent of schooling for the 16-19 age group. This body of research
addresses the outcom es of schooling sought for in the recom mendations by
recent reports on the reform of secondary schools in the United States, namely,
the creation of an adult learning atm osphere in optional learning centers,
integrating academ ic studies with career training, and including as part of
intellectual discipline, the awareness of the need for social responsibility and
self-directed learning habits.
The British Sixth Form
Although it is alm ost impossible to extrapolate from the educational
successes from one cultural educational setting to another, the insights from
this British sixth form experience sheds light on some of the positive results of
continuing to move in the direction of options.
Loosely, the sixth form in the British educational system can be
equated to the tw elfth grade in the United States on the basis th at it aims to
prepare students for college entrance exams and to com plete prerequisite
academ ic courses required by universities. Here the resem blances end since the
tw elfth grade in the United States enroll students from the ages of 17-18 on a
compulsory basis. This last year of high school in the United States has become
a year with little meaning and challenge today in a rapidly changing society.
The sixth form is optional to students betw een the ages of 16-17 and can be of a
duration from one to two years. The specific goals of this form have been
constantly under scrutiny since its creation in 1778 by Dr. Thomas Jam es
72
Rugby. It is claim ed th at this form has had a rem arkable capacity for change
and adaptation to the needs of society. (Edwards, 1970; M ichael, 1969).
Traditionally, like the American high school, the sixth form in Britain
was created to prepare select students more intensively for college entrance
exam inations. It was held in high esteem as the setting for those whose love of
learning, sense of responsibility towards oneself and others, and the skills in
leadership would be nurtured (Dean, Bradley, Choppin, Vincent, 1979). Today,
the very reason for the existence of the sixth form in relation to the needs of
students in a rapidly changing society is critically examined each year.
R ecent research on the sixth form has moved away from statistical
reports to more descriptive studies which comprehensively assess its effective
ness. A recent research project followed 4,44-8 students aged 16 plus in 45
different institutions, through a period of post-compulsory education and into
employm ent. The reports included input from school adm inistrators, parents
and students. The expectations of the student regarding the school institution
and the reasons for the choice of a particular type of institution were essential
to the study. The learning environm ent with its characteristics of freedom ,
autonomy, and adult treatm en t of students in this sixth form as well as the
educational and social backgrounds of the students in an attem p t to assess the
advantages and disadvantages of staying on in the sixth form from a societal
point of view were also an essential part of this study.
The scope of insight th at accom panied these reports on the sixth form
was the result of careful research followed by im plem entation and reevaluation
a t each stage of development. This has been possible because the research was
79
carried on by the teachers of the sixth form who were expected to set specific
goals, evaluate these goals, and reassess them each year.
It is one of the unique features of the British educational system
th at local authorities are a t liberty to introduce whatever system best
suits the needs of their locality, and it is this autonomy th at has
resulted in the diversity of secondary and post-secondary establish
m ents in existence today. (Dean e t al., 1979, p. 13)
One of the final observations made from these reports implied th at the
sixth form of the future could move in either of two directions. If the primary
goals of this form are allowed to become those in which academ ic excellence
and character building development for a select number of potential leaders in
society have priority, then the sixth form will revert to its position as a select
system at the apex of a closed, hierarchical society. But if, on the other hand,
its primary goal becomes th at of promoting effective transition to adulthood,
then it will become a system of options for all. As such, students would
experience less restrictions, more self-governm ent, and more responsibility to
self and to service to the surrounding community (Incorporated Association of
Head Masters, 1968).
The final decision to the answer to this dilemma in Britain,
fortunately, is in the hands of capable, involved teachers with experience in
descriptive research methodologies. Americans are also seeking the answer to
this vital question regarding the goals and purposes of the American high
school. U nfortunately, as the history of the leadership in education shows, the
decision for an answer to this question today may well be in the hands of
statisticians who are only interested in capturing funds for the m aterial
improvement of "schooling" processes.
80
N evertheless, by tracing the history of a series of recom mendations
from national commissions on the reform of secondary education in the United
States, along with summarizing representative rebuttals against the type of
reform s these commissions suggest, the continuing public theoretical debate
over the goals and purposes of the American high school has been documented.
In addition, the review of research on the British sixth form takes the
debate from the theoretical to the practical. Here reports from teachers,
whose skills as evaluative researchers have been developed through actual
p ractice and im plem entation in the classroom , provide insights into complex
problems in education which are only beginning to surface in American
education and/or are still being debated on the theoretical level.
Summary
This chapter proposed to review literatu re on the alternative school
movement as an agent for change in education. The literatu re on the ideology
and/or theory, on the establishm ent, and on the evaluation of alternative
schools brought out the controversies and obstacles surrounding comprehensive
changes in education.
This chapter also reviewed literatu re on the status and need for
descriptive studies in bringing about changes in education. A review of this
literatu re emphasized the benefits derived from descriptive studies which
combine theory with p ractice in the evaluation of educational innovations.
Finally, it reviewed literatu re which brought the theoretical debate on
the reform of secondary schools into the arena of national debate. The
overview of literatu re in these three areas—the alternative school movement,
81
the role of descriptive studies in evaluating changes in alternative schools, and
the recom mendations from various national commisssions on the reform of the
ligh school— has served to place the Optional Learning Program, the subject of
this study, in the perspective of these areas.
82
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, the methodology used in this study is described in
detail. Chapter II of this study attem pted to clarify the relationship between
descriptive studies and reform in education. The major argum ent of C hapter II
was th at research today has not resulted in reform in education because of its
heavy reliance on quantitative research methodology. A quantitative m ethod
ology is defined as a methodology which aims at general understandings by
identifying and quantifying a lim ited number of factors and by deriving
statistical correlations betw een these factors and statistical probabilities th at
such occur or do not occur by chance. Willis (1978) sum m arized the situation:
Since the middle 1960s Am erica has endured solemn debates in
many forms on the general topic of "Do schools make a difference?"
Failure by social scientists to find dem onstrably different effects
among various forms of school has usually been taken as indicating
th at society has overestim ated the value of form al education. Y et,
any educator is profoundly aw are a t some level of consciousness of the
very powerful and pervasive differences schools do in fac t make on the
quality of individual lives, particularly in term s of how individuals
perceive and a ct to change their environm ents. Failure by social
scientists through techniques of quantification to dem onstrate such
patently obvious differences is clear evidence of the lim itations of
such techniques or how they have been applied, not of lack of
influence or lim itations of form al education, (p. 6)
If the lim itations of quantitative research methods are so obviously
limiting in identifying conventional learning factors of form al school effective
ness, these lim itations are increased when they are used to m easure non-
conventional learning outcom es in more informal types of schooling. New
83
research methodologies are, therefore, needed to m easure the effectiveness of
non-conventional methods of learning. Since no definitive methodology exists
which can measure accurately and precisely the outcom es of learning, this
study chose to draw from the variety of methodologies found in descriptive
studies as outlined in Chapter II of this study.
In this chapter, the methodology chosen and the rationale for this
methodology are explained and serve as the basis for the narration and analysis
of what happened educationally in the Optional Learning Program during the
years from 1975-1981.
The methodology used in this study draws from the general body of
descriptive studies defined as studies which comprehensively narrate and
analyze a specific educational program so as to disclose a variety of meanings
and to generate a . variety of direct insights about a particular educational
program . N arration and analysis are used to describe the specific aspects of
the Optional Learning Program in an attem p t to identify the links betw een the
historical perspectives and the social structures—economic, political, social,
and cultural—in American society today and the learning aspects of the
Optional Learning Program . As such, this methodology is used in an effo rt to
provide insights into what kind of an educational program makes a qualitative
difference in education today (one th at affects the quality of the lives of
individuals), rather than providing statistics as to what comprises an effective
educational program.
The Optional Learning Program designed as an alternative to the
traditional school for seniors in the archdiocese of Los Angeles was chosen for
narration and analysis. The narration section of this study includes a
84
description of the theoretical foundations, the design of this Program , and the
im plem entation of this Program at the Doheny Campus of Mount St. Mary’s
College during the years from 1975 to 1981. The focus of the narration is the
changes made in organizational structures, the role of the facilitato r, the role
of the learner, and the learning environm ent of this Program as these were
affected by the goals of this Program .
The Perspective of the Teacher
The perspective chosen for the narration of this Program is th at of the
designer/director/teacher in the Program . From this key position access to the
daily aspects of the Program during the entire six years was made possible and
Dermitted a more comprehensive description of ”what happened" in this
experimental program.
The perspective of the designer/director/teacher was chosen for the
iollowing reasons:
1. This perspective provided access to external developm ental m aterials
of the Program — program evaluations and revisions; student
m aterials—study projects, form al docum ents, progress reports, notes,
letters, tapes, and m inutes from m eetings and gatherings, form al and
informal oral and w ritten discussions with the 186 student p artici
pants.
2. This perspective made possible the inclusion of hidden factors which
might be overlooked: hidden agendas, spontaneous responses, human
processes, and social pressures.
85
3. This perspective provided access to informal evaluation procedures:
interactions with school adm inistrators on the regional level, with
principals, teachers, and counselors in the traditional schools, and with
parents and students.
In this way, the teach er/n arrato r perspective brought continuity to a
complex educational process which attem pted to m eet the needs of tw elfth
grade students in a rapidly changing social environm ent during a six year period,
1975-1981. It provided consistency to the process of raising questions and
seeking solutions to existing educational dilemmas. Furtherm ore, it brought the
skills and experience of a teacher trained in traditional methods of education to
a new educational setting where contrast and comparisons could be made.
One of the most serious objections to descriptive studies is the
objection to the value bias of the narrator. This study rejects the position of
the early W ittgenstein and the logical atom ists described by Apple (1978) as a
position in which meaningful propositions are derived only from facts; in which
values cannot meaningfully enter into these propositions; and in which values lie
outside the real nature of things (p. 496). It, therefore, rejects as "relatively
unsophisticated the input/output or econom etric styles th at dom inate educa
tional research where one m easures beginnings and ends, but pays little
attention to the process of education" (Apple, 1978, p. 495). The position of
this study on values is one in which there is a direct interplay between the
values and perspective of the narrator and the content and form of the
narration. Thus, it sees the beliefs and assumptions of the narrator as essential
to the process of providing a coherent, consistent interpretation of the facts of
an educational situation. The following beliefs and/or assumptions of the
86
narrator were, therefore, included as essential components in the narration of
this particular educational process:
1. The belief th at education is defined in its broadest sense as a
transform ing process,
2. The belief th at openness as opposed to closure, diversity as opposed to
uniform ity, change as opposed to m aintaining the status quo and
liberation as opposed to conform ity are necessary to the educating
process,
3. The belief th at all persons are learners; but th at each learner has a
unique learning style which has evolved from inherent qualities and
environm ental lim itations and/or opportunities which brings the
learner to an awareness of the m aterial world and forms a part of the
collective consciousness which directs the nature of the m aterial
world,
4. The belief th at learning must be structured by a process in which a
facilitato r/ m entor provides experience, insight, im petus, and focus to
the learning situation and by a learner who critically selects those
elem ents from the learning situation which best address his/her
individual and social needs.
The Perspective of the Student
The narration section of this study also includes a summary of the
assessm ents of the Optional Learning Program by the students. This assessm ent
was obtained by adm inistering school pre- and post-attitude questionnaires to
every participant in the Program during the six years of the Program . Samples
87
of these questionnaires are included in Appendix A. The responses from these
questionnaires were reviewed and tallied. Comments from these questionnaires
which were relevant to the narration section of this study were selected and
quoted.
Although there is much controversy and debate over the value of a
student's personal assessm ent of his/her educational experience and it is,
therefore, neglected in most studies, this study chose to include comments
from students who participated in the Optional Learning Program . This
perspective allowed for an interpretation of this educational experience by
those most involved as consumers of education with a vested interest in the
outcom es. These tw elfth grade students who participated in this study had had
11 years of "schooling" experience and were especially vulnerable to the
outcom es of "schooling" a t this tim e of rapid social and economic change.
Their perspectives, therefore, took on a note of urgency and immediacy.
M artin (1981) at the Institute for Research in Human Abilities in Canada is
presently carrying on research which includes students' perspectives. He says:
It seems appropriate th at the student perspective of the schooling
experience be at the core of any evaluation of the schooling process.
In addition to the outcom es of the schooling process in term s of pass
and fail, graduate or dropout, the processes of teaching-learning and
related aspects of social interaction in the school should be analyzed
and assessed. Because of the im portance of the human side of
interaction in the school, these dimensions of school life are im portant
in them selves and they must be analyzed as such in attem pting to
determ ine whether or not a school is successful, (p.l)
Other researchers who have given attention to the student's perspec
tive on schooling include Blishen (1955), Leacock (1969), Mallery (1962),
Meighan (1978), and Nash (1973).
88
The im portance of the students’ perspective to this study was reached
early in the im plem entation stage of the Program when it becam e evident th at
the perspective of the student was an essential part of the needs assessm ent
aspect of the Program . Students who were alienated from traditional school
structures had made unsuccessful attem pts to explain their frustrations
regarding these structures. Since the Optional Learning Program ’s goal was to
m eet the academ ic, social, and em otional needs of alienated students, in an
effo rt to assess the quality of response which the Program would give to the
expressed needs of students, a questionnaire was developed. This questionnaire
was used throughout the six years as the basis for improvement and clarifica
tion of the goals of the Program .
Alienation may be seen as a result of pervasive social forces
beyond the school, such as specialization, mobility, bureaucratization,
capitalism , or other features of m odernization th at fragm ent human
experience. This perspective, though valuable in suggesting lim its to
school improvement, does not justify abandoning the effo rt to create
less alienating schools. So long as there is some possibility of
improving school life, the well-docum ented human need to diminish
alienating experiences as much as possible establishes a moral obliga
tion to work in th at direction. (Newman, 1981, p. 549)
These students' assessm ents of their educational experiences in the
Program , therefore, were essential to the narrative section of this study which
attem pted to capture the evolving, dynamic process of education.
In summary, the narration section of this study was described from the
perspective of the designer/director/teacher in this Program who had access to
the day-to-day social, economic, political, and cultural aspects of this Program
during the years of 1975-1981. The strategy for the narration process was one
in which participation, observation, interviewing of participants, and obtaining
questionnaires from students moved to sorting, selecting, and documenting
89
these m aterials. These m aterials including the students’ com m ents from their
w ritten questionnaires were then used as background m aterial for the narration
and analysis.
The Methodology of the Analysis
The analysis section of this study consists of a self-reflective process,
a process of self-consciously reflecting on the data from the narration. It
includes reflection on the historical perspectives and social structures th at
affected the design, im plem entation, and evaluation of the Optional Learning
Program.
The decision to analyze the data of the narration through a process of
self-reflection cam e from two sources: (1) the need for teachers to philoso
phize about educational issues and (2) the need to bring the process of
’conscientization" to educational situations in Am erica.
First, the need expressed in C hapter I as one in which teachers come
to view the philosophy of education as a process rather than a product of closed
systems of philosophy would be m et. By self-reflecting on the data from this
Program, the theory and practices of this Program could be clarified through
the philosophical processes of analysis, evaluation, speculation, and integration.
In this study, analysis is accomplished by locating and examining the
assumptions, beliefs, com m itm ents, and the c riteria which guided the educa
tional theory and practices of this Program . The evaluation involves identifying
and examining this criteria and assessing and judging this theory and its
im plem entation into educational practices in term s of the underlying,
supporting criteria. The speculation builds from the analysis and evaluation in
order to form ulate new premises from which more concrete, relevant goals and
90
objectives can be described for this educational program . Finally, the integra
tion unites and combines the disparate elem ents of the theory and practices of
this Program into a to tal comprehensive educational program for tw elfth grade
students in contem porary Am erican society.
Second, the need to bring the process of "conscientization" to educa
tional situations in Am erica would also be m et. "Conscientization" is the
process of awakening one's critical consciousness. It is the growing capacity to
perceive contradictions in political, econom ic, cultural, and social situations
and through a problem solving m ethod deal critically with reality, a ct on it, and
transform it. Through this process men become subjects of their destiny rather
than objects in th at destiny. As subjects, they are able to separate them selves
from their world in their own consciousness, be critical of it, and act on it in
ways th a t transform s it (Freire, 1970).
Today, in education there is a need for "conscientization" which is
generated out of the lives of the participants in education. This calls for every
aspect of the educational situation to be called into question. Freire explains:
Problem-posing education affirm s men as beings in the process of
becoming— as unfinished, uncom pleted beings in and with a likewise
unfinished reality. . . .In this incompletion and this awareness lie the
very roots of education as an exclusively human m anifestation. . . .
Problem-posing education is revolutionary futurity. Hence it is
prophetic, and as such, hopeful. Hence it corresponds to the historical
nature of man. Hence it affirm s men as beings who transcend
them selves, who move forward and look ahead, for whom immobility
represents a fatal th rea t, for whom looking at the past must only be a
means of understanding more clearly what and who they are so th at
they can more wisely build the future. (Freire, 1970, p. 72)
This need for "conscientization" in which problem-posing is an essen
tial elem ent is accomplished through a process of social analysis in which
reality is looked a t from an involved, historically com m itted position,
91
discerning the situation for the purpose of action. This process of social
analysis is described by Freire (1970) as the "circle of praxis" since it
emphasizes the on-going relationship betw een reflection and action. New
questions are raised to challenge older theories by the force of new situations.
In this "circle of praxis" there is a close relationship betw een experience, social
analysis, reflection, and planning. The lived experience of individuals are the
prim ary data; social analysis includes the exam ination of causes, consequences,
relationships, and the identification of actors in this lived experience. R eflec
tion attem pts to understand more broadly and deeply the lived experience; and
planning arises out of the experience, the analysis, and the reflection. (Holland
& Henriot, 1980).
The case study method which is the method chosen for this study
allows for each of these processes— experiencing, analyzing, reflecting, and
planning to become a part of the study. Apple (1978) explains it in the
following manner:
Thus I am asking the authors of these studies /xase studieCJ to
traverse a rather thorny path th at is filled with very hard personal
decisions. If their work is to make the fullest possible sense, they
need to pass from the psychological to the social, from the social to
the political-econom ic, and then dialectically "back" to the individual.
For, all these are embedded with the other. They do not exist
separately but in continual inter-penetration and relation, (p. 519)
Therefore, in this study of the Optional Learning Program , the process
of philosophizing on an educational situation by a teacher, the process of
"conscientization" in which experiencing, analyzing, reflecting, and planning
form a "circle of praxis," and, finally, the choice of the case study methodology
are the foundation through which the theory and practices of the Optional
Learning Program are analyzed.
92
H istorical Perspectives and Social Structures
The analysis of this Program also includes the process of bringing into
sharper focus the following historical perspectives and social structures in
Am erican society which affected the im plem entation of this Program .
The discussions in C hapter I and II on "schooling" and "educating"
pointed out certain historical perspectives on which the following conclusions
about schooling practices in Am erican society can be made. H istorically, as has
been discussed, schooling was governed by the underlying m etaphor of an
efficient factory. Schools, however, were authoritarian or hierarchical,
controlled a t the top with little participation from the bottom . The specific
aspects of the schooling process—teachers, students, curriculum —were subor
dinated and organized around the common good—universal education. Since
order and harmony were the basic social virtues instilled in all participants in
the educational process, challenge to the order of schools was looked on as
deviant.
The following social structures in schools were also identified. The
social structure which exerted the greatest influence in schooling was its
economic structure since educational institutions as consumers of funds had no
profit base. M oreover, this economic structure allowed for very little input
from the sources of these funds for their disposition. Politically, authority was
form ally organized into central, regional, and local districts, but authority in
schools also was extended to include some dem ocratic processes through the
establishm ent of educational com m ittees made up of interest groups and
networks.
93
Schooling in Am erica, w hether public or church-related, is hier
archical in structure. Sanctioning bodies and controlling agencies spell
out certain functions, policies, and practices for schools. Unfortun
ately, these societal guidelines are not a t a consistent level of
generality and of specificity. (Goodlad, 1967, p. 74)
The social structures in school included parents vis-a-vis the main
stream of social thought regarding education—equity, quality, and efficiency.
The adolescent peer group relationship was essential to the schooling process,
and a t tim es becam e more vocal than th at of the teacher whose role becam e
th at of a bureaucrat in this system of schooling. Culturally, the school was
identified as the means for individual and social im provem ent. Thus, "the good
life" with its increasing emphasis on m aterial prosperity was symbolized
through diplomas, grades, certification papers, and degrees. These symbols of
the "good life" were a unifying basis for the diverse cultural groups who
participated in the "schooling" experience.
By identifying these historical perspectives and social structures in
which the Optional Learning Program evolved, the major aspects of the
Program —its organizational structures, the role of the facilitato r, the role of
the learner, and the learning environm ent— could then be examined and
contrasted.
The rationale for using this strategy in the analysis of the Optional
Learning Program was threefold:
1. To stress a particular radical perspective which was unaligned with the
m ainstream perspective so as to dem ystify social, political, economic,
and cultural structures in relation to an educational program,
94
2. To provide a more intellectual basis for decisions by educational
groups who are called upon to make critical decisions regarding issues
in education,
3. To liberate educational decision-making groups from their historical
role as objects and to restore them to their role as subjects of history
(Freire, 1970).
The groups identified as educational decision-m akers in this study are
the American public and Catholic educators. Among the decisions which the
Am erican public is now being called on to make are the following: support for
the back-to-basics m ovem ent, increased standardization of schooling through
com petency testing, the use of drugs and violence in schools, and the collection
and the distribution of school monies. Catholic educational groups are also
being called on to make critical decisions regarding the following issues in
Catholic education: the recruitm ent of religious and/or lay teachers and
adm inistrators, the financial support for Catholic high schools and colleges, the
goals for curriculum development in light of the explosion of the knowledge
base, the creation of school boards as advisory bodies, and the m eeting of the
needs of a diverse student population which is becoming less Catholic.
Finally, this strategy was used in this study to foster positive
responses rather than negative responses to problems in education. Too long
have educators used the negative responses of fear, austerity, rigidity, elitism ,
and doomsday prophecies to solve educational issues and questions. Today, in a
new age of lim its, the American public is calling for positive responses in which
the use of creativity, variety, and openness will bring new solutions and options
to education.
95
Conclusion
This study drew its methodology from the body of descriptive studies
which allows for scope (an educational situation is placed within the fram ework
of a larger educational framework); for depth (the interacting structures are
examined not just for outcom es, but for what makes a difference in education);
:or attention to the actual process of education (values are included as
meaningful to the educational program described); for analysis (the historical
perspectives and the social structures are identified as they relate to this
educational program); and for treatm en t of form as well as of content (the
facts about an educational program as well.as the feelings and sets of perceived
ways of responding to reality in this educational experience are reported).
This methodology, therefore, responds to the need to capture the
uiman experience as part of the educational experience, the need to sharpen
sensitivities to the contrariness of the human predicam ent as it actually exists
n education; and the need to report the essential rather than the efficient in
education (Willis, 1978).
96
CHAPTER IV
THE PLANNING STAGE
OF THE OPTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAM
IN THE CONTEXT OF CATHOLIC EDUCATION
This chapter describes the planning stage which led to the opening of
the Optional Learning Program in the fall of 1975 for seniors in Catholic high
schools in the diocese of Los Angeles. The history of Catholic education in
Am erica is sketched briefly so as to establish the links and distinctions between
the goals and purposes of Catholic high schools and public high schools in
Am erican society today. The history of the planning stages of the Optional
Learning Program as it relates to the educational history of the Sisters of St.
Joseph in Los Angeles is traced. Finally, an overview of the educational theory
and the structural plan for im plem entation of an optional learning program for
tw elfth grade students is presented in this chapter.
Catholic Education In Am erica
In order to place the Optional Learning Program in the broader
perspective of the C atholic system of education, a brief summary tracing the
thrust and direction which this system took in the history of Am erican society
is essential.
The early history of C atholic education shows th a t Catholic schools
played an im portant role in American education both as the means of instilling
the Catholic faith in its members and in extending the freedom s promised to all
97
Am ericans through schooling. Thus, C atholic groups established Catholic
schools to extend freedom to Am erican Catholics.
The history of C atholic education in Am erica, like the history of
the Church itself, is a story of survival and adaptation. From the first
years of the Colonial period to the sta rt of the Revolution, the
Catholic Church lived in the catacom bs. As a group, Catholics were
suspected and feared; as individuals, they lived their lives alm ost
com pletely outside the principal cultural and political currents. They
were denied freedom to worship, to take part in civic affairs, and to
educate their children. (McCluskey, 1964, pp. 2-3)
This thrust toward helping Catholics obtain their freedom was also
evident from 1840 to 1900 when the mass influx of im m igrants in Am erica
threatened the security and freedom s of the more established, middle-class
Americans. C atholic schools served to protect and shelter these im m igrant
children from the ram pant oppression and exploitation in American society
during this tim e. In small ghettoes throughout Am erica, therefore, im m igrant
children, largely from French and Irish descent, learned about their Catholic
religion and about freedom and dem ocracy in C atholic parochial schools. These
first generation im m igrants moved on to attend Catholic high schools and
colleges which were less Catholic but which, nevertheless, prepared them to
move into the m ainstream of Am erican society. Havighurst claim ed th at
"Catholic higher education was a major instrum ent in the upward mobility of
the C atholic population and was profoundly influenced by the process" (1967,
p. 5).
These Catholic colleges and high schools, however, had become elitist
institutions in Am erica. Since these schools had their roots in Europe, they had
a rich tradition of clerical and religious activity in education.
In many European countries the schools of religious teaching groups,
such as the Brothers of the Christian Schools and the Jesuits, have
always been held in high regard. A convent-school education for girls
98
has always been considered by affluent Catholics (and often non-
C at ho lies) to confer a special cachet. Consequently, congregations of
teaching nuns and brothers were invited over from Europe. Dozens of
native American congregations were founded. The service of these
dedicated women and men made it possible to open schools on a scale
undreamed of. (McCluskey, 1964, p. 28)
What did happen, in fac t, was th a t these high schools and colleges
never lost their European flavor with their distinctive goal to train the elite for
positions of leadership in society. The C atholic philosophy of education which
was given the name of Thomistic educational philosophy as im plem ented in the
schools of Jesuits provided the foundation for educational practices in these
Catholic high schools in Am erica. This sam e philosophy transferred from
Europe to Am erica by religious orders was to guide educational practice in
Catholic high schools and colleges in Am erica during the first half of the 20th
century since it responded to the needs of the first group of im m igrants in
becoming the means for social mobility for them .
But, for the second group of im m igrants who cam e to Am erica in the
20th century— the Slavs, the Poles, the Italians, the French-Canadians, and the
Spanish speaking groups—C atholic high schools and colleges did not respond to
their social needs. By this tim e, the aura of elitism in these institutions proved
to be restrictive to these groups. Havighurst explains, "the earlier function of
these schools of m aintaining ethnic cohesion and separation was set against the
emerging function of assisting social mobility and social assim ilation" (1967,
p. 7).
N evertheless, three Plenary Councils in 1852, 1866, and 1884 in
strongly urging th at Catholic schools be established for all Catholics tried to
redirect the purpose of C atholic schools away from the goal of education as the
means to social mobility. In 1918, these exhortations were given the status of
99
law when they were incorporated into the Code of Canon Law, a binding legal
code for Catholics.
Canon 1374. Catholic children may not attend non-Catholic, neutral,
or mixed schools, th a t is, those which are open to non-Catholics. It is
for the local bishop to decide, in accordance with the instructions of
the Holy See, under what circum stances and with what precautions
against perversions, attendance at such schools be allowed.
(McCluskey, 1964, p. 176)
Although the canon showed unnecessary concern with moral contam ination from
other American educational institutions, its major thrust was to provide
universal education to all Catholics. The history of Catholic high schools in
southern California explains how this m andate was im plem ented in Los Angeles
and how the conflict betw een ethnic protection and social mobility was
resolved.
Since 1900, the flood of population to Southern California continued
unabated. Catholic bishops attem pted to m eet the need for Catholic schools by
establishing elem entary schools in what were then called diocesan plans.
Diocesan plans usually involved only the establishm ent of elem entary schools,
but when the growth in numbers of high school Catholic students reached its
peak in 1930, Archbishop McIntyre increased the scope of the diocesan system
to include archdiocesan high schools in the greater Los Angeles area. The
staffing of these schools fell into the hands of religious orders, but with the
major adm inistrator, the high school principal, chosen from the clerics in the
diocese. Religious order teaching sisters were well prepared to staff these
schools since vocations had increased and since their educational roles in
traditional high schools had been to educate the socially mobile. The suburban
groups of Catholics where these new archdiocesan high schools were established
fit the pattern th at had been established. McCluskey explained how religious
100
orders trained teachers in great numbers to staff these growing numbers of high
schools.
The fa c t th at the young Sister lived in a convent community of
veteran teachers and was able to profit from close, friendly
supervision, counseling could be viewed as more than adequate
compensation for any delay in taking extra courses in form al
pedagogy. (1964, p. 29)
Educational practices, often described as derived from Thomistic
educational philosophy, were faithfully passed down from one generation of
teaching sisters to another; and schools, especially high schools, under the
direction of religious orders of teaching sisters, continued to have the m ark of
excellence. A far-reaching policy statem ent from the National Sisters
Form ation 1953, however, halted the staffing of archdiocesan high schools by
religious orders.
Sisters doing active works in our own tim e need a long and careful
spiritual form ation, a general intellectual training which will equip
them for a rich personal life and an effective leadership, and a precise
professional preparation which will make them the equals or superiors
of lay people doing the same kind of work. (McCluskey, 1964, p. 29)
Thus, Meng reported at the National Catholic Education Association (NCEA) in
1967 that:
Between 1954 and 1965 the percentage of religious teaching in
Catholic secondary schools decreased from 82.5 to 66. During the
same tim e the student enrollm ent in these schools increased 73.4
per cent. (1967, p. 60)
Catholic high schools were le ft, therefore, alm ost entirely in the hands
of a new core of school adm inistrators— diocesan clerics and lay teachers who
had neither the professional training nor a Catholic philosophy of education
which could guide their educational practices. The long years of teacher
training which was carefully passed down from old to new m embers of religious
orders dedicated to leadership positions in education was substituted for a
101
process of quick credentialing through sta te agencies of w ell-intentioned
Catholic volunteers who responded to the call of bishops to fill the gap created
by religious sister/teach ers who had le ft teaching in g reat numbers.
Without the rich educational tradition of religious orders, the new
educators were faced with the dilemma of providing education for all C atholic
youth who were now characterized more by diversity than by uniform ity.
A ttacks against the attem p t to im plem ent the traditional curriculum in these
high schools began alm ost im m ediately. Like their counterparts in public
schools who m et attacks from the public with rational, expedient solutions of
efficiency, the new core of school adm inistrators in C atholic schools m et
attacks against the traditional curriculum by speeding up the process of
standardization and bureaucracy in these schools. The school adm inistrators in
Catholic schools, too, soon m astered the skills of "schooling" disregarding the
a rt of "educating" which would have called for comprehensive reform s of
C atholic high schools. Instead, the com m itm ent to efficiency resulted in
m aintaining a strong status quo position in Catholic high schools. A lbert Koob,
Executive Secretary of the NCEA, lam ented th a t "it's been pointed out th at
perhaps the greatest failing of Catholic education is th a t we have not used our
freedom to experim ent" (Shaw, 1968, p. 29).
The spirit of coercion and separatism which underscored the founding
of archdiocesan high schools in 1950 which a t th a t tim e was looked on as
paternalism , in 1968 was interpreted as indoctrination to a way of life th a t was
no longer relevant to the needs of the tim e (McCluskey, 1968). The reality of
the inadequacy of providing one method of instruction to all Catholic students—
the classical m ethod—generated an in terest, therefore, in the alternative school
102
m ovem ent among Catholic educators. But, when Catholic school reform ers
suggested comprehensive changes along the lines of the alternative school, they
m et with form idable obstacles. These changes were resisted on the grounds
th a t the entire Catholic school system had existed as an alternative to public
school education throughout its history. They neglected to acknowledge,
however, th at it had been a m andated option for the past 50 years. They also
argued th a t changes in the classical curriculum were not necessary since
em pirical researchers had consistently reported C atholic school success in their
studies. They also failed to acknowledge th at these studies assessed school
success only in term s of cognitive achievem ent. They argued th at there already
existed a variety of educational options in the Catholic school system . The
newly established archdiocesan high schools had broadened the nature and
purpose of the more established academ ies allowing for "schools for the rich" as
well as "schools for the poor." H ere, too, it was not acknowledged th at the
curriculum basically addressed the needs of white middle class mobile youth.
Finally, it was argued th at a number of innovations had been experim ented with
during the past ten years which turned out to be fads rather than school
im provem ent—team teaching, innovative scheduling, work experience, and the
adoption of special programs for m inorities financed by the federal governm ent.
Educational reform ers, therefore, in C atholic schools had no basis on
which to organize. Each reform er worked in a specific educational situation
without theoretical support or practical models, with no clear direction for
C atholic schools, often "reinventing the wheel" in an attem p t to bring creative
solutions to outdated practices in Catholic education. Despite the complacency
in C atholic educational circles, Goodlad's rem ark in 1967 was more nearly true
103
than the statistical reports on which com placency in C atholic education was
based.
What I have read about the ferm ent and concern in C atholic schools,
however, suggests th at teaching and learning in the classroom of
C atholic schools are not markedly different from teaching and
learning in the public schools of the United States and th a t a search
for improvem ent is underway, (p. 69)
There was, indeed, as great a need for alternative education in the C atholic
school system as in the public school system .
The Sisters of St. Joseph of C arondelet
The Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet have had a long history of
involvement in Catholic education in the United S tates. As part of the
m ovem ent to bring quality higher education to the upward mobile im m igrant
children, these Sisters had come from France in 1836 to St. Louis. From there,
in 1870, they found their way to Tucson, and ultim ately, to Los Angeles where a
branch of this order was to thrive on native vocations up to 1960. In Los
Angeles they founded two institutions which becam e the mark of their
excellence in education—Saint M ary's Academy founded in 1889 as a select
girls' academ y in downtown Los Angeles and Mount St. Mary's College, founded
in 1925, also for the purpose of furthering the education of a select number of
C atholic girls.
In addition, these Sisters becam e involved in the Los Angeles plan to
provide Catholic education for all C atholics by staffing elem entary and high
schools in the area.
Throughout the archdiocese of Los Angeles the rapid population
increase caused many parishes to spring up. Under the direction of
Archbishop Jam es Francis Cardinal M cIntyre, the Youth Education
Fund was inaugurated to provide for growing educational needs.
104
Startling evidence of the increase in population is shown by the
number of schools opened over the period 1922-63. In 1922 there were
86 schools in the diocese and by 1963 there were 262 elem entary
schools and 75 high schools in the archdiocese. Of these the Sisters of
St. Joseph conducted 28 elem entary and six secondary schools.
(Dougherty, Hurley, Daly, & Coyne, 1966, p. 312).
As with other religious orders in the United States, their tradition of involve
m ent as leaders in Catholic schools gave these sisters the expertise to m aintain
schools of quality wherever they served, especially in urban areas where
Catholic schools becam e the means for Catholics to achieve social mobility.
In 1950 when they were called upon to participate in the archdiocesan
plan for the establishm ent of C atholic high schools in the g reater Los Angeles
area which would move their apostolate from the inner city to the suburbs,
these Sisters of St. Joseph felt th at their expertise in education would be b e tte r
exercised in schools in outlying districts, and so moved in the direction of
staffing archdiocesan high schools and elem entary schools opening in these
areas.
The result of this decision is perhaps best traced in the experience of
these Sisters in one archdiocesan high school, St. Joseph’ s High School in
Lakewood, which exem plifies the intent and purpose of this decision.
Archdiocesan high schools were largely co-educational institutions directed by
priests from the diocese of Los Angeles, but a unique set of circum stances
allowed one of these archdiocesan schools to fall under the principalship of the
Sisters of St. Joseph. Because of an existing neighboring high school for boys
under the direction of the Salesian religious order and because of the lack of
funds to finance anything except the major school building~no auditorium nor
athletic stadium — the decision was made to open an archdiocesan school, for
girls only, in 1964 in Lakewood, California.
__________ 105
In 1969 a fte r the succession of one Sister of St. Joseph as principal,
the school had attained a reputation for m eeting the needs of the students in
th at area not only satisfactorily but with the high quality characterized by most
high schools directed by the Sisters of St. Joseph.
The curriculum , however, was a classical curriculum offered to a
fairly stable group of white, middle class students who cam e from conservative
homes—mostly second-generation Dutch fam ilies oriented toward upward
mobility. As such, the parents of these students subscribed to a clear, agreed-
upon set of values for the education of their children. Large numbers of
students from diverse backgrounds which was true of inner city high schools was
not the ch aracteristic of the student population at St. Joseph, and, thus, this
school with its stable student population cam e to be a landmark of prestige in
the area.
In retrospect, what happened educationally in this school has been
described in a recent article, "Culture and Educational Achievem ent."
The crucial part played by culture as life-style in educational
achievem ent has serious im plications for the system of stratificatio n
in contem porary society, for it indicates th at there are lim its in the
power of school reform in effecting a more egalitarian society (Cohen,
1981, p. 283).
Cohen explained th at when a school is in an enclave with a strong
predom inant culture, the parents are in a position to exert strong pressure on
the school to teach the way they want. Usually the curriculum becomes elitist
since the parents are concerned th at their children are b e tter than others or
special. Thus, the use of uniforms and the classical curriculum becomes the
special mark of the school. The use of these special marks are justified with
the rationale th at uniforms equalize all children in the school and th at the
106
classical curriculum with its emphasis on strong discipline creates a spirit of
loyalty to the school. These rationalizations cover up the fa c t th a t upward
mobility is the driving power behind the educational practices. The awe of the
school adm inistrator for discipline, order, and efficiency—the easily observable
and countable effects of traditional education—cover up the fa c t th a t the needs
of the individual child are sacrificed to this overall cause which is called
m aintaining the status quo.
, The second principal a t St. Joseph’s High School did, in fac t, attem p t
to change the status quo position and to m eet the needs.of the students by
attem pting to broaden the curriculum through the introduction of new courses,
team teaching, innovative scheduling, and work experience programs. The
parents of the students a t St. Joseph, fearful th a t these innovations would
jeopardize their children's chances to attend college, influenced their children
to select the more form al classical curriculum . Thus, although St. Joseph's
High School had the reputation of being an exam ple of excellence in Catholic
high school education in the Los Angeles suburbs, the subtle tie betw een the
m ark of excellence on a school with a traditional curriculum and the driving
force of upward m obility on parents was not often an awareness through which
school adm inistrators made decisions. R ather this subtle tie was the m otivating
factor in forcing adm inistrative academ ic decisions. This situation was not
unique to this particular C atholic high school.
*
The Planning Stage of the Optional Learning Program
At this tim e, an attem p t to bring the educational practices of the
Sisters of St. Joseph more in line with current educational practices evolved
107
from a unique set of events. Until 1975, the educational adm inistrative
structure of the Sisters of St. Joseph included a supervisory position for one of
the sisters with the title of D irector of Secondary Education. The D irector
during the years from 1968 to 1974 encouraged the form ation of educational
task forces to study the problems in secondary schools where the sisters taught
in Los Angeles. One of these task forces becam e involved in developing an
alternative school. The initial inspiration for the plan for an alternative high
school cam e from the sisters elected by their faculties to represent their
concerns on this task force. The proposal was:
To establish an alternative secondary school program at the House
of Studies and Mount St. M ary's College location. This program would
be offered to the above average student who is capable of independent
work and who has fulfilled the requirem ents required by the school. It
is for (1) the student who wishes to enter the field of her choice as
upperclassm en rather than waiting until high school graduation; (2) the
student who works or travels and is in need of a different schedule;
and (3) the student who no longer finds interesting or beneficial the
existing high school educational and activities program . (A lternative
School Proposal, May, 1973)
The rationale for this proposal was as follows:
—The need for programs of educational leadership th at will provide
innovation both for the sisters working in secondary schools and also
for the com m unities served by the school,
— The availability of college and community resources in the area,
—The opportunity for a real CSJ cooperative endeavor,
— The benefit to Mount St. Mary's College and to the Sisters of St.
Joseph's secondary schools,
—The availability of part tim e sisters as personnel,
—The opportunity for sisters in form ation to participate in religious or
other functions,
—The use of existing facilities a t the House of Studies.
(A lternative School Proposal, May, 1973)
A second proposal was presented on July 2, 1973 to the Provincial
Council of the Sisters of St. Joseph. It read:
To include as part of the existing St. Mary's Academy an altern ate
campus located in the west wing of the House of Studies.
108
The rationale for this proposal is as follows:
—Location convenient to Mount St. Mary's College, UCLA, and other
community resources pertinent to the types of program s th at could be
offered,
—Opportunity for students to enter the field of their choice as upper
secondary school classmen,
—Community endeavor,
—Good utilization of existing buildings,
—Use of part-tim e personnel,
— Benefit to the CSJ Community high schools.
The Secondary Task Force requests approval to form a com m ittee
to study the above proposal. (A lternative School Proposal, from the
Secondary Task Force to the Provincial Council, July 2, 1973)
The D irector of Secondary Education encouraged by the enthusiastic
response of the sisters in secondary education interview ed the President of the
College and the D irector of the House of Studies for approval of the use of the
House of Studies for this purpose. An enthusiastic affirm ation included offering
the college facilities for the boarding of these students and the use of the skills
of two college adm inistrators as consultants.
In August, 1973, a discussion with the members of the Provincial
Council, the highest legislative body in the Los Angeles area who were
empowered to act on this proposal, was held. A working d raft proposal dated
March 3, 1974, was presented to the Provincial Council. See Appendix B for a
com plete copy of this draft. It was sum m arized in the following manner:
The purpose of the alternative school in general is to provide a
school which differs significantly from the conventional school in
curriculum , instructional practices, and goals. It seeks to make more
extensive use of community resources and facilities, is more flexible,
and is most often com paratively small.
The instructional program will be geared entirely to individual
need. Requirem ents, the granting of the diploma, and accreditation
are areas which still need to be worked out. We see the school as
prim arily, but not solely, serving the eleventh and tw elfth graders in
secondary schools who would be interested in an alternative form of
education.
Maximum enrollm ent for the first year would be 30, minimum 20.
The staff would consist of one full-tim e director and one part-tim e
assistant. Hopefully, volunteer assistants would be available: parents,
109
college students, etc. The location is still a m atter of discussion, with
the House of Studies as a possibility, although we intend to view the
entire city as a "school." The school would be financed by student
tuition com parable to what is charged in other Catholic high schools.
O ther modes of funding would also be investigated. (Summary of
Proposal for A lternative Secondary School subm itted to the Provincial
Council, Los Angeles, March, 1974)
With the proposal approved for im plem entation, a search for someone
who would design and im plem ent these ideas began. A search among the acting
sister/adm inistrators revealed a reluctance on the part of these experienced
adm inistrators to move in this direction. Volunteers from the sisters-at-large
who were teaching in secondary schools were solicited and from this group the
D irector was chosen.
This sister/director for the proposal had the following credentials. She
had received her education from a Catholic parochial elem entary school in Los
Angeles and from the secondary school, Saint Mary's Academy. From here she
entered the Sisters of St. Joseph where her training for a career in teaching
included the close personal contacts with other more experienced
sister/teach ers in the Order and from a series of professional courses studied
while teaching during a period of five years from 1953 to 1958. The first
assignm ent to teach was a t M anhattan Beach, a middle class California beach
town. Here she taught grades 1, 2, and 6 over the five year period when she
was also studying for a B.A. degree in history, English, and Spanish a t Mount St.
Mary's College. A fter receiving this degree, she was assigned to teach a t St.
Joseph's High School in P rescott, Arizona. This school, a Catholic boarding
school for girls, was unique in Catholic education a t th at tim e. In an effo rt to
save this school from a declining enrollm ent, young men from P rescott and
young girls from nearby Las Vegas were adm itted into the school. The
110
enrollm ent in 1958 totalled about 100 students— boys and girls. Only a small
number of sisters were assigned to adm inister and to teach a full secondary
classical curriculum a t this school. This necessitated having each of the sisters
teach on a t least two grade levels in three different subject areas and to
supervise a heavy load of extracurricular activities for the students and
boarders.
A fter three years a t this high school which had allowed her to gain
enough theory and practice to apply for a secondary credential from the State
of California, this sister was transferred to an all girls' select academ y, Our
Lady of Peace in San Diego. This assignm ent was also characterized more by
diversity than by speciality—the teaching of world history, religion, Spanish I,
II, and III on two different grade levels. Again, the heavy load of e x tra
curricular activities included the supervision of boarding students.
In 1964, an opening in a school conducted by th^ Sisters of St. Joseph
in Tsu, Mie Ken, Japan, gave this Sister the opportunity to work in education in
a foreign culture where school was the prim ary means of upward mobility. In
1964, she studied for an M.A. degree in Education with specialities in English
and Spanish while also studying Japanese. In 1965, she finished her studies in
Japanese and taught for three years in a Japanese high school. In 1968, she
returned to teach a t Saint Mary's Academy for one year and for six years a t
Saint Joseph's Lakewood. She was made D irector of the A lternative School
project in 1975.
The conflict betw een parents who saw the traditional school as the
nrieans to upward mobility and students who were rebelling against the
ambitions of their parents which this sister had experienced both in Japan and
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ U L i
at St. Joseph's High School led this sister to join the educational task force of
the Sisters of St. Joseph in 1973-74. Here she hoped this problem would be
addressed in the planning of an alternative school.
In M arch, 1974, along with the approval for the form ation of an
alternative school from the Provincial Council cam e the resignation of the
D irector of Secondary Education from this position and the reorganization of
the governm ent structure of the Sisters of St. Joseph. In this new plan the
D irector of Secondary Education cam e under a broader Service S ecretariate.
The final act of the outgoing D irector of Secondary Education, nevertheless,
was to assign a sister/director for the alternative school. A le tte r dated May
31, 1974 sum m arizes the a ttitu d e of the secondary school sisters:
Everyone was quite enthusiastic when they heard th at you have
volunteered. The Provincial Council has also approved. Consequently,
we are planning on the fac t th a t you will be released in the second
sem ester of the next year— February, 1975 —in order to work on
further study of the feasibility of the alternative school. Also, during
th at tim e you will be spending tim e attending workshops, visiting other
alternative schools and in general doing research into innovative/alter
native form s of education....I am sure exciting things will result from
your study and involvem ent during the second sem ester. (L etter from
the D irector of Secondary Education)
Releasing a sister from her regular teaching assignm ent in a tradi
tional school, however, was a sensitive issue a t this tim e since a great number
of sister/ teachers disillusioned by teaching were leaving this field for more
action-oriented apostolic fields. N evertheless, from February to June of 1975
this sister/d irecto r was released from her teaching duties to visit alternative
schools in C alifornia, to attend workshops, to interview various adm inistrators
of alternative program s, and to prepare the final d raft for approval. This draft
included a new proposal, its rationale, the specific goals for an optional learning
112
program for seniors from C atholic high schools in Los Angeles, the composition
of the faculty and of the student body, the facility, its location, and the budget.
In examining the final d raft proposal, the plan for an alternative
school had becom e a plan for an optional learning program . This final d raft was
approved by a Provincial Council from the Sisters of St. Joseph whose
membership and structure had been changed radically from those who had
initially approved the proposal for an alternative school. The Optional Learning
Program , the name by which it was then called, was no longer to be supported
by an educational task force or by a D irector of Secondary Education since this
structure had been incorporated into a new structure titled the Service
S ecretariate. Under this se cre tariate all the services of the Sisters of St.
Joseph—hospitals, schools, and other m inistries—were assigned for review to
the sister who directed this Service S ecretariate. Thus, accountability in the
form of reporting the progress of the Optional Learning Program to the
Provincial Council was assigned to the Service S ecretariate Sister.
The draft presented by the Service S ecretariate Sister was approved
by a new governing body of Sisters, many of whom were not fam iliar with the
history of the Optional Learning Program . N evertheless, they agreed to sponsor
the program by contributing $2,000 from the educational fund of the Sisters of
St. Joseph as seed money and by allowing a car owned by the Sisters to be used
by Program m em bers. The facilities at the Doheny Campus, wliich included the
use of four rooms in one of the Victorian mansions donated by Mrs. Doheny for
educational use, was approved by the college president who had also been newly
appointed to this position. All other aspects of the Program —its specific
design, its organizational structures, the specific goals and objectives of the
113
Program , its adm inistration, the hiring and training of teachers, the recruiting
of students, and the financing of this Program were left to the Sister appointed
to direct this Program .
The D irector of the Optional Learning Program , therefore, contacted
principals from ten Catholic high schools in the Los Angeles area during the
summer of 1975 with the approval of the superintendent of archdiocesan
schools. U ltim ately, because of the autonomous nature of each high school in
Los Angeles, only four C atholic schools agreed to participate in the Program
during the fall sem ester of 1975. The principals from these schools agreed to
release ten senior students from their schools for one year on the condition th a t
the basic requirem ents for graduation be com pleted under the direction of the
teachers in the Program . This included teaching one year of religion, one year
of English, and one sem ester of governm ent to all the students. Students would
be free to elect any other courses which would com plete the to tal of 60 units
for the senior year. Students would be allowed to graduate from the home
school and to participate in sport and social activities a t the home school during
the school year. Fees were to be paid to the home school but the sam e tuition
rate from the homq school would be paid to the Optional Learning Program .
Brochures were sent home to the senior students and 34 students responded
enthusiastically. With the plan approved, the facilities prepared for use, the
director's, the two facilitato rs', and the 34 students’ roles defined, the Optional
Learning Program was ready for im plem entation in the Fall of 1975.
114
The Educational Theory of the
Optional Learning Program
The year 1975 m arked a year of despair and a year of hope for
educators. "To provide a m eaningful education" for Am erican students in the
1970s in social term s, could only mean acknowledging a variety of life styles, a
wide range of values, and the use of drugs. It m eant fighting against the
prevailing negative spirit of the tim es fostered and nurtured by the questioning
and debunking of traditions, against the rem nants of hippy ideas, and against
negative reactions toward governm ent.
In educational term s, however, "to provide a meaningful education"
could mean hope for some educators. The alternative school m ovem ent had
survived its first critical years. From its many differing configurations,
"educating" rather than "schooling" practices had em erged as needed changes in
education (Toffler, 1974). Educational program s, inspired by this movement,
were reaching out to m eet the needs of the student; efficiency in schooling was
being questioned and rejected as a goal for education. Most im portantly, the
question: "What is a meaningful education?" had been given a new context and
a new form through the alternative school m ovem ent. M oreover, this move
m ent had made possible a concern for school reform . A new group of
educational researchers was reporting th at education encompassed more than
just quantitative schooling practices and insisted th a t qualitative educational
experiences which included human meanings and intentions be included in
research studies.
During the years betw een 1970 to 1974, an educational task force of
the Sisters of St. Joseph dream ed of forming an ideal school for high school
115
students. Could it be done? Could a school in which teachers and students
would come to love learning and be inspired to seek truth at all costs be
designed? The idea was tem pting; and within the context of the new school
movem ent which was sweeping the country, the tim e, the place, and the
atm osphere was right for a beginning. The idea began to take shape, doors
opened, plans evolved, and by the fall of 1975, the Optional Learning Program
was ready for im plem entation a t the Doheny Campus of Mount St. Mary's
College in the heart of Los Angeles.
The goals of the Program sought to address the gap between schooling
experiences and the real world. The "real" world was coming to be ch aracter
ized by an ever impending crisis situation. Its organization was as follows:
econom ically, the increasing emphasis on technology allowed for unlim ited
choices in life styles and for the opening of new career opportunities. The
rising cost of lim ited resources, however, was creating a new outlook on life.
Politically, there was a shrinking of world boundaries as world monopolies and
control by corporations gained in influence and power. Socially, the real world
allowed for greater freedom s in personal life styles and for diversity, but man's
interdependency demanded acknowledgment. C ulturally, man's dream s, myths,
and symbols increasingly centered on affluence and on capturing a share of the
lim ited m aterial resources. A uthority in the real world cam e from interactions
with peoples from diverse cultures and interaction with sophisticated media
techniques which brought authority figures (superstars) into the home (Holland
and Henriot, 1980).
In this "real" world, the learner was experiencing not only greater
freedom , greater realization of his/her individuality, but also greater alienation
116
from traditional form s. The explosion of the knowledge base and the "hidden
curricula" of life itself in Am erican society led the learner to m eet his personal
needs through the use of alcohol and drugs.
Traditionally, the school had attem pted to prepare the student for
adulthood by handing down cherished traditions and socializing the student to
accepted standards of behavior. In the 1960s, many schools were still
characterized by an attitu d e of "m aintaining the status quo." A review of the
basic tenets of this position read as follows: the organizational theory
demanded th a t an external learning structure be created by experts who could
give form to the "classical" curriculum . This theory had resulted in the
creation of large bureaucratic schools with order and discipline as the prim ary
goals. Students were organized into classroom s with 50 m inute class periods
and given quantity tasks to perform . The outcom e of this organization was
believed to be efficiency, order, and standardization. Success was reported in
countable m easures which ultim ately led to the belief th at "schooling" practices
were synonymous with "educating." Concern over the negative effects of this
organization brought innovations in scheduling—block scheduling and reducing
the school day to a 9:00 a.m . to 12:00 a.m . study schedule which would allow for
afternoon work experience. "Schooling" was extended to include junior college.
T heoretically in the traditional school, the teacher was regarded as
the conserver of a body of knowledge which was common to all mankind. The
teacher was, therefore, expected to be the source of all knowledge in the
classroom , an efficiency expert who could cover the m aterial in a textbook
adequately for all students, and an evaluator who made decisions about a
student's future academ ic pursuits through the "objective" m easures of testing
117
and grading. This role description created in teachers, a com placency about
"tried" educational practices, made the teacher reliant on "objective" m easures
for success in school, and allowed for authoritarian practices, conservative
attitudes, and the dogm atic treatm en t of truth.
M oreover, the student was expected to soak up knowledge from this
expert teacher and release it to him /her on command. Thus, the student
becam e a passive, conforming learner who sought to absorb knowledge, was
m otivated by com petition for grades, and was conditioned to the one best way
of learning. The outcom es of this role for the student was rote learning,
conditioning, cheating to obtain prized grades, and/or using drugs, alcohol, or
dropping out of school to cope with school pressures. In addition, the student's
self-im age was more or less form ed by his success or failure in school. The
innovations of individualized learning contracts, perform ance based learning,
and self-pacing were introduced to allow the student to take a more active role
in learning.
Finally, since it was believed th at there was only one universal
knowledge base culled from the past, the curriculum was essentially a
"classical" curriculum which would allow for encounters with great minds of the
past brought to the student through standard textbooks in discrete subjects.
The student was, therefore, socialized to the sam e knowledge base and exposed
only to accepted knowledge and accepted interpretations. Integrated learning,
core curriculum , and "new math" and science courses were innovations which
attem pted to broaden the curriculum .
Although this summary of the major ten ets of the traditional school
em phasizes only the negative aspects of traditional schooling, these ideas
118
comprised the basic schooling experiences of the m ajority of students in the
Optional Learning Program . Repeatedly, students interview ed for the Program
and in school attitu d e questionnaires which were given to participants in the
Program expressed these ideas. In developing the educational theory of the
Program , therefore, it was necessary to develop a theory which would be in
contrast to the traditional theory. This was accomplished by developing the
theory from the overall goal of the Program . This goal was to make possible a
meaningful and relevant education for tw elfth grade students in Am erican
society in the 1970s and 1980s. This meaningful and relevant education was
further defined as providing learning experiences for a small group of 40
students, age 17 and 18, which would directly prepare him /her for transition to
adulthood. Transition into adulthood was defined as a process which begins with
an orientation to a new set of situations which lead to the acquisition of skills,
attitu d es, and values which, in turn, enable the individual to make discrim i
nating choices and decisions regarding his life style and/or choices in a career
or college attendance at the end of tw elve years of schooling.
This goal required th a t the educational theory of the Optional
Learning Program be characterized by openness, change, diversity, and freedom
with responsibility. The following structures w ere, therefore, designed. Organ
izationally, the learning stru ctu re would have to be designed by the students
who could give form to their interests, talents, and lim itations as the core of
the curriculum . This organization of the learning structure would, then,
demand th at the structure be flexible, innovative, participative in order to
include a variety of tim e structures. The "school" would include a learning
center where quality tasks were accomplished in small heterogeneous groups of
119
learners and a learning environm ent extending out to the com m unity. The
objective was to provide an open, flexible structure which would allow m ultiple
opportunities to the learner as an individual and as a member of a group.
In this Program , the teacher would be regarded as a facilitato r, one
who liberates the learner by opening new doors to learning and showing the
learner "how" to learn, not ’’what" to learn. The teacher, therefore, was to be a
resource person, a m entor, an experienced guide, a person concerned about the
learner as a person, and a collaborator with the learner in assessing his
potential. The objective for the teacher was to fac ilitate, to guide, and to
collaborate in the development of the learner’s m ental, spiritual, and em otional
growth.
M oreover, in this Program , the learner would be seen as a unique,
educable individual who developed his self-im age from interacting with a
variety of persons, places, and things. Essentially, the learner was creative,
educable, curious, inquiring, responsible for his learning, a social being, open to
new ideas needing continuous growth m entally, spiritually, and em otionally.
The objective was to develop in the learner a m astery of basic skills, to give
him /her orientation in a career goal, and to develop the learner's own self-
im age. As part of a learning support group, the learner would become a self
directed, responsible life-long learner.
Finally, in this Program , the learning environm ent would be able to
provide quality rather than quantity learning experiences. It would be charac
terized by openness, change, com prehensiveness, enriched by variety, and
experim ental in approach. The objective was to provide an enriched, integrated
120
self-structured learning environm ent where contacts with diverse persons,
places, and things occurred on a regular basis.
Since the Sisters of St. Joseph’s major council and the superintendent
of Catholic schools in Los Angeles had approved of this educational theory for
the Optional Learning Program , in order to recruit students for the Program it
was necessary to seek the cooperation of high school principals in the Los
Angeles area. In August of 1975, the clim ate for introducing an innovation
which would address the growing problems in schools was right. Four principals
agreed to release the maximum of ten students for the Program . The co n tract
with the home school was very flexible. The student was to volunteer for the
Program , but if the Program did not m eet his/her needs, the student could
return to the home school. Admission to the Program would be based on the
desire to cooperate in achieving the overall goal of the Program . Past
educational records were not to play a part in the selection. To gain admission
into the Program the student had only to verbalize in some way the following
statem ent: "I want to be in the Optional Learning Program so th a t I can
experientially explore my chosen career and in teg rate a course of studies with a
life plan th at will enable me to realize this career choice."
Individual counseling was promised to each student one hour, once a
week. The Sisters of St. Joseph had released one sister as full-tim e director
and teacher in the program and another sister as p art-tim e coordinator of the
faith support group activities. A full-tim e lay teacher was hired as dean of
studies and teacher of social studies. Salaries and expenses were to be paid
from tuition rates received from the home schools. The director and facili
tato rs would work as a team providing a daily schedule for each student,
121
resources and m aterials for learning, processing required forms for the student,
and making contacts with businesses and colleges. Above all, these facilitato rs
would be model learners involved in all phases of the learning process in a
collaborative e ffo rt to unfold the hidden potentials of each of the learners.
A Victorian building, Building //I on the Doheny Campus of Mount St.
M ary’s College, was designated as the site for the Program . The President of
the College had enthusiastically agreed to release this building for the use of
the Program . This building had recently been donated to the college and since
th ere were no im m ediate plans for its use, it was loaned, rent free, to the
Program for a period of six years. In addition to its central location in the
h eart of Los Angeles, this site had several positive advantages. As p art of the
college campus, the students would benefit not only from the college am bience
but from the educational resources on campus—a small college library across
the stre e t, a learning center for rem edial work, a student center, college
classes, college activities, and co n tact with college students and teachers. In
short, although the student would be cut off from the educational environm ent
of his/her home school, this locale would provide an enriched learning environ
m ent as well as the freedom to become a self-directed learner. In addition, the
opportunity for the students to tell their friends and acquaintances th a t they
were com pleting their senior year of high school a t the Doheny Campus of
Mount St. M ary’s College gave them the prestige th a t accom panies any
accelerated program . In fac t, m ost of their friends and even teachers did not
realize th a t the Program existed independently from the College throughout its
years of existence.
122
There was g reat hesitancy on the part of the D irector of the Program
to design a curriculum for the students in view of the lim itations of the
traditional curriculum and the diversity of student's needs. Furtherm ore,
students had been promised th at they could design their own program of studies.
There was the awareness on the part of the facilitato rs, nevertheless, th a t
experiences in other alternative schools had shown th at an unstructured daily
schedule led to chaos and apathy. A structure was needed th a t would allow for
freedom to each student to design his own course of studies and to provide for
meaningful group activities. Also, the requirem ents for graduation—a year
course in religion and in English and a sem ester course in governm ent had to be
fulfilled. A fter several m eetings with the initial group of students and
facilitato rs, the following daily and yearly schedule was agreed upon. This
schedule was used alm ost exclusively during the entire six years.
Mondays were to be the community day. All students were required to
be present a t the Doheny Campus from 9:00 a.m . to 3:00 p.m. Their presence
would contribute to the building of a faith support group. In the morning, large
and small group discussions on ethical and social justice issues took place
optim izing the students' interpersonal skills, critical thinking abilities, and
decision-making skills. Group activities during this tim e consisted of social and
religious celebrations, field trips, and relaxation exercises. Monday afternoons
were devoted to career exploration, personal development classes, and cultural
field trips.
On Tuesdays and Thursdays, the students were free to attend two
classes a t a junior college related specifically to their career choice, to be
tutored in a special class away from the Doheny Campus, or to design an
123
independent study course to be com pleted a t a library of their choice. Some
students attended regional occupation classes or participated in community
learning centers. Each student, however, was required to report to his/her
academ ic counselor at a specified tim e for one hour on either day. This
counseling session provided an on-going, im m ediate evaluation of the student’s
progress.
On Wednesdays, the students were again required to be present a t the
Doheny Campus from 9:00 a.m . to 3:00 p.m. for sem inars in English and in
social studies. The three hour sem inar in English emphasized essay writing,
vocabulary building, gram m ar, reading skills, and literary criticism . Each
student progressed at his/her own pace. The two hour social study sem inar on
Wednesday afternoon emphasized citizenship skills, research in social issues,
and discussion techniques on controversial social or political topics.
Fridays were reserved for community service. Each student was
required to volunteer as tutors in elem entary schools, as aides in convalescent
hospitals or hospitals for the handicapped, at social w elfare agencies, or in
parish centers. These experiences would help to make ’’real” their social
responsibilities.
Grading was an essential part of the counseling session. The
facilitato r and learner worked tow ard a standard of excellence in evaluating
each project com pleted for each class. The transcripts of these students were
no different from those of other tw elfth grade students. L etter grades, worked
out collaboratively with the student, were given for each subject, and each
student com pleted six classes which he had studied intensely for a period of 70
hours. These 70 hours of study were arranged to be com pleted in whatever
124
place, tim e, and order best fit the need of the student. An elaborate system of
accountability was devised for recording these hours.
The school year was a four-one-four plan. The first sem ester began in
Septem ber and ended in D ecem ber. The second sem ester began in February and
ended in May. January was set aside as the month for apprenticeship programs
for each student. During this m onth, the student worked from 9:00 a.m . to
5:00 p.m. at a worksite chosen to give him /her an orientation and introduction
to the on-the-job requirem ents of his/her chosen career. Figure 1 sum m arizes
the daily and yearly schedule for the Optional Learning Program , and Figure 2
gives an outline of how one student adapted the schedule to his/her course of
studies.
Thirty-four highly individualistic tw elfth grade learners and three
facilitato rs dedicated to the process of ’’educating" cam e together in
Septem ber, 1975, to begin the Optional Learning Program . They w ere soon
4ft
joined by a volunteer academ ic counselor who cam e once a week, a young
w riter who volunteered to teach writing classes to budding authors, and a
teacher/psychologist from Harbor College who volunteered to give sensitivity
training sessions to a group of 10 students. Together this pioneer group hoped:
To build a new society? To change the world? To make learning exciting,
meaningful, challenging, and relevant? What was running through the heads of
these individuals who chose to pioneer "a new adventure in learning?"
125
D A Y PLACE SCHEDULE LEARNING M ETH O D
M O N D A Y :
(CO M M U N ITY DA Y ) The Doheny Campus 9:00 a.m . to 12:00 p.m.
R elig io n
M o rality
S o c ia l J u s tic e
L ife S ty le s
1:00 p.m . to 2:30 p.m.
P e rso n a l Development
C areer E x p lo ra tio n
Large and sm all group d is c u s s io n s
Guest sp eak ers and le c tu r e s
Large and sm all group a c t i v i t i e s
C u ltu ra l f i e l d t r i p s
In te rp e rs o n a l s k i l l tr a in in g
Use of lib r a r y m a te ria ls
Use of com puters in le a rn in g
c e n te rs
TUESDAY: The Doheny Campus 9:00 a.m . to 4:00 p.m.
(ACADEMIC J u n io r C olleges Academic C ounseling In d iv id u a l le a rn in g s ty le
COUNSELING L earning C enters C ollege C lasses T ra d itio n a l le c tu r e c la s s e s
A N D COLLEGE L ib ra r ie s T u toring O ne-to-one le a rn in g
ORIENTATION
D A Y )
Home Independent Study P ro je c ts S e lf - d ir e c te d independent study
W EDNESDAY: The Doheny Campus 9:00 a.m . to 12:00 p.m .
(HIGH SCH O O L
REQUIREMENTS
D A Y )
E n g lish
1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
S o c ia l S tu d ies
G o v e rn m e n t/P o litica l
Science
Open classro o m
Large and sm all group
in s tr u c tio n
In d iv id u a l p r o je c ts
L e c tu re s, d e b a te s , d isc u ssio n s
bEigure 1. D aily sch ed u le c h a r t fo r th e O p tio n al Learning Program
£ ” .. " .....
D A Y PLACE SCHEDULE LEARNING M E T H O D
THURSDAY:
(ACADEMIC
COUNSELING
A N D COLLEGE
ORIENTATION
DAY)
The Doheny Campus
J u n io r C olleges
L earning C enters
L ib ra r ie s
Home
9:00 a.m . to 4:00 p.m.
Academic C ounseling
C ollege C lasses
T utoring
Independent Study
P ro je c ts
In d iv id u a l le a rn in g s ty le
T r a d itio n a l le c tu r e c la s s e s
O ne-to-one le a rn in g
S e lf - d ir e c te d independent stu d y
FRIDAY:
(CO M M U N ITY
SERVICE D A Y )
The Community
C onvalescent Homes
H o sp ita ls
I n s t i t u t i o n s fo r
th e Handicapped
P a rish e s
Schools
S o c ia l W elfare
A gencies
9:00 a.m . to 12:00 p.m. E x p e rie n tia l le a rn in g in th e
a c tu a l s e tt in g
Y EARLY SCHEDULE CH A RT
September 1 to December 20 January 1 to January 30 February 1 to May 30
1 s t Sem ester A p p ren ticesh ip Program
9:00 a.m . to 5:00 p.m.
a t work s i t e
2nd Sem ester
F ig u re 1 (C ontinued)
H *
'v j,
Name E liz a b e th C am pfield Age 17 D ate January 30, 1977
Home School S t. Mary’s Academy Grade le v e l 12
COURSES TYPE O F STU D Y PLACE FACILITATOR D A Y S TIME
1. RELIGION SEM INAR
SERVICE PROJECT
THE D O H E N Y C A M PU S
MARTIN D E PORRES
CENTER
OLP T E A M
SUSAN HALL
M O N D A Y
FRIDAY
9:00 a.m .
8:00 a.m .
2. G EO M ETR Y TU TO R THE D O H E N Y C A M PU S D O N A CA TH CA RT TU ESD A Y 3:00 p.m.
3 . H O M E ECONOM ICS TU TO R H O M E MRS. CAMPFIELD M O N D A Y /
FRIDAY
4:00 p.m .
4 . TYPING I CLASS WESTCHESTER A D U LT
SCH O O L
MRS. G R A N T TUESDAY/
TH U RSD A Y
6:30 p.m .
5. CINEMA 18 COLLEGE CLASS LOS ANGELES CITY
COLLEGE
M O L L Y G R EG O R Y TH U R SD A Y 2:00 p.m .
6 . AM ERICAN SOCIAL
PROBLEM S
COLLEGE CLASS LOS ANGELES CITY
COLLEGE
MR. LOTT M O N D A Y /
W EDNESDAY/
FRIDAY
11:00 a.m .
7. B O TA N Y . INDEPENDENT LIBRARY/HOME G A R D EN SR. M A R Y ELLEN SA TU R D A Y 9:00 a.m .
8 . CAREER EXPLORATION
SOCIAL W ELFA RE
EXPERIENTIAL MARTIN DE PORRES
CENTER
VICKIE C A LLA N TH U RSD A Y 9:00 a.m .
9. PERSONAL
ENRICHM ENT
SEMINAR THE D O H E N Y C A M PU S OLP T E A M M O N D A Y 1:00 p.m .
F ig u re 2. Sample sch ed u le of c la s s e s
N >
0 0
CHAPTER V
THE NARRATION
The major events th at occurred in the Optional Learning Program
during the years from 1975 to 1981 are presented in this chapter. This
narration describes these events from the perspective of the
d esigner/director/teacher of the Program during these years. It relates "what
happened" during each of the six years in relation to the goals, objectives, and
organizational structures described in C hapter IV. Informal and form al
m aterials, w ritten and oral m aterials, and questionnaires and interview s along
with participation in the Program provide the basis for the narration.
Com ments and statem ents from the participants of the Program are included in
the narration. See figures 3 and 4 for enrollm ent numbers and racial
composition of these participants.
This chapter is divided as follows: Year I: The C ritical Year, 1975-
1976; Year II: Decisions, 1976-1977; Year III: Challenges, 1977-1978; Year IV:
In Search of Educators, 1978-1979; Year V: Residuals of Change, 1979-1980;
Year VI: The Final Year, 1980-1981.
129
YEARS FIRST SEMESTER SECO N D SEMESTER TERM INATED AT SEMESTER ACCEPTED A T SEMESTER
1975 -
1976
TOTAL 42
B O Y S
GIRLS
TOTAL
12
22
34
B O Y S
GIRLS
TOTAL
10
19
29
BO Y S 5
GIRLS 8
1 Dropout
1 E arly G raduate
3 R eturned to Home
6 E arly G raduates
2 R eturned to Home
School
School
B O Y S
GIRLS
3
5
1976 -
1977
TOTAL 34
B O Y S
GIRLS
TOTAL
7
21
28
B O Y S
GIRLS
TOTAL
6
20
26
B O Y S 1
GIRLS 7
1 R eturned to Home
1 Dropout
2 E arly G raduates
4 R eturned to Home
School
School
B O Y S
GIRLS
0
6
1977 -
1978
TOTAL 24
BO Y S
GIRLS
TOTAL
3
16
19
B O Y S
GIRLS
TOTAL
5
17
22
B O Y S 0
GIRLS 2 1 Dropout
1 R eturned to Home School
BO Y S
GIRLS
2
3
1978 -
1979
TOTAL 25
B O Y S
GIRLS
TOTAL
3
17
20
B O Y S
GIRLS
TOTAL
4
20
24
B O Y S 0
GIRLS 1 1 E arly G raduate
B O Y S
GIRLS
1
4
1979 -
1980
TOTAL 34
B O Y S
GIRLS
TOTAL
5
22
27
B O Y S
GIRLS
TOTAL
8
23
31
B O Y S 1
GIRLS 2
1 R eturned to Home
1 Dropout
1 R eturned to Home
School
School
B O Y S
GIRLS
4
3
1980 -
1981
TOTAL 27
B O Y S
GIRLS
TOTAL
6
18
24
B O Y S
GIRLS
TOTAL
6
18
24
BO Y S 3
GIRLS 0
3 R eturned to Home School B O Y S
GIRLS
3
0
F ig u re 3.
H
o
S tu d en t E n ro llm en t, 1975 - 1981, The O p tio n al L earning Program
Eleven C a th o lic High Schools from th e Los Angeles a re a p a r tic ip a te d in th is Program •
Y E A R SENIORS JUNIORS SO PH O M O RES TOTALS
BLACKS WHITES B R O W N S Y ELLO W S BUCKS W HITES B R O W N S Y ELLO W S WHITES
BLACKS 6
1975- B O Y S 0 9 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 WHITES 28
1976 GIRLS 3 10 3 1 3 3 3 1 0 B R O W N S
Y ELLO W S
6
2
42
BLACKS 6
1976- B O Y S 1 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 WHITES 16
1977 GIRLS
3 11 11 1 1 0 0 0 0
B R O W N S
Y ELLO W S
11
1
34
BLA CK S 12
1977- B O Y S 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 WHITES
4
1978 GIRLS 9 4 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 B R O W N S
Y ELLO W S
7
#
1
24
BLACKS 12
1978- B O Y S 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 WHITES 3
1979 GIRLS 11 2 6 1 0 0 1 0 0 B R O W N S
Y ELLO W S
8
2
25
BUCKS 14
1979- B O Y S 6 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 WHITES 7
1980 GIRLS 8 4 11 0 0 0 1 0 1 B R O W N S
Y ELLO W S
12
1
34
BLACKS 13
1980- B O Y S 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 WHITES 5
1981 GIRLS 5 4 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 B R O W N S
Y ELLO W S
9
0
27
TOTALS
1975- BO Y S 18 14 3 3 1 9 1 0 0 B O Y S 49 186
1981 GIRLS 39 35 43 3 5 4 6 1 1 GIRLS 137
F ig u re 4.
H*
U>
i-*
S tudent E n ro llm en t, R ac ia l C om position, The O p tio n al L earning Program , 1975-1981.
Year I; The Crucial Year, 1975-1976
On Septem ber 4, 1975, "C hester Place" welcomed 34 high school
students to the Doheny Campus. These students from St. Mary's
Academy, St. Bernard's, St. Joseph's, and Bushop Montgomery high
schools are here to take part in an Optional Learning Program
sponsored by the Sisters of St. Joseph. The program is called
"Learning Unlimited" by the students.
These students have been chosen from their schools on the basis
of a need for less structured classes, for a g reater variety of learning
experiences, and for the need of more educational challenges. They
are more m ature than the student in a traditional school in th at they
are willing to accept the responsibility to develop their own course of
studies for their senior year of high school.
On the Doheny Campus a t C hester Place, they will take part in an
apprenticeship career program and use the community as their class
room. (Mount St. Mary's College, Open House a t the Doheny Campus,
Flier, O ct., 1975)
Thus reads the docum ent, but what was the reality? Who were these
students, who were their teachers, and what was this educational program th a t
promised "learning unlim ited?" These were the questions th at would be posed
anew each year during the next six years with slightly different inflections and
im plications.
In 1975, the group of students th a t had been recruited for th a t first
year of the Optional Learning Program seemingly were a group th a t wanted to
get rid of the frills of school. They wanted to get down to the basics of
learning; they would strip away the sports, the phony social life, the com peti
tion for grades in order to pursue a "real" education.
Looking over their school p re-attitu d e questionnaires, however,
reveals the differences in the interpretation of this goal.
I want a new, —an interesting, — an exciting, — a challenging, — a
relaxed, — a helpful, —a practical, — a free, — a different learning
program . I want to learn what ^ want to learn. . . .1 want to succeed or
fail in my studies on my own term s. . . .1 want to be in control of my
studies. . . .1 want to be more involved . . . more independent . . . m ore
self-disciplined. . . .1 want to learn more. . . .1 want to m eet
1 3 2
new people. . . .1 want a "pay off." Or simply, "I don't know." (School
P re-attitude Questionnaires, August, 1975)*
The records say th at this group of students were juniors and seniors
from Catholic high schools. They were whites, browns, blacks, and Asians. The
reality of their personal lives and their ethno/socio/econom ic backgrounds,
however, moved much closer to the meaning of these responses. For, from
Saint Mary's Academy in Inglewood, cam e the Marias, the Lizzys, and the
Marikos who were m inority students struggling to reach upper middle class
status. The parents of these students looked to the school as the place where
these children could grow into the full participation of the American way of
life. To the Marias, however, the school was failing them because they had too
many trappings of old Mexico— a language problem and a m aturity problem; in
old Mexico they were old enough to be raising a fam ily, but a t the home school,
they were expected to try out for a drill team , to wear short skirts, to get
excited about a prom. To the Lizzys who cam e to the Program with their soft
brown skin and tight curls, the traditional school was failing them because they
no longer knew if they were black or w hite. To the Marikos who cam e to the
Program , the O riental drive for professionalism made them look down on the
frills of an American education—football gam es, dances, and excessive
"traditional" social events.
^ Students were given a school pre- and post- attitu d e questionnaires at
the beginning and at the end of each school year. Comments from these
questionnaires are sum m arized and placed in an appropriate place for each
year. The com m ents quoted represent the ideas of the m ajority of the students
who attended the Program during th at year.
_______________________________________________________________________________133
From St. Joseph's High School in Lakewood, the haven for conservative
Dutch fam ilies, cam e the Annes, the Marys and the Lisas. Their parents, first
generation Dutch, had just made it in the New World, but only just recently.
Now the pressures of the business world were creeping into their fam ilies and
destroying its fiber. The effects of too much T.V., both parents working,
divorces, conflicts in values among the old and new generations were too
evident on the faces of this new generation. So, they hoped th at the Program
would give them a new sta rt in life.
From the beach cam e the eager students calling for new experiences
in schooling, still clinging to hippie ideas, as evidenced in their dress. They
were upper m iddle-class hippies, the late rem nants of those rebellious youth
who wanted to challenge everything and anything and who rejected the
com fortable life style of their parents. To them school m eant hassles over
"dress codes, referrals, pressures, grades, structures, and control" (School Pre
attitu d e Questionnaires, August, 1975).
From Playa Del Rey, St. Bernard's High School, cam e the Rustis, the
Bills, the Je ffs— up and coming young actors and actresses, the extras in movies
and T.V. Who could describe their roots? Each had two sets of parents. They
boasted of real parents, step-parents, foster parents, or the third husband of my
real m other, who was the vice-president of some famous company. Their
summer plans included France, Las Vegas, or a dingy apartm ent on the beach
with no one who cared. They cam e, wanting a personalized, humane experience
from school.
And, so they cam e. The goal of diversity was not evident in racial
mix, but the goal of diversity was to be m et in relation to these highly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 3 4
personalized home experiences. The self images of these students were
revealed by the words they used in describing them selves:
Q uiet, moody, lonesome, introverted, shy, im patient, confused,
concerned, m isunderstood, optim istic, perfectionist, dependable,
sensitive, intelligent, nervous, lazy, crazy, discouraged, different.
(School P re-attitu d e Questionnaires, August, 1975)
These words showed the degree to which school was not addressing their needs.
Were they ready to take control of their learning experiences in a Program th at
promised to get rid of the trappings of a regular school— the uniforms, the rules,
the regulations, the closed cam puses, the nightly assignm ents, the tests, the
com petition, the conform ity? To them the answer was "yes" because here they
would find a humane learning environm ent, one in which the teachers would be
"listening, sensitive to my needs, encouraging me, m otivating me to learn more
effectively, answering my questions with concern, and with unbiased inform a
tion" (School P re-attitu d e Questionnaires, August, 1975).
The teachers for the Program were also three individuals: the
D irector who had conceived and given birth to the idea; the Assistant D irector,
a loyal friend of the D irector, who had just received her credential from Loyola
U niversity, with her eyes set on a career in law, and a part-tim e Sister who
would coordinate the "faith support group activities."
And so the year began. The caution was always there; "Don't throw
the baby out with the wash." But, who was responsible? At an early m eeting,
all had accepted the responsibility. The learners would remind the facilitators
not to revert to giving dull, boring lectures; the facilitators would remind the
learners to form habits th at would teach them to love learning. As a group they
would move toward greater unity of purpose; no one would be left behind— not
Dan, whose personal experiences had taught him to hate the world; not Mary,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i l l
who was dealing with the death of a loved father; and not Jim , who was
involved with drugs. Everyone's needs would be m et and responded to by all.
Or, so they promised each other.
As the days wore on, evidence of the contradictions in interpreting the
goals of the Program becam e evident. The learners emphasized freedom and
forgot responsibility. They were frequently late, forgot assignm ents, and went
beyond open campus and free dress to ask for the right to smoke m arijuana, to
take liquor to beach parties, and to use cultural trips for protest m arches. The
facilitators emphasized responsibility demanding accountability from the
student with minute recording of study tim es and places, often reverting to
lecture methods, tests, and grades. Polarization betw een those who wanted to
revert to the safe old methods and those who wanted the extrem e new methods
arose. General sessions were outbursts of emotions: "This is our program , not
the director's. . . .There are inconsistencies in the policies of this program . . . .
The Program is not living up to'our own expectations. . . . Let the students run
the Program " (Notes from interview s, March, 1976).
The polarization was finally traced to a volunteer teacher who was
giving sensitivity training to a group of the most vocal students in the Program
and to an equally conservative volunteer who was dogm atically conducting a
values class for another group of students. By the end of the year, the D irector
was faced with trying to keep together a group of students who were labeled
"pleasure-seeking drop-outs" and another group who were labeled as traditional
"D.A.R.s" (damn average raisers).
Then, glim m ers of hope began to break through. The post-attitude
questionnaires were read and study projects were evaluated. Students had
136
taken part in some unique educational experiences and carried them through
successfully. On the questionnaire dated June, 1976, they listed what they liked
best about the Program:
The freedom , the independence, the diversity of students, the flexi
bility th a t made possible free tim e, sharing tim e, creative tim e,
thinking tim e . . . the excitem ent of com m unity day, the field trips,
the retre ats, and finally coming to understand what real education is
all about. (School P ost-attitude Q uestionnaires, June, 1976)
When asked what they had learned through the Program , they answered:
I learned to make b e tter decisions on a choice of college or a
career because of the actual experiences a t junior colleges and in
apprenticeship program s. . . .1 learned more about m yself—my real
talents and lim itations. . . .1 found my own way of learning best. . . .1
found my true interests. . . .1 found out what I want to do with my life
. . . .1 found out about my real goals. . . .1 becam e more independent,
more relaxed, more creative. . . .1 took more classes. . . .1 learned to
budget my tim e well. . . .1 finished my required courses for graduation
with outstanding grades! (P ost-attitude Questionnaires, June, 1976)
One student chose to answer the questionnaire with a three page le tte r which
sum m arized the major goals of the Program . This le tte r is in Appendix C.
At the end of the year, most of the em otionalism was gone and the
criticism s were real. The students asked for more careful counseling before a
student began the Program; they w anted less negative attitudes, more guidance
in independent studies, less em otional group discussions, few er ego trips, and
more quality tim e together.
Then, there were those who adm itted th a t they were not ready for the
freedom and the responsibility of the Program . They needed the structure and
discipline of the regular school. They said th a t the Program demanded too
much intensive study tim e, too much individual accountability, and placed too
great an emphasis on the individual's learning resource ability.
137
Although these criticism s were serious, they were not the m ajority
voice. So, im petus to continue the Program , coming from the initiative on the
part of the Sisters of St. Joseph (CSJ) to release another sister to work full
tim e in the Program as coordinator of the faith community support group, was
accepted by the D irector. The developm ent of a faith community had been
considered as the most essential elem ent of the Program by the Sisters of St.
Joseph. A faith comm unity was defined as a C hristian atm osphere created in
which respect and dignity for each person were prim ary concerns. The Sister
appointed had theoretical as well as practical experience in building community
support groups with youth. Since most of the internal problems, e.g.,
polarizing, had arisen from the lack of unity and of clarity regarding goals
during the previous year, the D irector hoped th a t by appointing a full tim e
Sister to this position fuller im plem entation of new strategies for group
processes would occur. Also, the fa c t th at the young, lay assistant director who
had been the most effective in interpreting the goals of the Program to the
students, was willing to continue in the Program for another year a t a minimal
salary scale contributed to the decision to continue the second year of the
Program .
The major obstacle to the effective im plem entation of the Program
was seen, therefore as m atching student expectations to a realistic implemen
tation of the goals and objectives of the Program . This could be accomplished
through a summer screening session which was held during the months of June
and July of 1976 with the purpose of giving the students first-hand experience
in im plem enting the goals of the Program . During this session, the students
could be identified as those who were willing to reach out to the community to
138
seek maximum learning experiences and to work tow ards the goals of self-
discipline and independence in learning, and those who were searching for
someone to fill an em otional need. These last groups of students could, then, be
counseled to a more realistic choice of schooling in relation to their needs.
Year II: Decisions, 1976-1977
The group th a t responded for this second new year was also made up of
juniors and seniors—blacks, browns, whites, and Asians, but this year only three
juniors had volunteered to participate in the Program . Sixteen juniors had
participated the previous year. During the orientation session, it had become
evident th at the Program was designed prim arily , to m eet the needs of the
tw elfth grade student.
This year, a problem which was to recur during the next five years
over recruiting and selecting students for the Program becam e evident when an
additional school, an inner-city school, decided to participate in the Program .
The principal of this school interpreted the goal of the Program as prim arily a
means for her to solve a problem within her own school. The Program becam e
the means for her to provide tw elfth grade students from Mexico or Latin
Am erican countries with courses of study, not available in the home school's
schedule of classes. These students were frequently rooted in two cultures and
were from first-generation Latino homes. They were frequently called back to
their home countries to help their parents se ttle business m atters or to make
arrangem ents for m arriage. They, therefore, disrupted regular "schooling"
schedules and needed special classes.
139
The principal of this school had selected five students whose needs she
felt were not being m et by the restricted curriculum offered a t this inner-city
school. She stressed the benefits of the Program to these five students. They
would be taking courses a t a private two year girl's college and they would
enjoy a college environm ent without the restrictions imposed on high school
students. The parents of these students, mostly conservative in outlook,
reluctantly agreed to allow these students to participate in the Program . They
insisted th a t their children take all their courses a t the Doheny Campus in
traditional classes.
The reason for accepting these students into the Program on this basis
was tied to the financial difficulties which becam e critical during this year.
The Sisters of St. Joseph had agreed to allow the use of Building #1 on the
Doheny Campus for a period of six years, rent free, the use of a car for the
Program , and $2,000 as seed money. The salaries of a full-tim e sister and a
p art-tim e sister as well as for the full-tim e lay teacher and stipends for various
other personnel and any other expenses were to be paid from the tuition of the
students who were charged according to the rates a t their home school. It was
estim ated th at tuition from a t least 30 students was needed to m eet minimal
expenses. This year the enrollm ent totalled only 28. One of the major reasons
for this was th at because of the involvem ent of the Catholic schools in Los
Angeles in a teacher's strike, many of the schools during the tim e when students
should have received inform ation about the Program in May of 1976 were
closed. M oreover, since three of the four principals participating in the
Program were newly appointed, it was impossible to contact these new
principals about recruiting students for the Program . These new principals
140
w ere deeply involved and concerned over teacher problems in their own schools.
Teachers were demanding more money; a program which would take money
from school funds was not looked on favorably. T herefore, it would have been
financially impossible to continue the Program without the participation of
these five additional inner-city school students.
Even with these students, the three facilitato rs had to give much of
their tim e and effo rt to money raising activities. The National C atholic
Education Association (NCEA) was contacted for funds, but the response was
advice saying th at local businesses should be tapped for sources of monies for
the Program . L etters were sent to local businessmen asking for donations—no
response. A le tte r was sent to the parents of the first year students, some
responded with small donations. An appeal was made to a charitable fund of
the Sisters of St. Joseph reserved for the poor. The Program did not qualify.
The final financial blow cam e when a new counselor a t one of the participating
schools, who felt threatened by the Program , alerted the Principal to the fac t
th at the tuition from the ten students who had applied for entrance into the
Program would amount to $5,000 and th at an increasing number of tw elfth
grade students from this school were seeking entrance into the Program . The
counselor argued th at the school should have the right to select students for the
Program ; students should not have the right to volunteer for the Program .
Since the students a t this school were particularly vocal but powerless, the
decision was made not to allow students to attend. Thus, the tim e and energy
spent in recruiting and orienting these students le ft the three facilitators
wondering if the educational gains were worth the financial problems which the
Program posed.
141
Three questionnaires were, therefore, given to the students to assess
the qualitative value of the Program . A January questionnaire asked each
student to respond to the question: Why should you be re-adm itted to the
Program for the second sem ester? The responses were as follows:
This is the only place I can get a meaningful education. . . .This
program is of great benefit to me because of the variety and choice of
classes. My future depends on continuing. . . .This is a good sta rt in
the right direction for me. . . .This is the only type of education th at I
can relate to. . . .1 am getting the best possible education here.
(Sem ester Questionnaires, January, 1977)
Again, the only negative com m ents arose from a concern about the academ ic
challenge and the ability to handle freedom with responsibility.
On May 18, 35 students who attended an open house were asked to list
one aspect of the Program which impressed them from the presentation given
by a panel of students attending the Program . They responded:
Their enthusiasm for learning . . . the opportunity to learn from
experience . . . the freedom and the responsibility . . . the opportuni
ties to take college classes . . . the chance to learn from a great
variety of persons, places, and things . . . apprenticeship program . . .
the self-discipline . . . the com m unication betw een the learners and
the facilitators . . . the relaxed learning atm osphere. (Optional
Learning Program , Open House Q uestionnaires, May 18, 1977)
A final questionnaire given to the students who had participated in the
Program during this second year asked them to explain how the Program helped
them academ ically. They responded:
I earned college credits for subjects in my career interest. . . .1
m et my high school requirem ents in a more meaningful way. . . .1
gained b etter study habits. . . .1 learned what is m eant by self-
discipline, organization, budgeting of tim e. . . .1 gained more responsi
bility, independence, more ability to make decisions regarding my
studies. (School P ost-attitude Q uestionnaires, May 1977)
When asked to list the things they disliked about the Program th at
year the responses were: tim e and distance spent in traveling to and from the
142
Program , waiting tim e for counseling, deadlines, and recording of hours for
study tim e, too short a lunch hour—all reactions against schooling practices.
The only com plaint which focused on an "educating" practice was the com plaint
th at one day a week was not enough tim e to build a faith support group.
A serious problem which began to surface during this year was
reported in the questionnaire by several students: it was the negative attitu d e
regarding the Optional Learning Program status a t the home school. Counselors
were too busy to inform students a t the Optional Learning Program of the tim es
and places for im portant school activities which they wanted to or were
required to participate in a t the home school. Their peers a t the home school
alienated them by labeling them as snobbish intellectuals. Teachers indicated
to these students by their rem arks th a t they had betrayed their home school by
joining the Optional Learning Program . There was little opportunity, however,
to address these problems since most teachers and counselors a t the home
school did not have the tim e, nor the desire to respond to inform ational
m eetings and reports on the Optional Learning Program .
The learning environm ent th a t year had been extended to include the
Doheny Campus classes, the home school for classes in chem istry and physics,
six junior colleges, comm unity learning centers, libraries, and places of business
for apprenticeship. The m aster schedule showed th a t the students had choices
from over 150 classes. In addition, as an outgrow th of the faith community
support group, the students had decided to spend three hours a week doing
comm unity service. This proved to be one of the most effectiv e means for
developing a positive self-im age for these students. R eports from contact
persons in these extended learning locations stated th at the m aturity and
143
goal-oriented attitu d es of these students made them definite assets to their
organization. More community doors were opened to the students as word
spread of their seriousness of purpose; and it was found th at the community
proved to be one of the richest sources for learning experiences. The challenge
was to structure learning a t these locales to obtain maximum benefit from
these interactions.
The events of th a t year had made it clear th a t there were restraints
th a t prevented a student from taking full advantage of the opportunities of the
Program:
1. The student’s own unreadiness for this type of a Program ,
2. The student's attachm ent to the home school: fear of risks related to
grades or entrance into college, or fear of alienation from friends in
the home school,
3. The external restraints cam e from parents or counselors who refused
to trust th at a student had the ability to take on the responsibilities of
this Program and from principals who believed th at allowing students
to attend the Program would jeopardize the financial status of the
home school.
Year III: Challenges, 1977-1978
The Program was to be continued for another year since it had been
designed as a three-year experim ental program , but the finances continued to
plague the facilitato rs. Despite intensive recruitm ent efforts of the previous
year, the results were minimal: 19 students from 7 Catholic high schools. The
recruitm ent plan included the following efforts: In August, 1976, fliers had
m
been sent to the principals of the 63 high schools in the g reater Los Angeles
area. In Septem ber, posters were designed with brochures and sent to
counselors to be posted in the counseling offices. During O ctober and
November, 33 schools were contacted to set up m eetings with teachers and
counselors to explain the Program . In O ctober, a general m eeting was called to
be held a t the Archdiocesan O ffice of Education in Los Angeles. Two m eetings
were set up; one for O ctober 12 and another for O ctober 13. L etters were sent
to all the principals asking them to come or to send a representative to the
m eeting. The purpose of the m eeting was to get input from the high schools
regarding the status of this Program in the schem e of C atholic high school
education. The m inutes from this m eeting read as follows:
Twelve schools sent representatives. . . .The m eeting ended with a
consensus th at the Program was not only a benefit and a privilege, but
a needed service for a certain number of students in our Catholic
schools. Support for the Program was pledged by all those present.
(See Appendix D for com plete copy of these m inutes, O ctober 12, 13,
1977)
In January, notices were sent to be published in school course catalogues and
parish bulletins. In May, 1977, five students and a counselor from the Catholic
high schools in Los Angeles were invited to atten d an open house a t the Doheny
Campus. Only 35 students and 4 counselors attended.
Three schools which had not previously participated in the Program
sent students to the Program because of this carefully carried out recruitm ent
plan. A boys1 upper-m iddle-class school in West Los Angeles sent one student, a
precocious young man with a talen t for music who was bored with the
traditional school. Another boys' school in East Los Angeles sent a young man
who was preparing to atten d Haverford's m edical school. An inner-city school
sent five black m iddle-class students who were interested in professional
145
careers. The recruitm ent plan, however, did not influence some schools. The
counselor who felt threatened by the Program would not allow any students
from his school to attend the Program despite the fa c t th at they had attended
the orientation session and were well-qualified and eager to attend the
Program . Also, the Principal from the inner-city school who previously sent
five Latino students to the Program , reported th a t there were no students ready
for the Program th at year from her school.
Adding to these recruitm ent problem s, the a ttitu d e of the three new
principals from schools which had actively supported the Program during the
past two years had become th at of indifference and/or hostility toward
innovative educational program s. A C atholic school which had attem pted
com prehensive school reform s as a participator in the highly publicized Model
Schools Program , had failed to effectively individualize its program of studies.
Principals, who were adm inistrators of traditional schools, pointed to this
school as an exam ple of an innovative fad. In fac t, a t this tim e, the experience
with innovations such as team teaching, flexible scheduling, and interterm s had
proven too tim e-consum ing and too disruptive to the "business as usual" in
traditional schools for the average teacher. Thus, in the fall of 1977, there was
not much hope left among educators for reform of schools. Social problems,
centering on inflation and oil shortages which threatened the economic stability
of the country, were becoming m ore intense. Schools were caught up in a
money game with the federal governm ent. Most teachers had finally read the
reports about innovations which confirm ed their suspicions about the piecem eal,
fragm entary effects of innovations. The return to com placency about
"schooling" was evident. Innovations were soon discarded.
______________________________________ :____________________________________ Ut£.
The daily experience with m inority groups in the classroom had also
confirm ed for teachers the findings of the Jencks report (1972), which indicated
th at schooling had very little im pact on the socioeconomic status of the
student. Comprehensive changes initiated by the federal governm ent had taken
the form of bilingual program s and accountability program s which were largely
unacceptable to traditional educators. A lternative schools, for financial
reasons, had come under the net of the "system " as "schools within schools."
The reports from these schools indicated a return to "schooling" problems—
organization and m anagem ent of these schools--and a neglect of "educating"
problems. There was nothing le ft to do in schools but to return to the
traditional system of education which, it was reasoned, had stood the te st of
tim e.
There was much pressure this year on the D irector of the Optional
Learning Program to return to the ranks of regular teaching. This pressure,
triggered by the financial status of the Program and the unresponsive attitu d e
of Catholic high school principals toward the Program , cam e in the form of
several a ttra c tiv e job offers. With only 19 students in the Program , it was
reasoned, this was the ideal tim e for the D irector of this Program to channel
her creative energies into college adm inistration. She was, therefore, asked to
participate in the adm inistration of the college as A ssistant Dean of Student
A ctivities on the Doheny Campus. She was also advised to begin doctoral
studies a t the University of Southern California, which would qualify her for
future service at the college. Since Building #1 was within close proximity to
the office of the A ssistant Dean of A ctivities, it would be possible to continue
as part-tim e D irector of the Optional Learning Program .
147
The prim ary reason for accepting this position was the critical
financial need of the Program . With the position of A ssistant Dean of
A ctivities cam e a salary and grant money for a leadership program for the
students at the Doheny Campus. The salary from this position would reduce the
salary received from the Optional Learning Program since this position would
becom e a part-tim e position. Taking responsibility for the leadership program
on the Doheny Campus would also make it possible for the students in the
Optional Learning Program to take part in this leadership program for
m inorities. This leadership program as designed by the A ssistant Dean was
aim ed a t "conscientization:" a process of raising questions and facing issues as
the students experienced them in college life.
A second reason for accepting this position was th at it was rumored
th a t the college was interested in creating a model high school on the Doheny
Campus. This hoped-for incorporation of the Program into the educational
departm ent of the college promised to rem ove future financial problems of the
Program . The deciding facto r in accepting this position, however, was th at the
direction of the Program would be left in the hands of two capable full-tim e
facilitators.
In Septem ber, 1977, therefore, the Optional Learning Program began
with 19 students, two full tim e facilitato rs, and one part-tim e D irector who was
also the A ssistant Dean of Student A ctivities on the Doheny Campus and who
was working for a doctorate in education a t the University of Southern
C alifornia. The only other alternative would have been to turn away the 19
eager students who proved to need drastic changes in their schooling
experiences.
148
In reading over the le tte rs of these students, w ritten in January, 1978,
stating the reason why they should be allowed to rem ain in the Program for a
second sem ester, their reasons were soul-searching, personal reasons and pleas
to continue to be allowed to enrich their lives with the "mind-boggling1 1 learning
experiences of the Program . One student wrote her le tte r as a le tte r to a local
newspaper calling for students from the near-by public schools to join the
Program so th at it could rem ain open to her. Two students from the public
schools actually did respond during the second sem ester, but the principals from
these public schools insisted th a t the students take two classes a t the home
school so th at average daily attendance (ADA) could be reported for school
monies. The parents of these students willingly paid extra tuition to the
Program so th at the educational needs of their children could be m et more
realistically through the Program . This experience brought these students into
daily contrasting and conflicting educational policies.
At this tim e, also, the inner-city school, which had reported th at there
were no students ready for the Program in Septem ber, then sent two students to
the Program who were extrem e discipline problems a t the home school.
Another student cam e pleading for acceptance into the Program since she had
been expelled from an elite girls1 school in the Valley for use of drugs. Another
boys1 school in Gardena sent one student who was a t the point of dropping out of
school. The enrollm ent for second sem ester therefore was 22 students. The
following le tte r sum m arizes the attitu d e and the needs of the m ajority of the
students who participated in the Program this year.
As I entered high school I asked myself many tim es what was the
purpose of an education. I thought I knew, but each day sitting in the
same old class learning what I had to learn, I really didn't know any
m ore, and frankly I didn't care. Each day was as bad as the next and
_______________________________________________________________________________ 149
my sitting in the same old class I felt as if I was suffocating. Many
tim es I felt I had to get away from school and boycott learning
altogether. I longed for open spaces and different experiences th a t
would stay with me for the rest of my life. I knew for a fa c t th a t I
could not function in closed places. I dream ed of the day th a t I would
finally get out of school and do som ething for once th a t I enjoyed. But
then something happened. Close to the end of school in my junior
year, my history teacher was telling the class about an Optional
Learning Program and how it functioned. The Program interested me
and I fe lt I needed to know more about it. I did and eventually I was
able to participate in the Program . It was a beginning for me of a
dream th a t had finally come true.
The Program has given me so much; it has helped me to open up
when I had never before. It gave me hope with people again when I
had lost it all; it gave me the spark to learn again and most im portant
it let me grow as an individual. And I feel if I cannot be me, then who
can I be? For once in my life I can prepare m yself to live the life I
want to live when I leave the school. I now know how to function
under pressure and I also know what I can and cannot handle. Pm
happy with learning and it's funny to hear myself say this, but this is
how I feel and I love it. This program put a little sparkle back into my
life and I never thought th a t learning could be so much fun, but it is.
The Optional Learning Program never let me forget other people. It
helped me understand why some people a ct like they do. It let me
understand people as individuals and helped me respect their feelings.
This program has given me the chance to learn, to breathe, to live, and
I just want to say thank you for everything you've done. Thank you for
giving people like me the chance to live, and most of all thank you for
having the guts to sta rt a program like this. (Student L etter,
D ecem ber 19, 1977)
This tribute was directed to the two full tim e facilitators in the
Program th a t year. The young lay assistant director had stream lined the red-
tape procedures of the Program with her keen intelligence and her sensitivity to
the needs of the students. Because of her age (24), the students continued to
see her as their ideal model learner—someone whose perspective in life was
based on the value of the human being and whose intelligence had allowed her
to e x tra ct from the schooling system only those aspects of the system which
they needed to obtain credentials from schooling. They saw her in control of
the system , not as controlled by the system . She had creatively used the
com puter to professionalize the processing of students credits in the Program
150
against the com placent advice of program m ers in traditional schools who said
th a t it could not be done. The C alifornia guidance com puterized forms which
resulted from her efforts made the Program acceptable to the colleges and high
schools without disrupting the standard m ethods of recording grades in these
schools and without pressuring students into taking standard classes and into
com petitive grading procedures. This young assistant director had also
vitalized social study classes for the students with insights into social issues
from her classes in law school which she attended in the evening. As social
issues becam e increasingly legal issues, her expert interpretations and insights
gave the students a head sta rt into thinking patterns of the future.
The second facilitato r, the coordinator of the faith community,
continued to bring her expertise and sensitivity to group processes in the
Program . She was. able to instill in the students a high degree of unity of
purpose, and of sharing and cooperating which gave the students a sense of
belonging, of owning the Program , and of worth as individuals.
The two part-tim e positions of the D irector, however, had serious
consequences for the Program this year. Most im portantly, the position as
adm inistrator in a girls' liberal arts college had brought out clearly the conflicts
betw een "schooling" and "educating" practices. When the A ssistant Dean of
Student A ctivities tried to im plem ent a leadership program based on "concienti-
zation" with the minority students on the Doheny Campus, it soon becam e
evident th a t these efforts were counter productive to the socializing goals of
the college. Leadership, as in m ost liberal a rts colleges, was traditionally a
process which involved organizing the student body in various traditional social
activities. Thus, the definition of leadership as a "schooling" process in which
151
students participated in a series of social activ ities by the college authorities
and leadership as an "educating” process in which questions and issues are raised
as defined by the D irector of the Optional Learning Program becam e one more
area in which "schooling" and "educating" proved to be incom patible.
The decision to continue the Program for its fourth year a t the end of
th at third year, therefore, was based as much on the m eeting the needs of
alienated students in traditional schools as on the desire of the D irector of the
Optional Learning Program to elim inate "schooling" practices which w ere in
conflict with "educating" practices from the educational process. The D irector
was arm ed with the concrete academ ic successes of the students. On the
Doheny Campus in college classes, the students from the Optional Learning
Program had proven their m atch to the regular college student by achieving
some of the highest marks as well as by their challenging discussions in classes.
M oreover, one of the students had received an outstanding honor award at
graduation from her home school for her academ ic accom plishm ents in the
Program . Students had been accepted into the colleges of their choice a t
Haverford for medicine, at C alifornia S tate U niversity, Long Beach (CSULB), a t
the University of Southern C alifornia (USC), a t Loyola M arymount University,
and others were looking forw ard to continuing to pursue their chosen careers at
junior colleges. The four students who would have dropped out of school a t the
sem ester because of severe discipline problems a t the home school received
their diplomas from their high schools; but most im portantly, there was a
m arked im provem ent in their attitu d e tow ard them selves, school, and society in
general.
152
Then, there was the evidence of the success of the Program from the
fact th a t the 22 students had given over 1,000 hours of community service and
had received the "Salute to Youth in Volunteer Service to the Community" from
the Woman’s Division of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Com m erce. The
deciding factor to continue the Program , however, was the com m ents on the
post-attitude questionnaires from the students. The students reported:
The program helped me learn more about my career in music . . . in
a rt . . . in science. . . .1 learned how to teach deaf students. . . .1
learned about the inner workings of a large hospital where I hope to be
a doctor someday. . . .1 learned b e tter study habits . . . how to
organize my study tim e . . . how to accomplish my study tasks more
efficiently. . . .1 gained g reater self confidence . . . more m aturity
. . . .1 learned what responsibility and freedom are. (P ost-attitude
Questionnaires, May, 1978)
A fter one year of college or career, on a second questionnaire sent to this
group, they gave the same positive responses.
The Program was the most different, exciting, challenging, learning
experience I have ever had. It gave me the freedom to be m yself, to
move ahead, to find new ways to learn. It prepared me fully for
college. The teachers here a t my college are teaching me what I
already learned in the Program . . . .The Program gave me closeness,
love, sharing, and independence. (Optional Learning Program Alumni
Questionnaires, May, 1979)
Year IV: In Search of Educators, 1978-1979
The most salient reason for continuing the Program for another year,
however, was the fac t th at the Sisters of St. Joseph had reassigned two sisters
to the Program th at year. The sister who coordinated the faith comm unity in
the Program had been promised to be allowed to give service in this Program
for three years. She had been in the Program for two years and this was to be
her third and final year. The sister/d irecto r was com pleting her studies a t the
University of Southern California; and since she preferred p art-tim e study and
153
part-tim e work to full tim e study, she was reassigned to the Program as
D irector. The lay assistant director had agreed to rem ain with the Program for
another year.
R ecruitm ent and finances, however, continued to plague the Program .
Only 20 students had responded to the repeated intensive recruitm ent efforts on
the part of the three facilitato rs. Inflation had spiraled costs in education th at
year, and so in order to keep the Program solvent, both sisters agreed to
receive only part-tim e salaries. The composition of the facilitato rs was,
therefore, th a t of a part-tim e director involved in doctoral studies, a part-tim e
coordinator for the faith support group activities involved in teaching part-tim e
in a near-by elem entary school to supplem ent her salary, and a full-tim e
assistant director who was involved in taking evening classes a t law school.
This new distribution of the facilitato rs’ tim e was to a ffe ct the overall
thrust of the Program in several ways. F irst, to adjust to this new tim e
distribution, the hour of academ ic counseling given to each student was reduced
to one-half hour. This new arrangem ent proved satisfactory since the students
had gained efficiency in this process from experiences of past students and
were b e tter prepared for counseling sessions. Then, the coordinating of the
faith community had to be shared by the two sisters, each of whom had a
different emphasis. This dual em phasis, while it did not polarize the students,
did a ffe c t the degree of unity among the students during this year.
The greatest e ffe c t of this distribution of the facilitato rs’ tim e,
however, was th a t it hindered any new innovative effo rts which the facilitato rs
might seek to im plem ent. Although they had experience in im plem enting
15k
innovations, these already heavily burdened teachers did not have the extra
tim e and energy needed to develop new program s.
The composition of the students th at year was also unique and
challenging. The students had described them selves in p re-attitu d e
questionnaires in the following ways:
I am a responsible person. . . .1 want my independence. . . .1 am a
creative learner. . . .1 find my present school stifling. . . .1 want a
greater selection of classes. . . .1 want to self-direct my learning. . . .1
want a challenge. . . .1 want to be m yself. . . .1 want learning to be
exciting. . . .1 want a change from a closed campus. . . .(School Pre
attitu d e Questionnaires, Septem ber, 1978)
The racial composition of the learners th at year had changed from a
predom inantly white to a predom inantly black and brown racial composition.
Although the students in the Program generally had been accepting of the racial
differences, th at year a rivalry which stem m ed from two of the home schools
reached the Program . The tradition had been th a t a fter football games, the
losers of the game would vandalize the winners' homes. Thus, the students'
homes were papered; car tires were slashed, and anonymous phone calls haunted
the students. The effects of these phone calls began to be felt by all the
students in the Program ; cliques arose betw een two groups of students. The
facilitators were forced into m ediator roles until they decided to take the group
on a re tre a t where the goals of the Program would be re-explained. One of the
goals of the Program , it was explained a t th a t day-long discussion of this
problem, was th at a student cam e to the Program to pursue career goals with
m aturity and responsibility, not to revive old rivalries. The m ajority of the
students reached consensus on this point, but the rivalry never com pletely
subsided during th at year.
___________________________________________________________________________________________L l i
Around the end of the first sem ester in January, 1979, finances again
took precedence over all other concerns. The Sisters of St. Joseph w ere doing a
study on the meaning of sponsorship regarding institutions in which the Sisters
served. The question of the meaning of support for the Optional Learning
Program by the Sisters of St. Joseph was raised. Since the Optional Learning
Program had no school advisory board to whom this question could be posed as
did other institutions, the D irector was advised to form a school advisory board.
The D irector questioned the necessity and purpose of a board for the Optional
Learning Program . Since many other institutions were in the throes of
redefining their relationship with boards, the D irector was not pressured into
form ing a board, but she was asked how she planned to clear up the $2,000
deficit which would accrue to the Program a t the end of the year. Since there
was no school board to accept this money raising responsibility, the D irector
decided to ask the students to sponsor money raising activities, dances, and
bake sales. One student wrote:
To Community leaders:
If the Optional Learning Program is to continue to offer its unique
educational form at to a m ulti-background group of students, it needs
the support of the entire Los Angeles community: its civic, business,
and neighborhood leaders. Will the OLP be forced to shut its doors
from the lack of funds, or c ater only to the very rich? Middle class
and poor need not apply. Today the Optional Learning Program
students come from north, south, east, and west Los Angeles. It is a
sound educational self-help program for sm art young adults. This
Program , unlike other more expensive program s th at fail to help youth
help them selves, is working. Tuition scholarships from civic and
business leaders would be welcome so th a t less affluent students could
enjoy the benefits of this program .
Apprenticeship opportunities would als,o be welcome. Would you
like an enthusiastic young adult to work in your business? Public
spirited businesses like the Bank of A m erica, Golden S tate M utual Life
Insurance, and the law firm of Arm strong, Willis, Knolls, R adcliffe,
and Perkins have said -Y es--W h at about you? (Student le tte r, 1979)
156
All this activity, which took away from the "educating" aspects of the Program ,
resulted in raising only $500. A deficit of $1,500 would be left for the next
year.
One other event which gave the D irector insight into the relationship
of the Program to other C atholic schools was the opportunity to be on a
planning com m ittee of 12 principals for a general secondary school convention
to be held in Pasadena on O ctober 17, 1979. In working with these principals,
the autonomous nature of each school in the C atholic school system was
revealed. C atholic school adm inistrators in each school were expected to run
an efficient, solvent school with little outside help. Although they had
com plete freedom to innovate or not to innovate within their schools, cost was
a restraining facto r. And, cost was the question which was most often
addressed when the principal thought of sending a student to the Optional
Learning Program — since tuition from th at student would be redirected to the
Program — a cost which th a t principal often felt he/she could not spare. Most
principals were, therefore, hesitant to actively support the Optional Learning
Program . A student in dire need of a creative learning program was often left
to find out about the Program through his/her own ingenuity. Most often
principals were willing to send only their discipline problems to the Program;
other qualified students had to aggressively demand to be allowed to attend the
Program .
The end of the fourth year cam e with the students feeling confident
th at they were prepared to take the step into adulthood. Their expected
outcom e goal stated on the school p re-attitu d e questionnaires m atched well
with the actual goal achieved in their post- attitu d e questionnaires.
157
The Program helped me to come to a decision about a career in
law . . . .in accounting . . . in journalism . . . in m edicine. . . .It helped
me graduate from high school and like it. . . .1 becam e more self-
confident . . . more independent . . . more organized. . . .1 conquered
my fear of self-directed learning. . . .It taught me how to be an
individual . . . to be honest with myself . . . to make decisions about
my life. (School P ost-attitude Questionnaires, May, 1979)
The facilitator who was to leave the Program th at year w rote,
I really enjoyed working in the Program these last three years. It was
a challenge and I never lost in te re s t-e v e n once. I believe so much in
this type of learning and I do hope you can continue to run this
Program . (L etter from the Coordinator of the faith community
support group, May, 1979)
But could it be done? The next year there would be only one full-tim e
facilitato r and one part-tim e director both studying intensively for higher
degrees and a deficit of $1,500 to be cleared up.
Year V; Residuals of Change, 1979-1980
Gone were the traces of the hippie m ovem ent with its flam boyant
desires for open spaces, freedom , and rebelliousness. In its place in the schools
in the year 1979, a new generation of students concerned with getting "a good
paying job" cam e to the Program wanting guaranteed entrance into colleges,
the route to the "good life." This spirit was evident in the p re-attitu d e
questionnaires of the students, 25 of whom listed as their prim ary reason for
coming to the Program to get a head sta rt in college or in a professional career.
They described them selves as m ature, responsible students, needing more
independence, new learning experiences, more self-discipline, and as one stated,
"not wanting to waste my senior year with meaningless social activities."
This group was more serious and more aw are of the need to learn "how
to make it in a rapidly changing society." They expected the Program to be
___________________________________________________________________________________________L5&
future-oriented, challenging, meaningful, interesting, new, and helpful. When
asked why they should be adm itted into the Program , they answered confi
dently: "I am ready for new experiences. . . .1 am capable. . . .1 am willing to
work hard to attain my goals." (School P re-A ttitude Questionnaires, Sept. 1979)
And so, the fifth year of the Program began on a positive note. The
facilitato rs, only two, and the 27 new learners seem ed to have the goals of the
Program clearly in focus. The increased number of students in the Program
from the previous year and the raising of tuition rates in the home schools made
it possible to project th at the Program would be solvent a t the end of th a t year
without the need for money raising activities.
The recruitm ent problem was also less serious th at year. Some schools
were beginning to share the responsibility of actively encouraging students to
join the Program . Ten schools participated in the Program . Principals who
understood the goals of the Program for tw elfth grade students were asking
teachers and counselors in the home school to cooperate with the facilitators] in
the Program to identify students who would profit from the Program . Some
principals, however, were still sending their discipline problems to the Program .
One tenth grade student, two eleventh grade students, and one tw elfth grade
student who did not fit in traditional schools were sent to the Program th at
year. The Program 's open-door policy and open a ttitu d e toward diversity and
individuality as well as the belief th at all students were educable, made the
Program the most humane place for these four students to try to com plete their
high school education. But, the facilitators in the Program had often
em phasized to the principals th at they were not psychiatrists. The Program
could only offer increased m otivation based on needs and interests. The tenth
159
grade student, who cam e labeled as a discipline problem from her home school,
had the m aturity and intelligence to understand the difference betw een
"schooling" and "educating*" When she realized th a t she could get "education"
not "schooling" through the Program , she settled down to acquire the
self-discipline needed to com plete three years course work in two years and to
pass the proficiency te st. She was accepted into Schiller International
University in England a t age 17.
The two junior students who were sent to the Program as discipline
problems continued to run away from home periodically. With no fam ily
stability, it becam e impossible for these two students to keep up with the study
load required by the Program . At their home school they had been allowed to
receive credits for sitting through classes; in the Program they were expected
to study 70 hours for five credits. At the end of two months, they decided th at
they could not accept the challenge and the responsibility of the Program . The
senior student, however, did have serious em otional problems and was referred
to another agency for help.
Two new developments a t the home schools occurred which boosted
the image of the Program during th at year. The first was a positive report
given to a W estern Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) com m ittee
about the Optional Learning Program . This report is included in Appendix E. In
this school the Program was listed under a section titled enrichm ent oppor
tunities open to the students. On the question "What are the apparent strengths
of the Program ?" the response from a teachers' com m ittee was:
A) It is more com prehensive in its to tal scope— academ ically and
spiritually, and in its career orientation for the individual student than
the regular school program . B) It is more individualized, flexible, and
mobile than a regular school program . C) It capitalizes on the best
160
educational offerings and resource personnel from academ ic and
career resources in the city. D) It provides g reater opportunity for
decision making and for accepting of responsibility on the part of the
student. (WASC Report, 1979)
The second event which gave hope to the facilitato rs was a le tte r
w ritten by a counselor to the students in her school explaining the purpose and
relationship of the Program to th at school. Since this was the first active,
w ritten support initiated by a counselor in a home school who saw the goals in
the sam e light and in the sam e relation as did the facilitators in the Program ,
this was considered a breakthrough in com m unication. Here, at last, was some
evidence th at school officials were beginning to understand the role and place
of the Program in the to tal C atholic high school system .
A problem which needed clarifying this year was th at of receiving a
diploma from a home school a fte r com pleting the tw elfth year course of studies
under the supervision of the facilitato rs in the Program . For most of the
students, this was no problem since the Program was considered an extension of
the home school. The facilitators were well qualified, credentialed teachers.
The Program was authorized by the archdiocesan board of education. Schools,
therefore, readily granted diplomas and allowed students to participate in
graduation exercises at the home school. But, for those few students who were
sent to the Program as discipline problem s, the process was more com plicated.
Three students expelled from their home schools had come to the Program on
the recom m endation of the principals of these schools. A fter com pleting the
required courses successfully in the Program , these students expected to
receive a diploma from the home school, but the home school had expelled
them . The student, then, wanted a diploma from the Program ; the Program was
not authorized to issue diplomas. The D irector decided th at there must be a
161
creativ e solution to this problem which would not penalize the student, so she
asked a principal in one of the high schools, who had an open, liberalizing
attitu d e tow ard red-tape problems, to issue diplomas to these students. The
principal agreed and the students had the benefit of both a "schooling" process
and an "educating" process.
During this year, the Sisters St. Joseph continued to ask the D irector
to form an advisory board.
The M embers are aw are th a t the Optional Learning Program
continues to operate on a very tight budget, and congratulates you and
your faculty mem bers for the com m itm ent to the Program and the
effo rt required to operate a beneficial program with this minimal
funding. . . .We would also encourage you to pursue the advisory board
which might help in the establishm ent of some financial stability along
with any other assistance it might lend. (L etter from the Chairm an of
the Members of the Corporation, May 15, 1979)
A ttem pts to form this advisory board resulted in only one m eeting in
which the finances of the Program were discussed but not resolved. Time and
the expertise needed by mem bers of a board for the specialized functions of
this Program , made it impossible to form an on-going board a t this tim e.
A form al closing cerem ony was held for the parents, friends, and
teachers from the home school for the first tim e th a t year. Each of the
students was asked to explain to the guests a t this cerem ony what goals he/she
had achieved by attending the Program . The overwhelming response from the
students was th at the Program 's orientation to learning had made it possible for
them to make im portant decisions and choices about their careers and had given
them a headstart in obtaining their goals. The parents, teachers, and friends
were impressed by the marked m aturity this sense of purpose had given these
students. They noted the obvious differences in m aturity from their peers in
162
the home schools, many of whom had not yet made decisions about their careers
and goals.
Year VI: The Final Days, 1980-1981
The sixth and final year of the Program opened with 2k students and
two facilitators. Since the tuition rates in most Catholic schools had reached a
peak, it was alm ost certain th a t the students in the Optional Learning Program
would be from upwardly mobile, middle class fam ilies. And, they were. When
asked why they cam e to the Program , the answer was the sam e as the year
before: They cam e—not for freedom , not for justice, not for adventure—but to
get a good college education so th a t they could have a share in the Am erican
dream . The Program , they believed, could give them a head sta rt.
When the assistant director, who could intuitively assess a group of
students from her five years of experience in the Program , was asked to
describe this last group, she said, ’’They are a typical Am erican group— diverse,
unique, bonded together by the Am erican dream —money" (A ssistant D irector,
Interview, 1980). She went on to say th a t the m ajority cam e from good homes
where children were cherished as the hope of the future. Some had two
parents; some, one; some parents were alcoholics, some fam ilies were into
drugs; some were Cuban or Middle Eastern refugee fam ilies. The students
them selves were am bitious, worldly-wise, eager to take part in the Am erican
scene of drugs, sex, and affluence. Some believed they would get the "lucky
break" in sports or in movies—for m ost, going to college was the slow, sure way
to affluence.
163
Sensing the prevailing attitu d e toward education among the students
to be th a t of wanting to get som ething, quick and easy, for nothing, the
D irector decided th a t the first week of school should be set aside to clarify the
goals of the Program . The tapes reveal the emphasis: G etting an education is
hard work; nothing is free. She said th at the facilitators would guide them , be
resource persons, would fac ilitate their search for knowledge. They would not
spoon-feed them . They, as learners, must be willing to use every m inute of
their tim e pursuing their goals—responsibly, freely -stu d y in g the theory, under
standing it, and applying it to concrete situations. The city was their
classroom ; they were to use it to find and to select from its richness th a t which
best served their needs. Finally, they were to integrate and to direct all their
studies tow ard their chosen career goal. The English sem inars a t the Doheny
Campus would help them learn how to read critically, to w rite and speak well.
The social studies sem inars would help them learn their rights and duties as
mem bers of a free society. Their ethics sem inars would help them discuss
m orality, social justice, and life styles issues. Finally, the group support
activities in the Program would give them opportunities to participate in the
cultural life of the city through field trips; give them opportunities to give
service to the community in hospitals, schools, handicapped centers; and give
them opportunities for adult social interactions through re tre a ts, beach parties,
and celebrations.
The students were eager and willing to begin. The year began on a
positive note. On O ctober 8, 1980, all the parents except two attended the first
general m eeting. A fter presentations by the students regarding their learning
goals and activities, the parents expressed enthusiastic support for the
164
Program . A sense of unity of purpose—th at of opening doors and providing
opportunities to learn for these young people—prevailed among the group.
Three events occurred during this year, however, which le ft no
alternative but to close the Program in May, 1981. Again, these events
centered on the finances of the Program and the conflict with "schooling" goals.
The first was a possibility of obtaining funds for the dissem ination of the
Program to other C atholic high school system s. At a m eeting a t the
archdiocesan board of education with the new Executive D irector of the NCEA,
the Executive D irector explained the services available to educators in Los
Angeles through the NCEA. One was the availability of funds to dissem inate
new educational program s. Since many of the educators present a t this m eeting
were aware of the benefits of the Optional Learning Program , they suggested
th a t the funds be granted to the Optional Learning Program for this purpose.
The NCEA Executive D irector m et with the D irector of the Optional Learning
Program and explained the procedure for obtaining these funds. A proposal was
w ritten and sent to the D irector of R esearch and D evelopm ent. A le tte r cam e
from the NCEA Executive D irector assuring th a t a decision would be made
within the month— M arch. By June 18, no word had been received. The
D irector w rote and asked regarding the progress of the proposal. The response
was as follows:
Thank you for your le tte r of June 18 inquiring about the status of
the proposal which you have subm itted. I regret th a t you have not
heard from the D irector of R esearch. It was my impression th at he
intended to w rite to you shortly a fte r he received your proposal from
me.
In the m eantim e, the director has suffered several fam ily losses,
and as of May 31, he has term inated his em ploym ent here a t the
NCEA.
165
The position of Developm ent D irector is now open. It is my
impression th a t our president does not intend to fill this position
before Septem ber, 1981.
With all of this in mind and looking a t the tim e schedule which
you outlined in your le tte r, I would indicate th a t there is no possibility
th a t your proposal will be funded for the coming year. (L etter from
the Executive D irector, June 29, 1981)
Here again was evidence of the red tape, the weak lines of com m unication, and
of a certain degree of unprofessionalism in the presiding authorities which
continued to haunt the Optional Learning Program 's efforts to "educate."
The second event centered on a sponsorship question. For the past
th ree years, 1978-1981, a nationwide study of the meaning of sponsorship had
been conducted by the Sisters of St. Joseph. This year would be the final year
for the study. In each area of the United States where the Sisters of St. Joseph
gave service, representatives from these institutions were called to finalize the
study. On November 1, 1980, 49 m em bers involved in leadership positions in
hospitals, schools, and special services in California and Arizona were called
together to develop a statem en t th at would embody the essential concepts of
sponsorship as they pertain to the congregation. The D irector and the A ssistant
D irector of the Optional Learning Program were asked to take part in this
m eeting. It was evident from the beginning th a t the sponsorship question was
to deal with large, long-established institutions, but three seedling service
foundations were represented a t this m eeting: the Optional Learning Program ,
The House of Ruth, a home for b attered women in Los Angeles, and St. Joseph
C enter, a center for aid to M exican-Am ericans in Venice.
A prelim inary statem en t of sponsorship was sent to all these insti
tutions. It read:
Sponsorship is the endorsem ent by the congregation of an
institution which it owns or for which it has assumed responsibility.
____________________________________________________________________________1 A 6.
The congregation and the sponsored institution must hold consistent
philosophies. The institution furthers the stated goals of the congre
gation through a particular m inistry. The congregation by sharing
reputation, tradition and charism , com m its itself to continuing
identification with the institution. (Working D raft for Sponsorship
Proposal, January, 1980)
At this m eeting the means to e ffe c t this sponsorship relationship was
decided upon without much discussion—a Sister would a ct as a m ember of a
board and boards would be set up in all institutions where the sisters served.
The duties of these boards were left to be decided by mem bers of the
institutions. The general meaning was, however, th a t a Sister of St. Joseph
would be on the board to help e ffe c t changes in policy which would prom ote the
spirit of the Sisters of St. Joseph in a particular institution.
Although the creation of boards and the presence on the board of a
Sister of St. Joseph was considered the most effectiv e means available to the
sisters to influence and to guide the policies of large institutions, this definition
of sponsorship for seedling foundations was totally inadequate. Monies, not
policy statem ents, were needed by these small foundations. The resulting
sponsorship definition ignored the reality th a t small foundations were in
them selves and by their very nature policy statem ents of the philosophy of the
Sisters of St. Joseph.
The third event which determ ined the closing of the Program was a
m eeting held for secondary teaching sisters of St. Joseph on February 21-22,
1981. As an a fte r thought, the D irector of the Optional Learning Program was
asked to take p art in a pre-planning m eeting on November 21, 1980. During the
past five years, principals from the high schools where the Sisters of St. Joseph
taught had not m et as an official group. The new governm ent structure had
called for the Service S ecretariate Sister to m eet individually with each
167
principal as the need arose. This style of leadership had prevailed, but now the
need for more com m unication among those sisters in secondary schools was
voiced. There was hope th a t this m eeting would generate this kind of
com m unication. Instead, the e ffe c t of the style of leadership which had
prevailed during the past five years influenced the direction of the m eeting.
Schools and their principals had been acting as autonomous units rather than as
cooperative units during the past five years. Each principal saw her own school
situation as unique. The D irector of the Optional Learning Program , unaware
of the influence of this style of leadership, had come prepared to report how
she had brought to realization one of the w ritten goals which she had felt
m andated by the 1973 educational task force to carry out in the Optional
Learning Program . The goal was fam iliar to many of the principals present at
this m eeting since they had form ulated it during the years of 1971-1973 on
com m ittees in th at educational task force. Goal read:
To provide a clim ate which encourages educational creativ ity and
innovation so th a t the unique potential of each student can be
developed.
Rationale: The search for new form s of schooling should
therefore continue. Some may bear little resem blance to schooling as
we have known it: the fam ily education center; the school without
walls, drawing comprehensively on comm unity resources; the
counseling center, e tc . New form s require pilot program s along with
study and evaluation. C atholic schools have the capacity and freedom
to experim ent. A dm inistrators and teachers should therefore cooper
ate with parents in designing experim ental models or pilot programs to
improve educational standards and results. (Secondary School Goals,
The Sisters of St. Joseph of C arondelet, 1973)
At this m eeting, however, there was no opportunity to review these
goals and objectives into which had gone long years of thought and planning.
Instead the m eeting resulted in "reinventing the wheel." When questions arose
which the educational practices of the Optional Learning Program could have
168
shed light on, there was little or no in terest on the part of these principals to
hear what had happened educationally in this innovative program during the
past five years. Of the 12 principals present, only one had taken tim e during
these years to visit the Optional Learning Program .
The general m eeting for the Sisters teaching in secondary school
continued along these same lines—money, personnel, traditional means to m eet
the challenges of the tim es—were the concerns of most of the Sisters teaching
in secondary schools. When the results of the general m eeting held on February
21 and 22 which was attended by the 69 sisters teaching in high schools, the
needs centered more on the needs of the sisters than on the students. Listed as
im portant needs to secondary education were:
1) to value what we are doing
2) to hire lay persons with the same philosophy
3) to keep open all lines of com m unication
4) to have professional and com petent leadership
Only two included the students’ need:
1) the need to respond to the spiritual needs of the students
2) the need to create/m aintain a structure th at enables growth in
spirituality
From the list of needs the following recom m endations were drawn up:
The Sisters
— would provide training for leadership;
— would enable lay persons to assume leadership roles;
— would sta rt to develop an office for all CSJ institutions;
— would encourage mobility;
— would develop c riteria for recommending people to positions of
leadership;
— would keep sisters in positions of adm inistration, in campus
m inistry, in counseling, on boards of directors;
— would provide a b e tter understanding of the relationship of the
board of directors to the school;
— would provide education for b e tter understanding of the term
"sponsorship". (Minutes from Secondary School Meeting, May 13,
1981)
1£2
The only recom m endation which seem ed to address the needs of the students
was the following. "The Sisters would be aw are of curriculum .developm ents,
team teaching, and revitalization of enthusiasm ."
These three events finalized the decision to close the Program in May,
1981. To the D irector of the Optional Learning Program , the goal of
"educating" as described for the students in this Program seemed to be in
contrast to the goal of "schooling" which had taken priority in the educational
plans of the Sisters of St. Joseph. The D irector, well aw are of the environm ent
and support needed for the growth and developm ent of new educational
program s, sensed th at support for this innovation could not come from this
group of educators. Havelock (1973) had identified the following
characteristics as essential to the change agent’s role: reciprocity, openness,
realistic expectations, expectations of rew ard, structure, equal power,
minimum th re a t, confrontation of differences, and involvem ent of all relevant
parties, (p. 51) The three events described in this section showed th a t few of
these characteristics were present in the social structures of the existing school
system .
The m ost salient reasons for closing the Program , however, dealt with
m ore concrete facts: the co n tract with Mount St. Mary's College for the use of
Building #1 had expired; the new superiors of the Sisters of St. Joseph suggested
th a t the Program be re-established in the suburbs; the assistant director needed
tim e to study for the bar exam ination in July, and the newly appointed
principals for the 1981-82 school year in C atholic schools in Los Angeles could
not be relied on to support the Program .
170
The Program closed June 1, 1981. The response to the closing of the
Program was as follows. From the new superiors of the C alifornia province
cam e a le tte r of thanks:
Thanks are, indeed in order to both of you . . . for the inspiration
you have been to many students who have gone through the optional
learning program . . . for your creativ ity and dedication to excellence
in education . . . for your respect for individuals and really taking
students where you find them . . . for facilitating. (L etter from
Provincial Superiors, May, 1981)
From the past provincial superior now studying in Rome who had been present
through the initial stages of the Program cam e:
Its future form and the full im pact of the program of these past six
years are yet unknown. But I certainly commend you for your
dedicated leadership and educational vision. (June 15, 1981)
From the President of the College cam e:
Thank you so much for your le tte r of M arch 18, 1981, in which you
express appreciation for the support given to the Optional Learning
Program . We are delighted to have been able to help in any way this
outstanding program; and you are surely to be commended for the fine
work you have done in building the program and in carrying it forw ard.
The students have surely gained a great deal. (March 25, 1981)
From the new A ssistant Dean of Studies a t the Doheny Campus who
attended the final cerem ony:
As I listened to those m ature, articu late young people tell what the
Optional Learning Program m eant to them in their last year of
school. . . .1 realized how highly successful in so many ways you had
been; it gives you a great deal to go on in deciding what comes next.
(May 27, 1981)
The final word on the success of the Program was le ft to the students.
The students on their p o st-attitu d e questionnaire when asked what they had
learned from the Program , replied:
I have learned to become more responsible (15 replies); I have learned
to respect others; I have learned th a t there are b e tter ways to learn
than the traditional ways, and I have learned if you work hard for your
own goals, you will succeed. (School P o st-attitu d e Q uestionnaires,
May, 1981)
171
They unanimously said th at their goals to becom e more responsible and to get a
head sta rt in college and career had been attained through the Program . The
educating practices of freedom , flexibility, self-directed learning experiences,
diversity, change, openness were factors chosen as enabling them to a ttain their
goals.
In the final address to the students, the D irector said to the students,
In the book The Once and Future King by T. H. White, Merlin said to
King Arthur a t the end of his education "The best thing for all seasons
is to learn som ething. That is the only thing th at never fails . . . th at
is the only thing which the mind can never exhaust, never alienate,
never be tortured by, never fear or distrust, and never dream of
regretting. . . ." And so rem em ber, students, learning is the thing for
you— a t all tim es and in all places. (May, 1981) (See Appendix F for
the follow-up report).
172
CHAPTER VI
THE ANALYSIS
In this chapter an analysis of the Optional Learning Program is brought
about through a self-conscious reflection on the narration and on the data
obtained through participant observation, interview s, questionnnaires, form al
and inform al discussions with participants in th e Program from the years 1975-
1981. The following prem ise was the basis for the analysis: In order to provide
a meaningful and relevant educational program for tw elfth grade students in
Am erican society of the 1970s, four key com ponents—the organizational
structures, the role of the teacher, the role of the student, and the curriculum —
would require major changes from those which w ere traditionally assigned to
these components of "schooling" in Am erica.
A meaningful and relevant education for tw elfth grade students who
took part in the Optional Learning Program during the years of 1975-1981 was
defined in the narration as one which differs significantly from traditional
"schooling" program s for tw elfth grade students. This difference was defined as
a direction toward openness, change, diversity, and freedom in the four
essential com ponents of this learning program as the means to a ttain the
overall goal of the Program —transition to adulthood through direct learning
experiences in college or in career orientation.
The social and historical perspectives which w ere identified in C hapter
III through the discussion in C hapter I and through a review of literatu re in
173
C hapter II have been the means throug
form ulated with increasing persistence
the United States.
Furtherm ore, in C hapter IV,
like public schools began as a mean
transform society. But, these schools
is, to provide upward m obility for the
school success with "schooling" practic
to existing social structures. The exi
which have been identified in C hapter I
therefore, appropriate to both Cath<
identifies a new set of social and histor
to which C atholic and public schools mu
;h which "schooling" practices have been
during the past 20 years of education in
it was pointed out th a t C atholic schools
s to educate the m asses, th a t is, to
>oon becam e the means "to school," th at
Tiiddle class. Empirical studies equated
es which could be quantified and related
sting historical and social perspectives
II as guiding "schooling" in A m erica are,
jlic and public education. Figure 5
ical perspectives which are evolving and
st yet respond.
H i s t o r i c a l P e rs p e c tiv e s S o c ia l S tr u c tu r e s
View of Time = tra n s fo rm a tiv e Economic s t r u c t u r e = lim ite d
re so u rce s
View of space = in te rd e p en d e n t P o l i t i c a l s t r u c t u r e = i n t e r
n a tio n a l c o rp o ra te
monopolies
Governing p r i n c i p l e =
p a r t i c i p a t i v e ,
communities
S o c ia l s t r u c t u r e = d iv id ed
in to th o se who "have,"
c a lle d a c h ie v e rs and
those who "have n o t,"
c a lle d dependents
A ttitu d e toward c o n f l i c t =
c r e a t i v e s o lu tio n s
C u ltu ra l s t r u c t u r e = p l u r a l
i s t i c , v a r i e t y of l i f e
s t y l e s , i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c
Figure 5 — The Evolving H i s t o r i c a l P e rsp e c tiv e and S o c ia l S tr u c tu re s
in American S o ciety (Holland & H e n rio t, 1980).
174
In this figure it is evident th a t the evolving historical perspective
which views tim e as a process in which transform ation takes place, views space
as interdependent spacial relationships which are both creative and dialectical,
views the governing principle as th a t of participative com m unities who are
called on to make the key decisions in society, and views conflict as the call for
new and b e tte r form s of society is in direct co n trast to the evolving social
structures. These social structures with their lim ited resources, international
corporate monopolies, division of men into achievers and non-achievers, and
individualistic life styles continues to alienate men and to create com petitive
world structures.
This analysis, therefore, exam ines the organizational structures, the
role of the facilitato r, the role of the learner, and the learning environm ent of
the Optional Learning Program as they were designed with an awareness of
these evolving historical perspectives and social structures and as they were
affected by the accepted historical perspecties and social structures to which
existing school structures respond.
Through this analysis, the obstacles, the lim itations, and the benefits
which brought about or restricted the full im plem entation of the Optional
Learning Program as a meaningful and relevant educational program for tw elfth
grade students is brought into sharper focus.
The O rganizational Structures
The first component of "schooling" which this learning program sought
to change in order to "educate" was its overall organizational structure.
O rganizational structures in this study are defined as those tim e sequences
_____________________________ 175
which bring order and sequence to the learning process. The narration indicates
th at two new structures were created for im plem entation into this Program :
(1) structures created by the student himself to outline and direct his
educational study program and (2) structures created by the facilitato rs of the
program for the m anagem ent of group processes. These two structures were
affected by the established "schooling" structures to which the Program was
accountable. These established structures w ere structures in colleges, home
schools, and related institutions. The structures of these institutions involved
the recruiting and processing of students who participated in this Program and
the moral and financial support of the program .
In creating a stru ctu re to outline and direct his/her study program , the
student was given the following guidelines. The structure was to allow for
openness to various contingencies in their life which would arise and a ffe c t the
to tal study plan. . It was to be a stru ctu re which was diverse in th a t the tim e
allotm ent was to be appropriate to the subject m atter's degree of difficulty or
com plexity. It was to be a stru ctu re which viewed study tim e as open, flexible,
and continuous throughout the day or night. Finally, the students were free to
design a structure which was essentially different from other students in the
Program .
According to the narration, th ree factors influenced the degree of
openness, diversity, change, and freedom in accomplishing this task by the
student. They were: (1) factors related to previous educational experiences
(2) factors related to the readiness of the student in perform ing this task and
(3) factors which were related to the external environm ent.
176
The factors related to previous educational experiences and the
factors related to a student's readiness which affected the process of self
structured study tim e centered on the 11-year habituation to an eight-to-th ree
school day with 50 m inutes of study for each subject. Since most of these
students had had no previous experience in self-structuring study tim e, many
saw the habituated way of structuring study tim e in regular school as ideal and
attem p ted to follow the eig h t-to -th ree study tim e. O thers were not ready to
structure their own study tim e. F acilitators, then, becam e involved in this
process which often resulted in the facilitato r rather than the student "owning"
the study tim e. The fac ilitato r in perform ing this task was seen as "the
teacher" who was responsible for monitoring the study tim e; this, in turn,
lessened the degree of self-directedness, of freedom , and of independence of
the student. To avoid this difficulty, several orientation sessions were held for
the student. These sessions aim ed a t providing the special skills needed to
stru ctu re study tim es and a t identifying those students who were not ready for
this task. Students who were not ready for this task becam e aw are of this
during orientation sessions and asked to return to the home school. A to tal of
16 students, who had initially wanted to atten d the Program , volunteered to
leave the Program using this as the prim e reason. To those who had the ability
to perform this task, resource m aterials which included places where their
individual goals could be m et, and creativ e structures from previous students
were given to them as aids to stru ctu re study tim e. The school pre- and post
attitu d e questionnaires indicated th a t the students saw this task as the primary
m eans which increased their sense of responsibility and ownership of the
learning process. O ther com m ents on the questionnaires indicate th at this
177
process helped the students becom e more realistic about the amount of tim e
they needed individually to m aster a subject and th a t this process also helped
them to budget, to prioritize, and to organize their study tim e according to
their specific academ ic, em otional and social needs, which moved them closer
to the attainm ent of the overall goal of the Program —transition to adulthood.
The student was allowed two days in which he/she was free to
stru ctu re his study tim e, place, and m ethods individually. Students structured
their study tim e on these two days a t junior college libraries, a t public libraries,
a t community learning centers, a t regional occupation centers, a t the home
school libraries, or at their home or business with a tu to r, com pleting two
courses (70 hours of study per subject) related to their career choice. On these
two days, the student was also required to come to the Doheny Campus for an
academ ic counseling period. Any adjustm ent to the individual study schedule
was made in consultation with the facilitato r. Those students who chose to
spend their study tim e a t home on these two days had the g reatest difficulties
in com pleting the minimal required hours of study. M ost homes were not
equipped with study rooms. Also, parents who were habituated to the students
attending school believed th a t if a student rem ained a t home, he/she should be
given household tasks and errands to perform during the day. Students who
were serious about com pleting the required hours began to complain to the
facilitato rs. When parents were contacted, b e tter study arrangem ents were
made a t home or the student chose another place for study.
Money also proved to be a factor which restrained the student from
following his/her self-designed study plan. Students, because of the rising cost
of m aterial goods to which they had been accustom ed and because of their
178
growing independence, fe lt they needed more spending money, thus they found
p art-tim e jobs. Once they becam e dependent on a job for money, however, the
job becam e more demanding. Their employers would increase the days and tim e
for working with no consideration of the study schedule; some students’ work
tim e was increased to 40 hours a week. At the weekly, individual academ ic
counseling period, these learners, th erefo re, w ere confronted with their
priorities and made aw are of th e choices th a t w ere forced on them from
expedience.
The second stru ctu re which was created in order to achieve the overall
goals of th e Program was the stru ctu re created by the facilitato rs to m anage
group processes. The sam e overall criterion was used to judge the effectiveness
of this structure: openness, diversity, change, and freedom . The goal was to
provide a balance of activities which would address both the individual and
social needs of the student. A student was required to come to the Optional
Learning C enter a t the Doheny Campus on two days of the week for group
activities. On the other two days, the student was free to stru ctu re his/her own
study tim e. Fridays were reserved for comm unity service. The first sem ester
schedule extended from Septem ber 1 to Decem ber 20. January was the month
reserved for apprenticeship program s. The second sem ester extended from
February 1 to May 31. This schedule would provide a balance of tim e betw een
group and individual activities. The two days spent a t the Doheny Campus
included th ree sem inars in subjects required by the home school for gradu
ation--E nglish, social studies, and religion, and one sem inar in personal
developm ent, career exploration, and cultural appreciation. These sem inars
179
w ere generally three hours long and consisted of large and small group
discussions and lectures.
The factors which influenced the developm ent of an effectiv e group
activity structure were (1) the em otional and intellectual readiness on the part
of the student for participation in these experiences, and (2) the appropriate
ness of the am ount of tim e allocated and the quality of the activity for the
particular group of tw elfth grade students.
In designing group activities through which the learners of the
Optional Learning Program would learn efficient group processes, it was
assumed th a t the students were ready and th at appropriate group activities
could be designed for the particular group. It soon becam e clear th at the
excessive emphasis on "freedom to do what I want to do," which was the
prevailing attitu d e of alternativ e schools a t this tim e—1975-76—stifled and
restricted any attem pts to provide meaningful group activities. During the first
year, attendance at sensitivity sessions by a large group of students also re
enforced the attitu d e of personal freedom . Group sessions in the Program cam e
to be characterized by individual outbursts of em otion and declarations th a t "if
I don't want to come to group sessons, I don't have to." Students also
threatened the facilitato rs with the statem ent: "I cam e to the Program to do
what 1 ^ want, not what you decide."
Considerable tim e, therefore, had to be spent in defining the lim its of
individual rights vis-a-vis group rights. During the last five years of the
Program , several steps were taken to balance individual activities with group
activities. F irst, in orientation sessions, the balance and the rationale for this
balance betw een group and individual activities and tim e were explained in
180
relation to the overall goals. Second, when students signed the co n tract to join
the Program , they w ere made aw are th a t they w ere signing to participate both
in individual study activities and in group activ ities. Third, group skills needed
by the students for full, quality participation in these activities were assessed
and taught before the group activity was undertaken.
The goal of group activities was to provide quality tim e experience for
the students, but there were several restraining factors to the attainm ent of
this goal. The prevailing emphasis on individual freedom lessened the desire of
the student to cooperate in the planning and im plem entation of meaningful
group activities. F acilitators were relied on, therefore, to design and to
im plem ent these activities. The result of this made it possible for the
facilitato rs to prioritize the sem inar classes which were required by the home
school for graduation. As the questionnaires indicated, however, the th ree
sem inars in English, social studies, and ethics w ere ranked high in value for
preparation for future careers. Thus, it was decided to continue to prioritize
these sem inars since they provided an adequate basis for group activities which
developed com m unication skills and decision-making skills—skills needed for
transition to adulthood. In reviewing the study projects of the students, there is
evidence th at the activities in these sem inars were varied, personalized, and
centered on the interests, talen ts, and lim itations of the students. Only when
these sem inars reverted to traditional methods of lecturing and testing was
there evidence th a t students did not participate fully in these group activities.
The outlines for these sem inars reveal th a t there was an emphasis on "how to
study" these subjects, rather than on the content of these subjects.
181
Since the study sem inars were assigned three hours of study tim e each
on these two days, only one afternoon a week was left for a seminar which
included career exploration, personal developm ent, and cultural appreciation.
The goal for the career exploration session was to provide activities by which a
student could becom e fam iliar with various careers, share his/her findings with
other students, and make intelligent choices about his/her own career. The goal
for the personal developm ent session was to help the student know him self/her
self through a series of values and attitu d e clarifications so th at he/she could
become an effective m ember of the group. And, the goals of the cultural
appreciation session were to provide opportunities to the student to become
acquainted with the culture of the city of Los Angeles so th a t as an adult
he/she could participate fully in the cultural life of this city.
The data show th a t there were several alternative plans developed
during the six years in order to e ffe c t these goals. Personal development
sessions dominated in years when students had strong em otional and personal
needs. The activities of these sessions, then, centered on personality assess
m ent techniques, on self-actualization processes derived from the writing of
Rogers and of Maslow, and on values clarification activities.
Since career exploration ranked high as a value for transition to
adulthood, group tim e for this activity was resolved in the following way. The
students were to com plete individually a minimal list of assignm ents which
would give them the background necessary to becom e fam iliar with the external
factors of their chosen career. These assignm ents were w ritten up in career
notebooks and shared with the other students during two general sessions during
the first sem ester. Each student took part in an apprenticeship program from
182
9:00 a.m . to 5:00 p.m. each day during January. A t the beginning of the second
sem ester in February, the students shared their apprenticeships with the other
students. In this way, the students cam e to know their chosen career in relation
to the chosen careers of the other students. The activities related to career
exploration were ranked as the most d irect means by which the student
developed a good self-im age, gained self-confidence, and was oriented to adult
practices regarding the earning of a living. A fter three years of the Program ,
the docum ents show th a t success in the Program could be determ ined by the
degree of willingness on the p art of the student to explore a chosen career.
The questionnaires of the students and interview s with the facilitato rs
reveal th a t the group activ ities which centered on cultural field trips were
never satisfactorily resolved. The external factors of transportation, cost, and
tim e were restraining factors in attaining the goal of cultural appreciation.
O ften there were not enough cars for the trips; the cars were not safe; gas
prices continued to inflate during the six years; and the distance for the trips
interferred with job schedules. The composition of the different groups of
students with their diversity and previous participation in certain cultural
activities was also a restraining facto r. Field trips, beach parties, and
celebrations, designed and im plem ented by the facilitators, who belonged to
d ifferent socioeconomic groups and/or another generation, were often inappro
priate to the students whose cultural experiences were oriented to a different
se t of values or tim e period. The questionnaires, therefore, indicated th at the
students were forced into going to places th a t did not in terest them and th a t
they were forced into acting in ways they were not accustom ed to acting. They
complained th a t this aspect of the Program did not contribute to the overall
1S3
goals of openness, diversity, change, and freedom . In evaluating this activity,
therefore, the following plan was adopted during the last two years of the
Program . The students were encouraged to go on six field trips on their own
tim e with three to five students from the Program . These field trips were to be
chosen on the basis th a t they enriched leisure tim e and/ or chosen careers. Few
students, as was evidenced by the decline in the number of field trips taken by
the students during the last three years, appreciated the value of this activity
or took advantage of it. The conflicting com petition for the student's tim e~ job
pressures and social pressures from peers to participate in currently valued
social activities (rock concerts, sports, and disco dancing)—took precedence and
were interpreted by the student as cultural activities.
That the structures created by the facilitato rs to manage group
processes were valued by the students was indicated by the frequent suggestions
on the questionnaires to increase group activities from two days to three days.
Students complained th at two days a week was not enough tim e to form a faith
support comm unity through which they could come to learn how to communi
cate more effectively, could learn the principles which made them more
respectful of the rights and dignity of others, and could develop a self-
confidence based on a self-im age which cam e from honest, sincere interactions
with their peers. O ther students who needed tim e to develop individual study
skills, however, were reluctant to give up their two free days. The final
decision to readjust tim e given to group activities had becom e the responsibility
of the facilitato rs, who were reluctant to c re a te a learning situation in which
the students would becom e dependent on one place of study to fulfill all their
social and individual needs. They, therefore, fe lt increasing group activity days
184
to three would upset the balance which was needed a t th at tim e to develop both
individual and social skills of the students.
In conclusion, although the various steps taken by the facilitato rs to
c re a te effective structures to manage group processes was dependent on the
composition of students who participated in the Program during a particular
year, the aim was to keep a balance betw een group and individual activities. In
years, therefore, when students evidenced a serious lack of either individual or
group skills, an emphasis on either individual or group activities prevailed.
These two structures, the self-designed study structure of the student
and the structure created by the facilitators to e ffe c t group processes, were
affected by the external, established structures of the home schools, the
colleges, and the central institution—the CSJ stru ctu res—on which the Program
was dependent for finances and moral support. To the extent th at the Program
was dependent on the structures in these institutions, the goals of the Program
were affected. The interdependency of these organizational structures had
been established in the procedure which determ ined th at the student would be
selected from an existing Catholic high school and would be prepared for
entrance into existing colleges. Since the goal of the Program was to minim ize
"schooling" processes so as to increase "educating" processes, the red-tape
procedures in these institutions, therefore, had to be evaluated so as to
elim inate those red-tape procedures which interferred with the "educating"
process. The extent, however, to which the Program was able to reduce red-
tape functions was dependent on the following factors: (1) the continued lack of
understanding and/or acceptance of th e goals of the Program as legitim ate
educational goals; (2) the lack of proper channels through which to
185
com m unicate m utual needs and expectations among and betw een these institu
tions, and (3) the lack of aw areness of the reciprocal obligation on the part of
these institutions to prioritize students' needs over adm inistrative needs.
The first area in which these structures cam e in conflict was in the
initial selection of a student for the Program . Since each school within the
Catholic school system was more or less autonomous in setting up particular
school policies, in drawing up the policy for the selection of a student for the
Program , the discrete policies of each school th a t participated in the Program
had to be considered. Thus, the selection process varied from a com pletely
open policy in which the student was allowed to volunteer for the Program to a
closed, restricted policy in which the selection of the student was dependent on
a counselor or principal a t the home school. In schools where there was a
closed, restricted policy, often the policy reflected the attitu d e of the principal
or counselor toward alternative education in general. Thus, in some cases, as
the narration pointed out, the principal's fam iliarity with the altern ativ e school
m ovem ent as exclusively th at of a continuation school— a public school for
delinquents in Los Angeles—resulted in viewing the Program as the C atholic
equivalent for students with discipline problems or students who did not fit into
the home school. Also, since in many cases this policy was dependent on the
a ttitu d e of the Principal, the policy was subject to change when the Principal
was removed from th a t school. In C atholic high schools during the years 1975-
1981, the turnover rate for principals was particularly high. A fter the first
year of the Program , principals of schools th a t participated in the Program
changed a t the rate of 2 to 1.
186
Policies regarding the selection of a student for the Program also was
dependent on the perception of "need" in these home schools. If "need" was
defined as preserving the "school image," there was reluctance on the part of
the school to release an a th lete , a student officer, a cheerleader, or a talented
student to the Program who was an asset to the school image. If, on the other
hand, need was defined as "student need," the home school policy for selecting a
student for the Program was in accord with the volunteer policy of the
Program . The growing concern about diminishing numbers of students and
increasing cost of educational program s which occurred during these years were
prime factors which fostered these attitudes which in many cases were rooted
in elitism , and in a defensive a ttitu d e of m aintaining the status quo.
The second area in which the structures of the Program cam e in
conflict with the structures of the outside institutions was in the processing of
students' grades and transcripts. The yearly schedules for testing, grading, and
beginning and com pleting projects had to coincide with the directive of the
central institution, the home schools, and the colleges so th at the students'
opportunities to continue their "schooling" in these institutions would not be
jeopardized. Potential conflicts in this area were minimized by a careful
process designed by the A ssistant D irector of the Program in which the
students' courses and grades were com puterized through the Regional Educa
tional D ata C enter in Ventura. Since the m ajority of Catholic high schools
com puterized grades and course titles through Ventura, it was possible for the
student's course schedules, titles, and grades received through the Program to
be standardized in a manner acceptable to these outside institutions, and yet
not restric t the kinds, the tim es, and the places of classes for these learners.
187
Until the A ssistant D irector in the Program , however, took over this job,
program m ers in the home schools had insisted th a t all courses taken in the
Program be titled with course titles m atching title s in the home school course
catalogues. This process, however, masked the real nature of the course
selected. The A ssistant D irector, therefore, had to assume this job for the
program m ers in the home school who were not able to cope with this procedure,
and thus greater clarity and meaning was brought to this process.
On the student's transcript and Cal Guidance form which were sent to
the colleges and home schools, it was decided, however, th a t le tte r grades
would be used since le tte r grades were the m ost accepted procedure for this
process. In order to minimize the pressure accompanying the granting of le tte r
grades, however, a collaborative e ffo rt on the p art of the learner, the
facilitato r and an outside authority in some cases was sought. A variety of
evaluation procedures was also used which included oral and w ritten reports,
projects, teaching the m aterial learned to a younger class, and evaluative
m ethods used in program m ed learning.
The final structures which affected the new structures created by the
Optional Learning Program to attain its goals were the fluctuating and unstable
structures related to finance and moral support of the CSJ community on which
the Program was dependent. The narration made clear how these structures
affected the stability and educating goals of the Program . Since financial and
moral support were essential to the very life of the Program , without them ,
excessive tim e and energy had to be devoted to these areas by the facilitato rs.
They did this by "moonlighting," by accepting reduced salaries, and by involving
188
the students in money-raising projects—factors which, in turn, were in conflict
with the "educating" goals of the Program .
In conclusion, to the degree th a t the organizational structures of the
Optional Learning Program — the self designed student structures and the group
process structures—were dependent on outside established organizational
structures for recruiting, processing, and reporting grades of a student and for
financial and moral support of the Program , the attainm ent of the goals of the
Program were restrained for the following reasons: (1) the goals of the
Program were often incom patible with the goals of these institutions; (2) the
attitu d e of the major officers of these institutions often prioritized adm inistra
tive needs over student's needs; and (3) the structures related to finance and
support for seedling programs in the CSJ comm unity were undefined and
unstable during these years.
The Role of the F acilitator
The second component of this learning program which required
redefinition was the role of the teacher. The new role of the teacher was to be
characterized by openness, change, diversity, and freedom .
The p re-attitu d e questionnaires of the students revealed th a t to most
students, the role of the teacher as he/she had experienced it in traditional
education was fuzzy and unclear. Most expected the teacher to be a friend, a
surrogate parent, an advisor, and an ideal adult whom they could em ulate and
model. The teacher most often saw himself as a rescuer and a helper and as the
expert who possessed a body of specialized knowledge which he/she was in
control of dispensing. It was, therefore, necessary to bring greater clarity to
189
this role. This was done by defining the role of the teacher as a fac ilitato r, a
guide, and a resource person.
In the document m aterials, the job descriptions list the duties and
responsibilities of these facilitato rs. The facilitato r was expected to fac ilitate
the learner’s progress tow ards attainm ent of his/her specific career goal by
allowing the student to select and to design learning m aterials—persons, and
things—which would best help him /her to a ttain this goal. The facilitato r was
to guide the learner's academ ic progress so th a t the best use of the learner’s
interests, learning style, potential, and lim itations could be made. The
facilitato r was to be a resource person by providing a variety of learning
m aterials through which the learner could design an integrated course of study.
Finally, the facilitato r was to act as a collaborator in evaluating and assessing
the academ ic progress of the learner. U ltim ately, the role of the facilitato r
was th at of the model learner who had expertise, skills, and knowledge which
was to be shared freely with fledgling learners.
Among the most salient facto rs which surfaced as restraining the full
im plem entation of this role w ere (1) the a ttitu d e of the student tow ard this new
role; (2) the age and experience of the facilitato r which affected this role; and
(3) the variety and am ount of skills, attitu d es, and knowledge required by the
role.
In order to help the learner accept this new role of the teacher as a
facilitato r, a great consistency in the perform ance of daily tasks was demanded
from the facilitato r. Evidence of agreem ent among the facilitato rs about the
kinds of tasks to be perform ed was also necessary. The g reatest evidence of
role reversion cam e in regard to failure. Since the students and teachers had
190
been programmed against overt failure through their previous "schooling1 1
experiences, a clear position on failure had to be stated and affirm ed by the
participants. If students were to accept full responsibility for their successes,
they must also accept full responsibility for their failures. Failure, they were
told, was the result of making intelligent choices among alternative roads to
success. This freedom of choices increased the risk of failures. The learners
understood the theory; but when failure was im m inent, the student through
subtle hints and persuasion demanded th at the facilitators, especially the older,
more experienced facilitato r, revert to the role of rescuer and helper. If the
facilitator refused to revert to this role, the student fell back into a blaming
syndrome to transfer the consequences of failure. The narrations of the
facilitators are filled with exam ples of students1 excuses for not accomplishing
the tasks they had assigned to them selves—the parents, the home situation, a
dog, a job, transportation, the high expectations of the teacher, lack of money,
and society in general were to blam e for their failures. Only when the
facilitators made clear to the learners th at failure was a reversible route to
success did the students come to accept failure as a part of their learning
experiences and, thereby, accept the new role of the teacher as a facilitato r.
The second factor which influenced the way in which the facilitator
im plem ented this new role was the age and experience of the facilitator.
During the six years of the Program , only three facilitators were involved
directly in implementing this new role. The facilitato r who had no previous
teaching experience in traditional schools—age 24—assim ilated this new role
quickly and efficiently. She saw herself as facilitato r, guide, and resource
person, not as a rescuer and a helper. For the other, older, experienced
191
facilitato rs role reversal occurred m ost often when insecurity, lack of clarity,
or direction becam e critical. O ther teachers and volunteers who conducted
classes for the learners in the Program had little exposure to this new role and
so usually retained their traditional role as teacher. Although this did allow for
contrast and comparison, in the early years of the Program it brought conflict
and confusion. An exam ple of this occurred during the first year when
em otional outbursts demanding g reater freedom s for the students becam e
frequent in classes and in general sessions. This behavior had been elicited by a
volunteer psychology college teacher who was giving assertive sensitivity
training to one group of students and by another teacher who had assumed a
dogm atic, authoritarian role in teaching religion to another group of students.
Polarization and conflict resulted. The D irector, rather than using her role as
facilitato r and guide to solve this problem, reverted to an authoritarian role.
She decreed th a t all sensitivity training sessions should stop and th a t all classes
would be conducted in a rational, orderly m anner. This action effectively
stopped all com m unication. Although the D irector realized her m istake and
tried to reverse this decision, the long-range e ffe c t was evident in the post
a ttitu d e questionnaire of one of the students.
When I told my friend, (a teacher in the home school) about the
Program , he was im pressed. He said, "Well, if th at Program goes
through, it's going to make history in the Catholic Church." But I said,
yes, it would make history, but for all the wrong things, th a t is, to say
th at nothing will be said about the program 's problems, the drawbacks,
the bad leadership, the lack of honest, sincere ways on a deep level,
nor will anything be said about the students who were m istreated,
subjected to inhuman cruelty, played games with, and just plain
destroyed. (L etter, Student, 1976)
192
This le tte r made a lasting impression on the facilitato rs and role reversion was
carefully m onitored among the facilitato rs with the youngest facilitato r setting
th e pace from th at tim e on.
Routine m atters such as tardiness, absence, rebelliousness, or disrup
tive behavior in sem inars and in general sessions, however, continued to elicit
authoritarian solutions from the older facilitato rs during the first three years.
The documents reveal th at only in the fourth year did the facilitato rs and
learners becom e aw are of the inadequacy of searching for the one best solution
to problems and began to seek creativ e altern ativ e responses to underlying
causes of problems. An exam ple of this was the case of a student who had been
expelled from her home school. She had the choice of attending the Program or
a public high school. She chose the Program and was well qualified—she had the
desire, the intelligence, the initiative, and purpose—but she refused to take part
in group activities. Her previous group experiences and her initial contact with
this group of learners had alienated her in th a t she was labeled a drop-out and
loser. The facilitators pointed out th a t participation in group activ ities was an
integral p art of the Program and insisted th a t she sign the contract which
com m itted her to participating in both individual and group activities. Since
dialogue had become custom ary betw een the facilitato rs and learners, this
student insisted th at she be given special considerations. She would com plete
her course work through independent study on campus and would socialize with
the other learners during lunch and break until they cam e to accept her. Her
success in her independent studies and her precocious insights, which soon
becam e evident, gained her acceptance and affirm ed the value of seeking
193
creative alternative responses characterized by openness, diversity, change, and
freedom .
A third factor which influenced the new definition of the role of the
facilitator was the demand for new skills, attitu d es, and knowledge. G reat
demands were made on the facilitators in these areas. R ather than aiming for
"sameness," "routine procedures," and "conform ity," the facilitator was
expected to make possible a large number of altern ativ e routes to the same
goal for the learner. The objective was to find among these alternatives the
route th at best suited the individual needs of the student. This required an
awareness of all the alternative routes and an attitu d e of searching collabora-
tively with the learner until the right route was found. F acilitators who were
threatened by change, variety, and alternative choices found them selves
insecure and defensive in this new learning environm ent. If the facilitator
reverted to uniform assignm ents, weekly testing, and strict classroom
procedures as did one facilitato r who, inspired by the back-to-basics movement,
decided to teach vocabulary skills in the sam e manner to all the students,
problems of cheating, copying, last m inute cram m ing, and signs of tension
resulted— the results of procedures which call for conform ity, passivity, and
standardization. When this facilitato r finally allowed the learners to choose
their own vocabulary texts, outline their own study plan, give them selves their
own assignm ents, and allowed the learners to collaborate in the assessm ent
process, the results were more positive and lasting.
The outcom e which was reported most frequently by the facilitators of
the Program which this new definition of the role of the teacher effected was
th at this definition brought back professionalism to the role of the teacher.
___________________________________________________ L24_
The autonomy and the privilege of managing one's own tim e and one's own
expertise in and out of a classroom with an availability of a great number and
variety of resources made possible a positive interpretation of the duties and
responsibilities of the teacher role as one who facilitates and guides the
learners, rather than one who controls learners and is controlled by lim ited
resources and processes.
Although the redefinition of the role of the facilitato r was dependent
on the acceptance of this new role defintion by the learners, on the age and
experience of the facilitators, and on the ability of the facilitator to m aster a
large number of new skills, attitu d es, and knowledge, this redefinition of the
role of the teacher brought the professionalism needed for a more effective
attainm ent of the overall goals of the Program .
The Role of the Learner
The third component of this learning program which required redefini
tion was the role of the student. The students defined them selves in the
questionnaires as w orld-oriented students who heard "the beat of a different
drum m er." They were alienated from existing structures and established
system s; nevertheless, they possessed a new vision of the future, a willingness
to take risks, and a desire for change.
The role defined for the student, therefore, aim ed to make the
student, a learner— one who was actively involved in the learning process. The
learner was expected to design his/her own course of study, structure study
tim e, accomplish the objectives for each course through 70 hours of intensive
individual or group activities, and participate in the evaluation process. The
195
student's initial reaction to this new role was enthusiastic, but as the reality
becam e apparent, the learner becam e aware th a t he could no longer sit
passively in a class, receive credit for a class in a "hit or miss" fashion, nor be
evaluated by a so-called objective standard. The post-attitude Questionnaires
revealed the reaction to this awareness: "This program is much harder than
regular school. . . .This takes a lot of self-discipline. . . .It takes a lot longer to
m aster a subject than 70 hours. . . .etc." (P ost-attitude Q uestionnaires, 1975-
1981). The factors which influenced this new role of the learner were (1) the
student's previous schooling experiences which counteracted the developm ent of
self-directed learning skills; (2) unfam iliarity with resources needed to design
his/her own course of study; and (3) unfam iliarity with the concept of a learning
style.
Although the learners in this program were eager to adopt this new
role, there were many factors which influenced it. The process of designing a
course of study was unfam iliar to most students. The facilitators had to lead
the learners step by step in the process. The learner had to choose a career on
which to focus and to integrate his six courses. He, then, chose two courses
related to the career's theory or practice. The learner had to decide where to
com plete this course: a t a junior college, a t home, or in the library,
individually or with a teacher in a group, etc. The next step consisted in
drawing up the objectives for the required sem inars in English, social studies,
and ethics which would enhance the attainm ent of skills needed by the career
choice. Each course of studies, therefore, was unique to the learner in th at
each had a set of objectives, a choice of place, persons, m aterials, learning
activities, and evaluation procedures which best helped to orient the learner to
196
his career choice. This was the ideal process, but the reality often becam e th at
of outlining subject m atter from the titles of chapters in assigned texts from
the home school. Assignments consisted of answering questions a t the end of
these chapters. Learners often interpreted the task of designing a course of
studies as a traditional task. When learners were taken to bookstores and to
various libraries to introduce them to the rich variety of m aterials available for
designing courses, money, tim e, and unfam iliarity with anything other than
standard textbooks for study m aterials lim ited their choices.
Another problem arose from the fact th at learners had been subjected
to one learning style for 11 years—rote m em orization and lecture. The learner
had. to be brought to an awareness of his/her unique learning style. For some,
the appropriate learning style was im m ediately apparent and effective. The
learner liked listening to tapes or records; the learner liked to watch films or
film strips; the learner liked to organize m aterials in outlines, to reinterpret
passages, or to creatively interpret m aterials, and learning using these methods
was effective for this learner. But, for the learner who was so habituated to
the ro te-lectu re method th at he/she believed th at there was no other effective
way of learning, the process of discovering this learner’ s unique learning style
was more com plicated. The facilitato rs complained th at m aterial for identi
fying learning styles was scarce, and/or expensive, and/or not appropriate to
this age level. N evertheless, in defining the role of the learner as one who is
actively involved in all phases of the learning experience, these learners who
cam e to the Program initially frightened, boldly aggressive, challenging the
Program to deliver what it had promised, and fighting against traditional
platitudes about learning, soon found their own voice with which to shape their
197
lives, their potential careers, and their own learning experiences through this
new role definition.
The Learning Environment
The final component essential to the attainm ent of the goals of this
Program was the learning environm ent. The learning environm ent was defined
as any place, person, or tim e stru ctu re which was characterized by richness in
diversity, by openness of attitu d e, and by changes which allowed the learner to
experience learning in a positive, reinforcing m anner.
This open, diverse, changed, free learning environm ent would be the
means through which the learner would be able to develop the talents needed to
attain his chosen career. No talen t nor ability would be neglected. W hatever
means was needed to develop these talents would be available to the learner.
C om petition for scarce rewards would not be a m otivating factor; and no one
m ethod of bringing out the talents of the learner would have priority. Each
learner in this environm ent would find openness, freedom , responsiveness, and a
flexibility to encompass his/her own needs and a comm unity of persons willing
to facilitate learning needed for a chosen career. The learners could freely
explore the rich and varied resources in this learning environm ent and by
structuring them to fit his/her own needs experience maximum learning
experiences.
The lim itations in regard to the learners' ability to take full advantage
of the opportunities of such a learning environm ent have already been
described. The actual learning environm ent for this particular program ,
however, did fit the definition. The Victorian styled Building //I on the Doheny
198
Campus of M ount St. M ary's College, along with its central location in the heart
of Los Angeles filled several aspects of this definition. This learning center
gave the learners the opportunity to profit from the college am bience and the
accompanying prestige of saying th at they w ere in a head sta rt program a t a
select college for girls. The college resources, which were readily available to
them on this campus included a sm all college library, a learning center for
rem edial work, a student center, college classes for those who wished to attend
these classes, and college activities which provided interactions with college
students and teachers.
Along with this center, the learning environm ent for this Program
encompassed the g reater Los Angeles area since students cam e from Inglewood,
Lakewood, Sierra M adre, Pasadena, the inner city, West and East Los Angeles
and the beach area and had access to learning resources in these areas. In these
areas, students were given free access to learning resources in libraries, in
learning centers, in junior colleges, in places of business and of e n te rta in m e n t-
live th eatres and cutural centers—and in homes. The learning m aterials in
these areas included a great variety of audio/visual/w ritten/oral/ and experien
tial m aterials. It was the general consensus of the facilitato rs and learners th at
the learning environm ent which encompassed the g reater Los Angeles area
adequately fit the definition of a learning environm ent needed for the a tta in
m ent of the goals of this Program .
One area of the learning environm ent which did not fit the ch aracter
istics of a learning environm ent for the Program , however, was the home school
environm ent. During the first year of the Program , m athem atics and science
courses were not available to the learners through the Program nor through the
199
comm unity. Those who wished to continue courses in m athem atics and science
did not feel capable of studying these subjects individually. The only a lte r
native was to return to the home school for these courses where the teacher’s
preparation and course m aterials were superior to those found in the
comm unity. The learners, however, began to complain th a t the "schooling"
practices—closed cam puses, tim e schedules, uniforms, m ethods of teaching—
w ere incom patible with the goals of the Program . The contrast and conflicts
th at resulted led the facilitato rs to recommend th a t learners not return to their
home schools for these courses. A search for alternatives to these courses did
lead to programmed tex ts in m athem atics and science in learning centers which
proved satisfactory to the students who were not ready for pre-chem istry and
pre-physics courses in junior college classes. But, throughout the six years of
the Program , some students were handicapped by the lack of resources, persons,
and variety of m aterials available for m athem atics and science in the
com m unity. N evertheless, the learning environm ent of the greater Los Angeles
area was found to be rich, varied, and open to use by students who were
creative, willing to explore, and had the initiative to take advantage of these
learning opportunities.
To sum m arize, this chapter analyzed the organizational structures
created by the facilitato rs and learners to e ffe c t b e tter individual and group
learning experiences. There was evidence from the student’s questionnaires,
interview s, and study projects and from the narration of the teach er/d irecto r of
this Program th a t this process allowed for the openness, the diversity, the
freedom , and the change needed by tw elfth grade students to become serious
adult learners in a society characterized by rapid social change. To the degree
200
th a t the Program was dependent on outside established structures for the
recruiting and processing of a student and for m oral and financial support, the
Program was restrained from attaining its goals. •
In relation to the role of the teacher in this Program , the redefinition
of the role of the teacher as a facilitato r, as a guide, and as a resource person
for the fledgling learner gave clear direction for im plem entation of this role.
The teacher's age and experience influenced this new role and the students'
expectations of tasks traditionally perform ed by teachers had to be reoriented
to one in which they saw the teacher as a facilitato r who gave them
independence, freedom , and guidance in selecting the best method of educating
them selves.
In relation to the role of the student, the new role definition of the
student as a learner actively involved in all phases of the learning process gave
the learner a m ature basis on which to make his decision to attend or not to
attend the Program . Once the student chose to attend the Program , this new
role definition was reflected in the quality of the students' courses of study, the
appropriate choices of places for study, and the intensity and concentration
which the learners willingly devoted to their studies.
Finally, the learning environm ent had been extended to include the
Doheny Campus, the home school for classes in chem istry and physics, junior
college classes, comm unity learning centers, and places of business and
entertainm ent for apprenticeship program s. Reports from contact persons in
these extended learning locations spoke of the m aturity gained from contacts in
these new learning locales. Community doors were open to those learners who
were willing to take advantage of its rich learning resources. Only human
201
lim itations of tim e, energy, and personal m otivation lim ited the possibilities of
this learning environm ent.
An analysis of the im plem entation process through which new
structures were created, new roles were defined for the facilitato r and the
learner, and the learning environm ent extended to include the g reater Los
Angeles area—persons, places, and m aterials— shows the process by which the
goal of the Program —to c re a te direct learning experiences for transition to
college or career for the tw elfth grade student from C atholic high schools—was
influenced by prevailing social and historical perspectives.
202
CHAPTER VII
SUMMARY, QUESTIONS, ISSUES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Future ages will, see the tim e in which we are living more and
more clearly as marking both the end and the beginning of a world.
The im portance of the changes introduced on earth by the coming of
science will stand out with ever g reater emphasis. But among so many
great events, there is one phenomenon which, in the eyes of posterity,
may well overshadow everything th at has been discovered in radiation
and electricity: and th a t is the perm anent entry into operation, in our
day, of inter-hum an a ffin itie s~ th e m ovem ent, irresistible and ever
increasing in speed, which we can see for ourselves, welding peoples
and individuals one to another, for all their recalcitrance, in a more
sublime intoxication . . . the mass coalescing of mankind. (Teilhard de
Chardin, 1975 p. 20)
Among the many predictions of the future, this vision of tomorrow,
with its tr&nd toward the progressive unification of mankind, the intensification
of collective consciousness, the birth of socialized mankind, and, finally, the
m ovem ent towards the convergent structure of evolution as it seeks out its
cosmic center, is the only truly humanizing prediction in which man’s dignity is
given full expression today. As such, it is, therefore, the only legitim ate
foundation for an educational system . Within this vision, education becomes
the unifying facto r, synthesizing and integrating the good elem ents of the world
into the great ’’ One."
This vision, therefore, will be the foundation through which closure to
the circle of praxis— experience, analysis, reflection, and planning—in this study
of the Optional Learning Program designed for tw elfth grade students in the
archdiocese of Los Anglees will be effected . This circle of praxis began with
203
the experience of 25 years of teaching in the traditional Catholic schools, then
gave way to reflection through six years spent in designing and implementing an
optional learning program , which led to the analysis through comparison and
contrast of this program with the accepted and evolving historical perspectives
and social structures, to planning which rests on the foundation of this vision.
The conclusions of this study, therefore, arise from an awareness of
the growing disillusionment with education which reached crisis proportions in
the 1960s, from the questioning of the long-instilled Am erican belief th at
schooling transform s man and society, from the frustrated a ttem p t to reform
traditional schooling to the realization th a t a new educational system must be
built so th at this new vision for man can be realized.
These conclusions, however, as definitive and final as they may appear
a t first glance, are not as hopeless nor dehumanizing as current conclusions
which portray future educational system s in the following manner:
Tomorrow and tomorrow, in the next decade, the whining school
boy, with his satchel and shining morning face, will creep like a snail
unwilling to his TV term inal. He will sit down a t the keyboard, mark
himself present, and call up the day’s lessons from the school com puter
bank at the sta te capital in H artford or w herever. The teacher, an
expert in the field, will appear on the screen and begin the lesson,
recitation or quiz, as the curriculum calls for, and homework, tests
and book reports will be reviewed and corrected by a com puter located
in a basem ent miles away. (Mulligan, 1980, p. 10)
The Process of the Study
The conclusions of this study, on the contrary, lead to a more
"lumanizing portrayal of education for tomorrow because they arise from a
luman process. This process was a narration in which an account of what had
seen done in a concrete educational situation was related, an evaluation was
_________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 m
made in the light of its historical and social perspectives, and questions were
raised. The specific facts of this narration provided the raw m aterials for an
analysis which raised issues dealing with the humanizing aspects of educational
rationale and strategy. It was a process which rejected the reporting of cold,
clinical facts devoid of
human meanings and human intentionalities which flatten and distort
the everyday realities of educating. It looked for a personal,
political, and social aw areness, for a way to counterbalance the
anonymization of social life in advanced industrial societies like our
own. (Apple, 1978, p. 496)
This process, therefore, sought to bring qualitative understandings to an
educational situation in an a ttem p t to counteract the excessive quantitative
form s of evaluation which have captured the public mind. It, therefore, chose
its methodology from the evolving form s of descriptive studies which attem p t
to give structure to the scattered feelings and meaning and to the collage of
thoughts and intentions embedded in one educational program --the Optional
Learning Program . By focusing on one person's consciousness—the
teacher/designer/director of this Program —the essential human elem ent in
education was illum inated. The contrariness of the human predicam ent with its
dialectical interplay of the technical and the aesthetic, the impersonal and the
personal, the rational and the irrational, and the efficient and the inefficient
was also revealed. From this new way of attending and interacting with the
day-to-day com plexities of an educational process, the history of the Optional
Learning Program was created.
The qualities of the educational interactions rather than the quantity
of educational activities becam e the means for distancing this one person's
consciousness from the com forting illusions of accepted perceptions and
205
provided insights into alternative perspectives. Thus, the fram ework and
texture of meanings and events as they were built and as they interacted with
one another revealed the historical and social structures within which this
educational program was encapsulated. These historical perspectives were
revealed as th at of maintaining the status quo in schooling in Am erica with its
accompanying social structures—economic, political, and cultural. This par
ticular educational program , however, was caught up in the evolving historical
perspective, th at of interdependency with its related social structures. The
events related in this study, therefore, took on meaning in the sam e sense in
which
Sartre's "search for m ethod" is a search th at seeks to combine
existential sentim ents with a program for political action th at might
realize these sentim ents in real life. (I am a self; but I am also a
mem ber of a class. I am an individual; but my very perception of this
fa c t and my day-to-day life are related to the unequal economic and
social structures th at help to create this perception and this life.
Hence, I cannot rem ain isolated. I must com m it myself to organized
action.) Sartre's individual perceptions are thus, made sensible.
(Apple, 1978, p. 515)
Thus, in this educational situation, one person's consciousness comes
to represent the consciousness of many people who are released from the
hegemonic ideology surrounding the schooling process. This consciousness
expressed as a heightened awareness of the non-coercive forces m aintained by
popular and elite culture through mass m edia representations and through
literary interpretations is recognized in the established behaviors and attitudes
of "schooled" people in society. Thus, the form of this narration and analysis,
by exposing the social roots of schooling and its ties in social relationships,
penetrated the symbols, the fantasies, and the dream s surrounding the schooling
process.
206
Summary
The following summary, therefore, arises from the process and the
content of each chapter in this study. In Chapter I, it was shown th at
"schooling," meaning socializing students to established custom s and pro
cedures, and "educating," meaning transform ing man and society, have becom e
increasingly incom patible in Am erican schools. In the minds of most
Am ericans, however, the term s "to school" and "to educate" have become
synonymous for the following reasons:
1. Educational philosophers adhering rigorously to past, closed system s of
philosophy have neglected the process of philosophy; and, therefore,
have provided no means by which educators are enabled to clarify and
to give insights into the meanings and purposes of education for the
21st century.
2. Educational researchers, mainly social scientists, have concentrated
on developing em pirical methods of assessing school effectiveness and
thus have neglected and minimized the im portance of the overall
"educating" process in schools.
3. Educational reform ers represented by Mann and by Cubberley in the
19th century and by Dewey in the 20th century, have consistently tried
to bring the broad interpretation of education into the purview of
schools. E fforts to prom ote "educating" processes, therefore, have
been ineffectively incorporated into schooling system s which demand
efficiency, order, and standardization. Since efforts at schooling have
been largely ineffective and counterproductive, the Am erican public is
207
disillusioned, disenchanted, and confused with schooling practices
which are heralded as education.
In C hapter II, a review of the lite ra tu re confirm ed th a t three reform
attem pts which aimed a t improving and redirecting schooling practices have
been disregarded, neglected, misunderstood, and not fully im plem ented in spite
of strong effo rts to bring these reform attem p ts to the attention of the
educational world. These attem pts which have taken place within the past 20
years were (1) the alternative school m ovem ent, (2) the call for more precise
descriptive studies in education, and (3) the recom m endations from National
Com m ittees on the reform of secondary education. These attem p ts a t the
reform of schooling have been ineffective for the following reasons: the
alternative school m ovem ent which began as a radical free (liberated) school
m ovement becam e a school-within-a-school m ovem ent because of a lack of
moral and financial support from the educational world. And because of
organizational and m anagem ent structu res in the school structure to which
these free schools becam e accountable, they rapidly disappeared. The call for
more precise descriptive studies in education, which began in reaction to "the
flattening of everyday school experiences" by em pirical studies, was unheeded
because the variety and dependency of descriptive methodologies on other
disciplines made them vulnerable and suspect to criticism . Finally, the
recom m endations from National C om m ittees on the reform of secondary
education have not been im plem ented because, inspired as they w ere by the
international Faure R eport of 1972 which stressed options and lifelong learning,
they have had to com pete with "schooling" goals set by federal policies which
208
school adm inistrators trained in schooling practices have attem pted to imple
m ent in Am erican schools.
In Chapter III, the methodology was explained as one in which a
philosophical "circle of praxis" m ethod would be im plem ented so as to illu
m inate the complex interacting factors of an educational program designed for
tw elfth grade students in high schools in the archdiocese of Los Angeles. The
methodology included a narration from the perspective of the
designer/director/teacher of this Program along with yearly assessm ents of the
students; it also included an analysis through contrast and comparison of the
major features of this Program in relation to accepted and evolving historical
and social perspectives. Thus, a readily accessible m ethodological tool for
descriptive studies in education was described and made available to educa
tional practitioners.
In C hapter IV, the planning stage of the Optional Learning Program
was described in the context of the history of C atholic education and the role
of the Sisters of St. Joseph in this history. The educational theory which
included the goals and objectives of the Optional Learning Program was also
presented in this chapter.
In C hapter V, the account of what happened in the Optional Learning
Program during the years 1975 to 1981 was narrated from the perspective of
the teacher/director of this Program , who focused the narration on the major
events which influenced the full im plem entation during those six years. The
method of narration, which consisted in relating interacting events from this
perspective and from an assessm ent of these events by the learners or
consum ers of learning, brought into direct focus the goal of the P ro g ra m -
209
transition into adulthood~and its attainm ent in relation to a rapidly changing
social scene.
Finally, in C hapter VI, the four major components of the Optional
Learning Program — its organizational structures, the role of the facilitato r, the
role of the learner, and the learning environm ent—were analyzed in relation to
the manner in which they were redefined, readapted, and im plem ented in the
Optional Learning Program . It was concluded in this chapter th at the
redefinition and clarification of these four key components of this learning
process when characterized by openness as opposed to closure, diversity as
opposed to uniform ity, change as opposed to m aintaining the status quo, and
freedom or liberation as opposed to conform ity were the essential means
through which a meaningful and relevant education— direct experiences in
college and career activ ities— was made possible to the tw elfth grade students
from high schools in the archdiocese of Los Angeles who participated in the
Optional Learning Program during the years 1975-1981. In this m anner, the
phrase "to provide an educational program which differed significantly from
traditional educational program s1 ’ was given a specific content and form.
Questions and Issues
Since this study proposed to ask questions and raise issues, the
following findings from this study provide the basis on which to ask these
questions and raise these issues. The findings were th a t the major obstacles
which prevented the full im plem entation of the goal of this Program were (1)
the established structures on which this Optional Learning Program was
dependent for moral and financial support, (2) the attitudes and behaviors of
21Q
school personnel within this system of education, and (3) the previous
educational experiences to which the facilitators and learners were conditioned
before participating in this Program . This Program was defined as an
educational program designed to m eet the needs (transition to adulthood) of
tw elfth grade learners (those actively involved in all phases of the learning
process) from high schools in the archdiocese of Los Angeles. F acilitators
(those who facilitate, guide and provide resources) would expedite this learning
by making the community the classroom so as to stay in touch with the rapidly
changing society. In the light of this major finding, the following needs in
education have been brought into sharper focus.
There is a need to distinguish betw een schools th at "school," th at is,
trains students to conform ity to existing system s, and schools th at "educate,"
th at is, liberate learners through critical thinking to change existing system s.
There is a need to develop and to make more precise methodologies
and assessm ent tools for descriptive studies which will address the needs of
educational practitioners.
There is a need for the theoretical recom m endations of the National
Commissions on the reform of high schools to be studied for im plem entation,
and th a t appropriate educational settings be created for their im plem entation.
There is a need for additional studies of educational programs which
use the method of social analysis described in this study in order to assess the
relevancy of the educational program within the fram ework of existing and of
evolving historical perspectives and social structures.
There is a need to revitalize the alternative school movement which
has been described as a grass roots movement in which educational
211
practitioners design educational programs which directly address the needs of
students rather than the needs of school adm inistrators.
There is a need for teachers to self-reflect, philosophically, on the
goals and purposes of educational programs which they are called on to
im plem ent in relation to the accepted and evolving historical perspectives.
There is a need for descriptive studies of educational programs on all
grade levels, narrated from the perspective of the teacher who has self
designed and self-im plem ented an educational program .
There is a need to include facilitato rs and learners, especially on the
tw elfth grade level, in the educational assessm ent process so as to be in
im m ediate contact with the intellectual, spiritual, social, and em otional needs
of a particular group of learners.
Based on these needs, the following questions are presented as
appropriate to the design and im plem entation of an "educating” program .
I. Questions related to the internal factors of an "educating" program.
A. O rganizational structures
1. What social, political, economic, and em otional factors com pete
for a student's study tim e?
2. What balance in tim e structures for study is needed betw een
group and individual study activities?
3. What curricula should form the foundation or the integrating
focus for learners on a particular level?
B. The role of the facilitato r
1. How does one prepare professionally for facilitating, guiding, and
providing resource m aterials for learners?
212
2. What is role reversal and how does one cope with it in new
educational settings?
3. What adm inistrative functions must be fulfilled by facilitators in
new learning situations in order to expedite learning?
C. The role of the student
1. What attitu d es and behaviors must a learner be oriented to in
order to succeed in an "educating" program ?
2. What previous knowledge, skills, learning style, must a learner
have been exposed to so as to respond to openness, to diversity, to
change, and to freedom responsibly?
3. What does "active involvement in all phases of the learning
process" entail for the learner?
D. The learning environm ent
1. What resources are available for use for an extended learning
environm ent?
2. Who are the contact persons in this extended learning environ
m ent?
3. How does one make available these learning resources to the
learner?
4. Where and to what extent are they available to the learner?
II. Questions related to the external, influencing factors of an "educating"
program .
A. Previous schooling experiences of the facilitators and learners
1. What interpersonal skills learned in "schooling" hinder or benefit
the im plem entation of an "educating" program ?
213
2. What learning styles and methods of teaching influence an "educa
ting" program?
B. The attitudes and behaviors of school personnel in established schools
1. What attitudes and behaviors of school personnel from established
schools influence what processes in an "educating" program ?
2. In what ways can established attitudes, behaviors and processes be
minimized so as to allow for the full im plem entation of the goals
of an "educating" program ?
C. The moral and financial support structures on which "educating"
programs are dependent
1. What support clim ate is needed by an "educating" program ?
2. What financial support or basis is needed by an "educating"
program ?
3. What means are available to obtain moral and financial support
for "educating" program s?
Recom m endations
Although research literatu re has begun to address these questions and
issues in research studies which are loosely titled research on change, research
on learning styles, research on structuring and facilitating learning, and
research on culture and life styles, there is a need to organize and to direct
educational research toward "educating" goals. The following recom m endations
are made in ah effo rt to in itiate this kind of research. The following caveat,
however, is presented in relation to these recom m endations.
That, too, is why this epidem ic has taught me nothing new, except
th at I must fight a t your side. I know positively— yes, Rieux, I can say
214
I know the world inside out, as you may see—th a t each of us has the
plague within him; no one on earth is free from it. And I know, too,
th at we must keep endless watch on ourselves lest in a careless
moment we breathe in somebody's face and fasten the infection on
him. What's natural is the m icrobe. All the rest— health, integrity,
purity (if you like) is a product of the human will, of a vigilance th at
must never falter. The good man, the man who infests hardly anyone,
is the man who has the few est lapses of attention. And it needs
trem endous will-power, a never ending tension of the mind, to avoid
such lapses. Yes, Rieux, it's a wearying business, being plague-
stricken. But it's still more wearying to refuse to be it. That's why
everybody in the world today looks so tired; everyone is more or less
sick of the plague. But th a t is also why some of us, those who want to
get the plague out of their system s, feel such desperate weariness, a
weariness from which nothing rem ains to set us free, except death.
(Camus, 1960, p. 207)
The following recom m endations are made, therefore, with an awareness th at
"schooling" like the plague has reached epidemic proportions.
That educators and educational researchers devote their tim e and
energies to creating and to assessing "educating" processes rather than
"schooling" practices.
That the divisive labels of C atholic, progressive, altern ativ e, private,
and public be dropped from schools whose goal is to prom ote the American
ideals of equality and quality in education.
That the traditional "schooling" system appropriate to an industrial
age seek ways to become an "educating" system appropriate to a new age of
technology.
That educational researchers refine the m ethodologies and assessm ent
tools of descriptive studies for the use of educational practitioners.
That educational researchers collaborate with educational
practitioners in compiling series of case studies of particular educational
processes, devoid of educational em pirical jargon, which can be used by the
American public for comparison and contrast in their choice of schools.
215
That descriptive studies accompany and supplement statistical studies
like the 1982 longitudinal school survey, High School Achievem ent: Public,
Catholic, and Private Schools Compared by 3ames Coleman, Thomas Hoffer,
and Sally Kilgore. In this way, cognitive as well as affective goals of education
will be reported to the Am erican public.
That educational program s which address the needs of learners be
supported, encouraged, and prom oted in the educational world.
That the tools of philosophy and the process of philosophy—specu
lation, analysis, evaluation, and integration— be given their rightful place in the
teaching profession.
That educational program s which aim "to educate" be designed,
im plem ented, and assessed by facilitators and by the learners them selves.
That learners on the tw elfth grade level be made aware of the
differences betw een "schooling" and "educating" programs and be given the
choice to select and design their own educational study plans.
That means be found to minimize exposure, contact, and dependency
on established "schooling" procedures so as to allow for greater freedom in
implementing and assessing innovative "educating" program s.
Conclusion
It is appropriate to conclude this study which was concerned with
providing a meaningful and relevant educating program to tw elfth grade
students in the 21st century with a paraphrase of Greene's words (1973). She
reminds us th a t Plato's philosophy of idealism caused us to live as if the ideal,
rather than the real, were a reality. Therefore, man struggles and lives in an
216
unreal world today. The new technological age, however, has made us grasp the
real and acknowledge th at we are stangers in a strange land looking for a true
home. As strangers in this land, we are vulnerable to the im m ediate present.
We m ust, therefore, live the present palpably aware of the future th at is
forever confronting us in our daily actions, demanding th at we acknowledge its
incipient beginnings and demanding th a t we lose our com fortableness and
complacency.
As strangers, however, we will come to know our true common
hum anity, for our status as strangers will give us the em pathy to accept all—the
weak, the humble, the average, and the great. Our life will not be sta tic, but
will become an adventure, full of risks, of unexpected sorrows and joys which
are the lot of mankind.
Too long have we lived as owners of the land—secure, com fortable,
com placent. We must now live life as it truly is and become strangers in this
strange land. Only in this way will we come to own the beauties, joys, sorrows,
and injustices which will intensify our collective consciousness, give birth to
socialized mankind, and, finally, move all towards the convergent structure of
evolution as it seeks out its cosm ic center (Teilhard de Chardin, 1964).
217
BIBLIOGRAPHY
2 J L 8 .
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A fter the falls Research on school e ffe cts since the Coleman Report: Essay
reviews. Harvard Educational review , May 1981, 51(3), 301-308.
Aiken, W. M. The story of the eight-year study: Adventure in American
education, Volume 1. New York: Harper and Brother, 1942.
A lbert, J . S. The Allen School: An alternative nineteenth-century education,
1818-1852. Harvard Educational Review, November 1981, 51(4), 565-576.
All about alternatives. Nation’s Schools, November 1972, 90(5), 33-39.
A lternative educational programs: Promises or problems? Educational
Leadership, November 1974, 32(2), 83-127.
Apple, M. Ideology and form in curriculum evaluation. In G. Willis (Ed.),
Q ualitative evaluation. Berkeley, California: M cCutchan Publishing
Corporation, 1978.
Baldridge, 3. V., 6c Deal, T. E. (Eds.). M anaging change in educational
organizations. Berkeley, California: M cCutchan Publishing Corporation,
1975.
Barzun, J., 6c G raff, H. The modern researcher (3rd ed.). New York: H arcourt
Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1977.
Bass, G. V. A study of alternatives in education, Volume 1: D istrict policy and
the im plem entation of change. Santa Monica, California: The Rand
Corporation, 1978.
Becker, H., G reer, B., Hughes, E., < 5 c Strauss, A. Boys in w hite. New Brunswick,
New Jersey: Transaction Books, 1961.
Berger, R. A., De Santolo, R. R., 6c Lyon, E. A redesign experience for Sachem
High School. The Clearing House, O ctober 1975, 49(2), 84-88.
Berliner, D. C. (Ed.). Review of research 8. Published by The American
Educational R esearch Association. Itasca, Illinois: F. E. Peacock
Publishers, Inc., 1980.
2JLi
Bernstein, B. On the classification and fram ing of educational knowledge. IrT"
R. Brown (Ed.), Knowledge, education, and cultural change; Papers in the
sociology of education (British Sociological Association). New York:
Barnes 6 c Nobles Import Division, 1973.
Bikson, T. H. Classroom observation: A case study in obtrusiveness. Santa
Monica, California: The Rand Corporation, 1977.
Blishen, E. Roaring boys, a schoolm aster’s agony. London: Thomas < 5 c Hudson,
19 55.
Bodley, 3. H. Anthropology and contem porary human problem s. Menlo Park,
California: Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., 1976.
Bognar, C. 3., 6 c Martin, W. B. W. The process of diagnosing student learning
difficulties. Paper presented a t the annual m eeting of the Canadian
Sociology and Anthropology Association, M ontreal, 3une 4-7, 1980.
Bowles, S., 6 c Gintis, H. Schooling in capitalist A m erica. New York: Basic
Books, Inc., 1976.
Brauner, C. 3., 6 c Burns, H. W. Problems in education and philosophy.
Englewood C liffs, New 3ersey: Prentice-H all Inc., 1965.
Bronowski, 3. Science and human values. New York: Harper Colophon Books,
1965.
Brophy, 3. E., 6 c Good, T. L. T eacher-student relationships: Causes and
consequences. New York: Holt, R inehart and Winston, Inc., 1974.
Burns, 3. A., 6 c Kohlbrenner, B. 3. A history of Catholic education in the United
S tates. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1937.
Bushnell, D. S., 6 c Rappaport, D. Planned change in education. New York:
H arcourt Brace 3ovanovich, Inc., 1971.
Callahan, R. E. Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1962.
Camus, A. The Rebel. New York: Vintage Books, 1956.
Camus, A. The Plague. Harmondworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books,
Ltd., 1960.
Carnoy, M. Education as cultural im perialism . New York: Longman, Inc.,
1974.
C arr, 3. C., Grambs, 3. D., 6c Campbell, E. G. (Eds.). Pygmalion or
Frankenstein? A lternative schooling in American education. Menlo Park,
California: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1977.
220
Caw elti, G. Vitalizing the high school. Washington, D.C.: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Developm ent, 1974.
C entre for Educational Research and Innovation. Case studies of educational
innovation, Volume 1-4. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development, 1973.
Choppin, B. H. L., Orr, L., Fara, P., Kurle, S. D. M., Folgeman, K. R., & Jam es,
G. A fter A-level? A study of the transition from high school to higher
education. London: National Foundation for Educational Research
Publishing Company, Ltd., 1972.
Cohen, G. Culture and educational achievem ent. Harvard Educational Review,
May 1981, 31(2), 270-283.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., M cParland, J., Mood, A., Winfield, F.,
& York, R. Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.:
National C enter for Educational S tatistics, 1966.
Coleman, J. S., H offer, T., & Kilgore, S. High school achievem ent: Public,
Catholic, and other private schools com pared. New York: Basic Books,
Inc., in print.
Conant, J. B. The Am erican high school today. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., 1939(a).
Conant, J. B. The child, the parent, and the s ta te . M assachusetts: Harvard
University Press, 1939(b).
Conant, J. B. The comprehensive high school. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1967.
Conrath, J. G etting SERIOUS about radical school reform s. Teacher Paper,
O ctober 1972, pp. 1-3.
Coombs, P. H. The world educational crisis. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1968.
Corsini, R. J., & Ignas, E. A lternative educational system s. Itasca, Illinois:
F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., 1979.
Cremin, L. A. The genius of Am erican education. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburg Press, 1963.
Cremin, L. A. Traditions of Am erican education. New York: Basic Books, Inc.,
1977.
Cronbach, L. J. Course im provem ent through evaluation. Teachers College
R ecord, 1963, 64, 672-683.
2 2 1
Cubberley, E. P. Public school adm inistrator. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,
Inc., 1916.
Dawson, R. E., P rew itt, K., & Dawson, K. S. Political socialization. Boston:
L ittle, Brown and Company, 1977.
Deal, T. E., & Nolan, R. R. (Eds.). A lternative schools: Ideologies, realities and
guidelines. Chicago: Nelson Hall, 1978.
Dean, J., Bradley, K., Choppin, B., 6c Vincent, D. The sixth form and its
altern atives. London: National Foundation for Educational Research
Publishing Company, 1979.
Della-Dora, D., 6c Blanchard, L. J. (Eds.). Moving toward self-directed learning.
Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, 1979.
Dennison, G. The lives of children. New York: Vintage Books, 1969.
Denton, D. (Ed.). Existentialism and phenomenology in education: Collected
essays. New York: Teachers College Press, 197^.
Dewey, J. Experience and education. London: Collier Macmillan Publishers,
1938.
Dewey, J. Democracy and education. New York: The Macmillan Company,
1939.
Dewey, J. Dewey on education with an introduction and notes by M. S.
Dworkin. New York: Teachers College Press, 1959.
Dewey, 3., 6c Dewey, E. Schools of tomorrow with an introduction by William
W. Brickman. New York: E.P. Dutton & Company, Inc., 1962.
Dougherty, D. M., Hurley, H. A., Daly, E. J., & Coyne, S. C. Sisters of St.
Joseph of C arondelet. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1966.
Dupuis, A. M. Philosophy of education in historical perspective. Chicago:
Rand McNally 6c Company, 1966.
Educational Policies Commission. Education for all American youth.
Washington, D.C.: Educational Policies Commission, National Educational
Association of the United States and the Am erican Association of School
A dm inistrators, 194^.
Edwards, A. D. The changing sixth form in the tw entieth century. London:
Routledge 6c Kegan Paul Ltd., 1970.
Eisner, E. W. The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of
school program s. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1979.
222
Elam, S. M. (Ed.). Cream of Kappan: 1956-1981. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi
D elta Kappa, Inc., 1981.
Erikson, E. H., & Erikson, 3. M. On generativity and identity. Harvard
Educational Review, May 1981, .51(2), 249-269.
Experim ental schools program . Berkeley, California: The Experim ental Schools
Program , 1972.
Fantini, M. D. The reform of urban schools. Washington, D.C.: National
Education Association, 1970.
Fantini, M. D. Public schools of choice. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973.
Far West Laboratory. Educational programs th a t work (7th ed.). San Francisco,
California: Far West Laboratory, Fall 1980(a).
Far West Laboratory. We still believe . . . 13th annual rep o rt. San Francisco,
California: The Far West Laboratory for Educational R esearch and
Developm ent, 1980(b).
Faure, E., H errera, F., Kaddoura, A. R., Lopes, H., Petrovsky, A. V., Rahnem a,
M., < 5 c Champion, F. C. Learning to be: The world of education today and
tom orrow . Paris: UNESCO, 1972.
Flaxman, A., & Homstead, K. C. (Eds.). National directory of Public
A lternative Schools--1977-1978. Am herst: University of M assachusetts,
1978.
F reire, P. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The Seabury Press, 1970.
Friedenberg, E. Z. Coming of age in Am erica. New York: Random House,
1963.
Gay, G., Dembrowski, F. L., & McLennan, R. L. Preserving quality education
during enrollm ent declines. Phi D elta Kappan, May 1981, 62(9), 655-657.
Georgiades, W. How good is your school? Reston, Virginia: The National
Association of Secondary School Principals, 1978.
Gibbons, M. The new secondary education. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi D elta
Kappa, Inc., 1976.
Glasser, W. Schools without failure. New York: Harper < 5 c Row Publishers,
1969.
Gonzales, V. M. (Ed.). A guide to alternative education in the Bay Area (3rd
ed.). San Francisco: Orpheus Publications, 1973.
Good, C. V. Dictionary of Education (3rd ed.). NewYork: McGraw Hill Book
Company, 1973.
223.
Goodlad, 3. I. The structure of Catholic schooling. In M L P. Sheridan & R.
Shaw (Eds.). Catholic education: Today and tom orrow . Washington, D.C.:
National Catholic Educational Association, 1967.
Goodlad, J. I. The dynamics of educational change. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1970.
Goodman, P. Compulsory m is-education. New York: Horizon Press, 1964.
Graubard, A. Free the children. New York: Vintage Books, 1974.
Greene, M. Teacher as stranger. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing
Company, Inc., 1973.
Guba, E. G. Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational
evaluation. C enter for the Study of Evaluation Monograph, Series in
Evaluation, 8, 1978.
Gustafson, J. M., P eters, R. S., Kohlberg, L., B ettelheim , B., & Keniston, K.
Moral education. Cambridge, M assachusetts: Harvard University Press,
1970.
Hall, E. T. The silent language. Greenwich, Connecticut: A Faw cett Prem ier
Book, 1959.
Hamilton, D., MacDonald, B., King, C., Jenkins, D., < 5 c P arlett, M. (Eds.).
Beyond the numbers gam e. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing
Corporation, 1977.
Hampson, D. H. Directions for doctoral research. Paper presented for the
National Institute of Education in Boston, 1972.
Hargreaves, D. H. Social relations in a secondary school. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 1967.
Havelock, R. G. A guide to innovation in education. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The
University of Michigan Press, 1970.
Havelock, R.. G. The change agent’s guide to innovation in education.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, 1973.
Havighurst, R. J. Social functions of Catholic education. In M. P. Sheridan &
R. Shaw (Eds.), Catholic education: Today and tom orrow . Washington
D.C.: National Catholic Association, 1967.
Herndon, J. The way its spozed to be. New York: Bantam Books, 1969.
H erriott, R. E., & Gross, N. (Eds.). The dynamics of planned educational
change. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1979.
224
Hickey, M. Evaluating educational altern ativ es. A synthesis of ideas discussed
in Work Group III a t the Wingspread Conference on Educational
A lternatives, April 1972, Racine, Wisconsin. Bloomington, Indiana:
University of Indiana Press, 1972.
H irst, P. H., Apple, M. W., G raubard, A., & Bowers, C. A. Symposium:
Philosophy and education: Eightieth yearbook of the National Society for
the Study of Education edited by 3. F. Soltis. Harvard Educational Review,
August 1981, 51(3), 415-431.
Holland, 3., & Henriot, P. Social analysis: Linking faith and justice.
Washington, D.C.: C enter of Concern, 1980.
Hollingshead, A. B. Elmstown youth: The im pact of social class on adolescents.
New York: 3ohn Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1949.
Holt, 3. How children fail. New York: Pitm an Publishing Company, 1964.
Holt, 3. How children learn. New York: Dell Publishing Company, 1967.
Hospers, 3. Human conduct. New York: H arcourt Brace 3ovanovich, Inc.,
1972.
Hurn, C. 3. The lim its and possibilities of schooling. Boston: Allyn and Bacon,
Inc., 1978.
Hutchins, R. M. The higher learning in A m erica. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1936.
Ulich, I. Deschooling society. New York: Harper 6c Row, 1971.
Incorporated Association of Head M asters. The sixth form of the fu tu re.
London: The Headm asters Association Press, 1968.
3ackson, P. W. A fter apple-picking. Harvard Educational Review, February
1973, 43(1), 51-60.
3encks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M. 3., Cohen, D. K., Gintis, H., Heyns,
B., 6c M ichelson, S. Inequality: A reassessm ent of the e ffe ct of fam ily and
schooling in A m erica. New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1972.
3ennings, W. Design, rationale, and im plem entation. St. Paul, M innesota: St.
Paul Open School, 1974.
225.
Kallos, D. Notes on schooling, curriculum , and teaching. In G. Willis (Ed.),
Q ualitative evaluation. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing
Corporation, 1978.
Kaplan, A. The new world of philosophy. New York: Vintage Books, 1961.
K arier, C. 3., Violas, P., < 5 c Spring, 3. Roots of crisis: American education in
the tw entieth century. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973.
K atz, M. B. The irony of early school reform . Cambridge, M assachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1968.
K atz, M. B. Class, bureaucracy, and schools: The illusion of educational
change in A m erica. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1971.
Kaufmann, W. Existentialism , religion, and death: Thirteen essays. New
York: A Meridan Book, New Am erican Library, 1976.
K ett, 3. F. Rites of passage. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1977.
Kneller, G. F. Introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: 3ohn
Wiley < 5 c Sons, Inc., 1964.
Kohl, H. R. 36 Children. New York: New American Library, 1967.
Kozol, 3. The night is dark and I am far from home. New York: Bantam
Books, 1977.
K rishnam urti, 3. Education and the significance of life . New York: Harper < 5 c
Row, Publishers, 1953.
Krishnam urti, 3. Think on these things. D. Rajagopal, (Ed.). New York:
Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964.
Krug, M. The melting of the ethnics: Education of the im m igrants, 1880-
1914. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi D elta Kappa, 1976.
Laing, R. D. The politics of experience. New York: Random House, Inc.,
1967.
Leacock, E. B. Teaching and learning in city schools: A com parative study.
New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1969.
Leonard, G. Education and ecstasy. New York: D elta Books, 1968.
Levy, G. G hetto school. New York: The Pegasus Press, 1970.
Lillard, P. P. Montessori: A modern approach. New York: Schocken Books,
1973.
226
Madaus, G. F., Kellaghan, T., Rakow, E. A., & King, D. J. The sensitivity of
m easures of school effectiveness. Harvard Educational Review, May
1979, 49, 270-330.
Mallery, D. High school students speak out: A study of the im pact of high
school experiences (conducted under the auspices of the Com m ittee on
School and College Relations of the Educational Records Bureau). New
York: Harper, 1962.
Mann, 3. Curriculum criticism . In G. Willis (Ed.), Q ualitative evaluation.
Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1978.
M artin, W. B. W. Students1 perspective on categorizing in the school:
Prelim inary findings. Paper presented a t the Canadian Association of
Foundations in Education Meetings, University of Quebec at M ontreal,
3une 3-5, 1980.
Martin, W. B. W. Students1 view of successful schools. Paper presented a t the
annual m eeting of the Sociology of Education Association, Pacific Groves,
California, January 30-February 1, 1981.
Maslow, A. H. (Ed.). New knowlege in human values. Chicago: Henry
Regnery Company, A Gateway Edition, 1959.
Maslow, A. Toward a psychology of being. Princeton, New Jersey: Van
Nostrand Co., Inc., 1962.
M cCarthy, M. M. Church and State: Separation or accom m odation? Harvard
Educational Review, August 1981, 51(3), 373-394.
McCluskey, N. G. (Ed.). C atholic education in Am erica: A docum entary
history. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1964.
McCluskey, N. G. Catholic education faces its fu tu re. New York: Doubleday
< 5 c Company, Inc, 1968.
McNeill, J. D. Curriculum: A comprehensive introduction. Boston: L ittle,
Brown and Company, 1977.
Meighan, R. Consultation and ideologies: Some issues raised by research into
children's judgment of teacher perform ance. In L. Barton & R. Meighan
(Eds.), Sociological interpretations of schooling and classrooms: A re
appraisal. D riffield, England: Studies in Education Ltd., 1978.
Meng, J. J. The role of the layman in Catholic education. In M. P. Sheridan < 5 c
R. Shaw (Eds.), Catholic education today and tom orrow . Washington D.C.:
National Catholic Education Association, 1967.
Michael, D. P. M. Guide to the sixth form . New York: Pergamon Press, 1969.
227
Michelson, S. The further responsibilities of intellectuals. Perspectives on
inequality. Harvard Educational Review, February 1973, 43(1), 92-105.
M oore, D. T. Discovering the pedagogy of experience. Harvard Educational
Review, May 1981, 51(2), 286-300.
Morisseau, J. J. The Mini-School experim ent. New York: New York Urban
Coalition, 1975.
M orris, V. C., & Pai, Y. Philosophy and the American school. Boston:
Houghton M ifflin Co., 1976.
M osteller, F., &Moynihan, D. P. On equality of educational opportunity. New
York: Vintage Books, 1972.
Mouly, G. J. Educational research: The a rt and science of investigation.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1978.
Mulligan, J. S. What will schools be like in 1990? The Los Angeles Tim es,
November 21, 1980, p. 10.
M urnane, R. J., Braddock, H. H., Bryk, A. S., Finn, Jr., C. E., G uthrie, J. W., &
Zusman, A., Heyns, B. L., Coleman, J., H offer, T., & Kilgore, S. Report
analysis: Public and private schools. Harvard Educational Review,
November 1981, 51 (4), 481-545.
Nash, R. Classrooms observed: The teacher's perception and the pupil's
perform ance. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973.
National Association of Secondary School Principals. The 8Q's where will
schools be? The response of 14 principals. Reston, Virginia: The
National Association of Secondary School Principals, 1974(a).
National Association of Secondary School Principals. 25 action learning
schools. Reston, Virginia: The National Association of Secondary School
Principals, 1974(b).
National Association of Secondary School Principals. This we believe. Reston,
Virginia: The National Association of Secondary School Principals Press,
1975.
National Commission on the Reform of Secondary Education (B.F. Brown,
Chairman). The reform of secondary education: A report to the public
and the profession. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1973.
National Commission on Youth (B. F. Brown, Chairman). The transition of
youth to adulthood: A bridge too long: A report to educators, sociolo
gists, legislators and youth policymaking bodies. Boulder: Westview
Press, 1980.
22.8.
National Education Association of the United States. Cardinal principles of
secondary education; A report of the Commission on the reorganization
of secondary education. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing O ffice,
1918.
National Panel on High Schools and Adolescents (3. H. Martin, Chairman). The
education of adolescents. Washington, D.C.: U.S. O ffice of Education,
1974.
National Panel on High School and Adolescent Education. The education of
adolescents: The final report and recom m endations of the National Panel
on High School and Adolescent Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing O ffice, 1976.
N eff, F. C. Philosophy and Am erican education. New York: The C enter for
Applied R esearch in Education, Inc., 1966.
Neill, A. S. Summerhill: A radical approach to childrearing. New York: Hart
Publishing Company 1960.
Newman, F. M. Reducing student alienation in high schools: Im plications of
theory. Harvard Educational Review, November 1981, 51(4), 546-564.
Niebuhr, R. The responsible self. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1963.
North, W. E. Catholic education in Southern C alifornia. Washington, D.C.:
The Catholic University of Am erica, 1936.
Ohme, H. The transform ation of tradition -- alternative and pluralistic
schools. Thrust for Educational Leadership, May 1974, 3(5), 4-6.
O’Neill, W. F. Selected educational heresies. Glenview, Illinois: Scott,
Foresman and Company, 1969. ,
O’Neill, W. F. Educational ideologies: Contem porary expressions of
educational philosophy. Santa Monica, California: Goodyear Publishing
Co., Inc., 1981.
Organization for Social and Technical Innovation. Philadelphia’s Parkway
Program: An evaluation. Newton, M assachusetts: Organization for
Social and Technical Innovation, 1972.
Orr, L. A year betw een school and university. London: National Foundation
for Educational Research, 1974.
Parsons, G. L. The introduction of grade twelve into Newfoundland schools—
extending the bases for lifelong education. The Morning Watch, October
1980, 8(1), 1-17.
Pelto, P. 3., & Pelto, G. H. Anthropological research (2nd ed.). Cambridge,
M assachusetts: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
229
Penberthy, C. Advising, guiding, and counseling students in alternative
schools. Paper from National A lternative Schools Program . Am herst:
University of M assachusetts, 1974.
Peshkin, A. Growing up Am erican: Schooling and the survival of com m unity.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.
Pincus, J. Education, schooling, and civilization: Rand 25th Anniversary
Volume. Santa Monica, California: The Rand Corporation, 1973.
President's Science Advisory C om m ittee Panel on Youth (3. S. Coleman,
Chairman). Youth: Transition to adulthood. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1974.
Pullias, E. V., & Young,3. D. A teacher is many things. Bloomington, Indiana:
University of Indiana Press, 1968.
Pye, L. W. (Ed.). Communications and political developm ent. Princeton, New
3ersey: Princeton University Press, 1963.
Rapp, M. L., Root, 3. G., & Sumner, G. Some considerations in the
experim ental design and evaluation of educational innovations. Santa
Monica, California: The Rand Corporation, 1970.
R asberry, S., & Greenway, R. Rasberry exercises: How to sta rt your own
school. Freestone, California: The Freestone Publishing Co., 1970.
Redman, E. The dance of legislation. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973.
Reim er, E. School is dead: A lternatives in education. New York: Doubleday
& Co., 1970.
Rogers, C. On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton M ifflin Co., 1961.
Rogers, C. Freedom to learn. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M errill Publishing
Co., 1969.
Savage, M. L. The Congregation of Saint 3oseph of C arondelet (2nd Ed.). St.
Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1927.
Schum acher, E. F. Small is beautiful. New York: Perennial Library, 1973.
Schw artz, A. 3. The schools and socialization. New York: Harper and Row
Publishing Co., 1975.
Scriven, M . Pros and cons about goal free evaluation. Evaluation Com ment,
1972, 3, 1-4.
Sexton, P. C. The Am erican school. Englewood C liffs, New 3ersey: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1967.
2 3 a
Sharp, R., Green, A., < 5 c Lewis, 3. Education and social control. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975.
Shaw, R. Summit conference on Am erican education. The Sign M agazine,
April 1968, pp. 28-30.
Sheridan, M. P., & Shaw, R. (Eds.). Catholic education today and tom orrow.
Washington, D.C.: National Catholic Educational Association, 1967.
Shipman, M. D., Bolam, D., & Jenkins, D. R. Inside a curriculum project.
London: M ethuen & Co., Ltd., 1974.
Shoup, B. J. Living and learning for credit. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi D elta
Kappa, 1978.
Sieber, S. D., & Wilder, D. E. (Eds.). The school in society. New York: The
Free Press, A Division of M acm illan Publishing Co., Inc., 1973.
Silberman, C. E. Crisis in the classroom . New York: Random House, Inc.,
1970.
Skager, R. W., & Russock, R. Progress report on four off-site alternative
schools in Los Angeles. A report to the Board of Education of the Los
Angeles Unified School D istrict, April 1974.
Skinner, B. F. Walden tw o. New York: M acmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1948.
Smith, L. M. An evolving logic of participant observation, educational ethno
graphy, and other case studies. In L. S. Shulman (Ed.). Review of
research in education 6. Itasca, Illinois: F. E. Peacock, 1978.
Snarey, J. R., Epstein, T., Sienkiewicz, C., & Zodhiates, P. (Eds.). Conflict
and continuity. Cambridge, M assachusetts: Harvard Educational Review
Press, 1981.
Soltis, J. (Ed.). Philosophy and education: 80th yearbook of the Society for
the Study of Education, P art I. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1981.
Southeast alternatives — 1974-75. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Minneapolis Board
of Education, M arch 1974.
Spindler, G. D. (Ed.) Education and cultural process. New York: Holt,
R inehart and Winston, Inc., 1974.
Spindler, L. S. Culture change and m odernization. New York: Holt, R inehart
and Winston, 1977.
Spring, J. H. Education and the rise of the corporate s ta te . Boston: The
Beacon Publishing Co., 1972.
231
Sproull, L7, Weiner, 57, 3 c Wolf, D T Organizing an anarchy. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1978.
Stake, R. The case study method in social inquiry. Educational R esearcher,
1978, 7, 5-8.
Taylor, P. A., Reid, W. A., 3 c Holley, B. 3. The English sixth form: A case
study in curriculum research. London: Routledge 3 c Kegan Paul, 1975.
Taylor, P. H. How teachers plan their courses. London: National Foundation
for Educational Research, 1970.
Teilhard de Chardin, P. The future of m an. New York: Harper 3 c Row,
Publishers, 1964.
Teilhard de Chardin, P. The phenomenon of man. New York: Harper Colophon
Books, 1975(a).
Teilhard de Chardin, P. Toward the future. New York: H arcourt Brace
3ovanovich, Inc., 1975(bJ^
Theroux, 3. Financing public alternative schools. Paper prepared for the
National A lternative Schools Program , Am herst, M assachusetts, The Uni
versity of M assachusetts, 1974.
Timpane, M., Abramowitz, S., Bobrow, S., 3 c Pascal, A. Youth policy in
transition. Santa Monica, California: The Rand Corporation, 1976.
Toffler, A. Future shock. New York: Random House, Inc., Bantam Books,
1970.
Toffler, A. (Ed.). Learning for tom orrow . New York: Vintage Books, A
Division of Random House, Inc., 1974.
Toward cultural pluralism. Educational Leadership, December 1974, 32(3),
163-207.
Tyack, D. B. Turning points in American educational history. M assachusetts:
Blaisdell Publishing Co., 1967.
Tyack, D. B. The one best system . M assachusetts: Harvard University Press,
1974.
U1 Haq, M. The poverty curtain. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976.
Ulich, R. (Ed.). Three thousand years of educational wisdom. Cambridge,
M assachusetts: Harvard Educational Press, 1979.
Vincent, D., 3 c Dean 3. One year courses in colleges and sixth form s. London:
National Foundation for Educational Research Publishing Company, Ltd.,
1977.
232
Walker, P. Public alternative schools: A look a t the options. Am herst: The
University of M assachusetts, 1973.
Ward, F. C. Education and developm ent reconsidered. New York: Praeger
Publishers, 1974.
Warren, D. R. (Ed.). History, education, and public policy. Berkeley,
California: M cCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1978.
Warwick, D. (Ed.). Integrated studies in the secondary school. New York:
Harper & Row, Publishers, 1973.
Weiss, J. Assessing non-conventional outcom es of schooling. In D. C. Berliner
(Ed.), Review of research 8. Published by the American Educational
Research Association, Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Publishing Inc., 1980.
Weller, R. H. (Ed.). Humanistic education. Berkeley, California: M cCutchan
Publishing Corporation, 1977.
Wexler, P. The sociology of education: Beyond equality. Indianapolis: The
Bobbs-M errill Company, Inc., 1976.
Willis, G. (Ed.). Q ualitative evaluation. Berkeley, California: M cCutchan
Publishing Corporation, 1978.
Willis, P. Learning to labour. W estmead, Farnborough, Hants, England: Saxon
House, 1977.
Wiseman, 3. P., & Aron, M. S. Field projects for sociology students.
Cambridge, M assachusetts: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1970.
W olcott, 3. F. Teachers versus technocrats. Eugene, Oregon: C enter for
Educational Policy and M anagem ent, 1977.
World Bank. Education: Sector working paper. Washington, D.C.: World
Bank, Decem ber 1974.
Yaeger, R. C. Research for the real world. American Education, 3uly 1980,
16(6), 14-17.
Young, C. The politics of cultural pluralism . Madison, Wisconsin: University
of Wisconsin Press, 1976.
Zaltm an, G., Florio, D. H., & Sikorski, L. A. Dynamic educational change:
Models, strategies, tactics, and m anagem ent. New York: Free Press,
1977.
233J
D ocum ents, questionnaires, and le tte r sources
The following docum ents, questionnaires, and le tte rs quoted in the
tex t are available from the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, Los Angeles,
California.
Secondary School Goals, Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet, 1973.
A lternative School Proposal, May, 1973.
A lternative School Proposal, July 2, 1973.
Proposal for an A lternative Secondary School, M arch, 1974.
L etter from the D irector of Secondary Schools, The Sisters of St. Joseph, May
31, 19 74.
School P re-attitude Questionnaires, August, 1973.
Mount St. Mary's College, Open House at the Doheny Campus, Flier, October,
1975.
L etter from a Student, 1976.
Notes from Interviews, M arch, 1976.
School P ost-attitude Questionnaires, June, 1976.
Sem ester Questionnaires, January, 1977.
Optional Learning Program , Open House, Questionnaires, May 18, 1977.
School P ost-attitude Questionnaires, May, 1977.
Student L etter, December 19, 1977.
School P ost-attitude Questionnaires, May, 1978.
School P re-attitude Questionnaires, Septem ber, 1978.
Optional Learning Program Alumni Q uestionnaires, May, 1979.
________________________________________________________________________ 234.
Student L etter to Community Leaders, 1979.
School P ost-attitude Questionnaires, May, 1979.
L etter from the Coordinator of the Faith Support Community, May, 1979.
School P re-attitude Q uestionnaires, Septem ber, 1979.
Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) R eport, 1979.
L etter from the Chairman of the Members of the Corporation, May 15, 1979.
Working D raft for a Sponsorship Proposal, January, 1980.
Interview with the A ssistant D irector, Optional Learning Program , Septem ber,
1980.
L etter, President of Mount St. Mary's College, March 25, 1981.
Minutes from the Secondary School Meeting, May 13, 1981.
L etter from the Provincial Superiors, Los Angeles Province, The Sisters of St.
Joseph, May, 1981.
L etter from Dean of Studies, Mount St. Mary's College, Doheny Campus, May,
1981.
School P ost-attitude Questionnaires, May, 1981.
Speech, D irector of the Optional Learning Program , May, 1981.
L etter, Past-Provincial Superior, Los Angeles Province, June, 1981.
L etter from the Executive D irector of the NCEA, June 29, 1981.
School P ost-attitude Questionnaires, 1975-1981.
235
APPENDIXES
236
APPENDIXES
The following m aterials are included in these appendixes: (A) the pre-
and post-school attitu d e questionnaires which were adm inistered to the students
in the Optional Learning Program at the beginning and end of each year from
1975-1981. (B) The working d raft proposal for the establishm ent of an
alternative school which was approved by the Provincial Council of the Sisters
of Saint Joseph on March 1, 1974, is also included.
They contain (C) a le tte r from a student who attended the Program
during the 1975-1976. This le tte r from a student who attended during the first
year of the Program touches on all the major aspects of the Program as seen
through the eyes of a student.
Included also are (D) the minutes from the first inform ational m eeting
held for principals and counselors from the Los Angeles archdiocesan high
schools on October 12 and 13, 1977. These minutes sum m arize the relationship
of the Optional Learning Program to other Catholic high schools in Los Angeles.
Finally, (E) a section from a Western Association of Schools and
Colleges (WASC) evaluation report is included. This report is part of a larger
evaluation conducted at Saint Mary's Academy in 1979. Since the Optional
Learning Program was established as an enrichm ent program for this school, in
the General Analysis section of this report The Optional Learning Program was
identified as a significant contribution to the curriculum of this school.
Appendix F contains the follow-up report.
237
APPENDIX A
SCHOOL PRE- AND POST-ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRES
School P re-A ttitu de Q uestionnaire
NAME DATE
DAY MONTH YEAR
1. What is the most im portant thing you can learn from school?
2. List the words you associate with school.
3. List the words you would rather associate with school.
4. In a word or two explain what you expect this program to be like.
5. Rank the following according to the way you learn best.
(Use the scale 1-10 with 1 being the best)
using media (T.V., film s, etc.) working with a group of
friends
going on field trips ______interviewing people
com pleting self-assignm ents studying a t a library
reading and studying ______working with a tutor
preparing for a te st ____ _ listening to a lecture
6. What learning is most im portant to you?
7. What is the role of a teacher in learning?
8. List as many words as you can to describe yourself.
9. Share something interesting about yourself.
0. Why do you want to be in this program ?
1. Why should you be adm itted in to this program?
School P ost-A ttitu d e Q uestionnaire
NAME DATE
DAY MONTH YEAR
1. What was the most im portant thing you learned in this program?
2. In a word or two explain what the program was like.
A. What did you like best about the program?
B. What did you like least about the program?
C. What would you change about the program?
3. From the variety of ways th at you studied, which was the most effective
way for you to study? How do you learn best?
4. Did you discover or learn any new creative ways of learning? Explain.
5. What goals did the program help you to achieve?
6. Did the program benefit you in any way th a t the regular school program
could not?
7. List the words you associate with school.
8. What is the role of a teacher in learning?
240
APPENDIX B
WORKING DRAFT PROPOSAL
241
TO: Provincial Council
FROM: A lternative School Planning Com m ittee/Secondary School Apostolate
DATE: MARCH 1, 19 74
PROPOSAL: Establishm ent of an alternative secondary school affiliated
with our Community high schools and located a t the House
of Studies.
I. R ationale:
The purpose of the alternative school in general is to provide a school
which differs significantly from the conventional school in curriculum ,
instructional practices and goals. It seeks to make more extensive use of
community resources and facilities, is more flexible, and is most often
com paratively small.
Many school system s throughout the country are establishing alterna
tive schools. Their reason: conventional schools serve the needs of
approxim ately 75% of the school population. They see the alternative
school as the most viable means of reaching the other 25%. An alternative
school, offered as a supplement to our present service in secondary
education, would strengthen our apostolate, providing advances concomi
tan t with the social and educational changes of today. It would offer
educational advancem ent to our secondary school students who, though not
averse to education, 1) prefer to advance a t their own rate of learning; 2)
wish to profit while studying by being able to research various centers of
work, research, and study; 3) prefer on-the-job study in conjunction with
class or tutorial study; 4) wish to earn advanced placem ent or college
credit while still in high school; 5) are unable to see them selves as
242
members of a Faith community in a large high school. Here the students
would take an even more active part in the growth of a vital Faith
community among them selves and the staff. The school could also be a
strong catalyst for change in our secondary school apostolate in the
direction of humanness and openness.
II. Questions and Answers:
Q. What will be the goals of the school?
A. We envision three rather broad goals:
1) to build among the members of the school community, staff
and students, a vital Faith community which would evolve from a
carefully planned program. This program would include a core of
religious education—not necessarily conducted along conventional lines
of religious instruction— and the pursuit of goals mutually worked out
and agreed upon by the to tal community.
2) to help the students develop their autonomy, independence,
and creativity by providing the opportunity to assume a major role in
planning, with the help of a teacher-counselor, their academ ic
program and to take responsibility for their choices and their learning
goals.
3) to provide an instructional program based on student need and
directed toward either enrichm ent in the Humanities or toward the
exploration, both academ ically and experientially, of particular career
goals.
Q. What will be the contours of the instructional program which will
achieve these goals?
243
A. 1) a religion program th at guides the students toward becoming
com pletely and fully them selves as they are intended to be, by:
unifying and simplifying their whole personal being
experiencing God in their inmost selves
experiencing God in community
serving God in community
2) areas of curriculum which will be set up to respond to students1
interest in a future career or enrichm ent in a particular field.
Possibilities include:
career— pre-m edicine training, teacher training, communications
enrichm ent—Humanities, theology, fine arts
3) requirem ents which will be established by director and staff.
Scheduling will be flexible and individual to m eet the needs of each
student. The program, instructional and experiential, will be deter
mined by both counselor and student.
4) basic classes to be taken on campus. According to individual need,
students will enroll in classes off-cam pus a t such institutions as Mt.
St. Mary's, UCLA, Northridge, or other high schools. Experience in
the career area and possibilities for enrichm ent in the arts will be
made available to the students as part of the basic program.
Opportunities will be made available for service in the community as
an outgrowth of both the instructional and experiential program.
5) graduation diplomas to be granted by the alternative school.
Q. Which students are we trying to serve?
2 M
A. We see the school as serving primarily the eleventh and tw elfth
graders of the schools now encompassed in our secondary school
apostolate who would be interested in an alternative kind of education.
Enrollment, however, will not be lim ited to students from our own
schools. The number of students the first year will not exceed thirty
nor should it be less than tw enty. All students will need to be well
aw are of the general goals of the school and careful screening of
prospective students will be required.
Q. How many staff members will be needed?
A. We see the need for one full-tim e person who will be director and the
primary teacher-counselor. One part-tim e person whould assist the
director. The rest of the staff will be comprised of volunteers:
parents, college students, personnel from the College and the House of
Studies. All must be willing to operate in a very flexible program, to
handle tutorials and/or independent study, and to use their initiative
and expertise in locating contacts within Los Angeles and its environs
which would be useful for student instructional and/or experiential
programs.
Q. What facilities will be needed?
A. Though we intend to view the entire city as a "school”, we envision the
House of Studies as the locus where staff and students form the Faith
community through a variety of experiences, where the student-
teacher relationship is worked out, where individual programs are
planned, and where some small classes are held.
245
The facilities needed include at least one large room and several small
rooms. Bathroom facilities and an outside entrance are also
necessary. A small kitchen area would be advantageous in order to
contain the school in one area of the House of Studies. We see all or a
part of the ground floor of St. Joseph's Hall a t the House of Studies as
providing the most practical solution to these essential needs.
We expect the students to be able to provide their own transportation.
The present gasoline shortage, if it continues, will present a monu
m ental obstacle for the entire program. At present we have no answer
to this crucial difficulty.
Q. How will the school be financed?
A. The school will be financed by student tuition just as our other high
schools are financed.
Income (based on a student enrollm ent of 25 and tuition of $600/year)
tuition 15,000
outside fund raising 1,000
to tal $16,000
Expenditures
sisters cash salaries (IK 2) 3420
supplies 700
insurance 200
autom obile 3500
advertising 500
m aintenance 2700
246
phone 500
utilities 800
to ta l $12,320
Q.
A.
What is the tim etable for the im plem entation of the proposal?
1) January, February, 1974— com m ittee w rites proposal considering
2) March, 1974— com m ittee presents proposal to Provincial Council.
3) April, 1974— staff is named.
4) May, 1974— program is com m unicated to the schools.
5) Summer, 1974— d irecto r/staff hold meetings with various groups
to plan program; begin to make contacts.
6) Septem ber-D ecem ber, 1974— d irecto r/staff organize program;
visit schools to prom ote school and screen students.
7) January, 1973— proposal is im plem ented; school opens.
objectives, facilities, instructional program, finances, staff,
and students.
247
APPENDIX C
LETTER FROM A STUDENT, MAY, 1976
248
To: The D irector of the Optional Learning Program
From: A Student
Regarding: Information asked for on the school post-attitude questionnaire
Date: May, 1976
At the tim e I was recommended for the optional learning program, two
of my best friends were seniors about to graduate. I only wished I could follow
suit but while they had fulfilled their credits, I had not. I was prepared to go
through the motions, and go through them well, but the curriculum had become
fam iliar and predictable for me a t St. Bernard's High School. I fe lt suppressed
and unchallenged.
Through Learning Unlimited I took hold of the reins of my education. I
was able to approach my subjects with practically any amount of imagination
and focus on areas of particular interest. The isolation was gone. I felt very
much a part of the world. I again became excited about my im m ediate
schooling.
I feel th at the alternative school can offer the best of two worlds.
The structured classes th a t might be advantageous to such subjects as
chem istry or calculus are available while museum or th eatre credit are
possibilities in the study of history or dram a. Whereas in the school edifice the
outside world is brought in through tex t books and films, a program such as
Learning Unlimited enables the student to view and experience for himself the
world firsthand. Instead of an instructor who teaches the same class five tim es
daily the individual can avail himself by interaction with people who are
actively involved in their fields and excited about sharing their knowledge.
____________ 249
For me it was very much a relief to have variety of scheduling. I
enjoyed the freedom th at a less rigid curriculum enabled me. There were no
oells to follow. Instead, I had tim e between my classes, som etim es days, and
oecause of the lim ited number of students, I felt very much an im portant part
of the school. Practically everyone knew my name. I liked th at.
Learning Unlimited was of course, not perfect. Transportation and
distance between the homes of participating students seemed to be blockades in
the inner closeness of the program . I believe th at if the living locales were
more generalized it could only help, for it was difficult for me to acquaint
myself with others th at lived in Long Beach (toll call) and whom I saw only once
weekly for three hours. Communication was a t tim es also weak betw een pupils
and program adm inistrators. I think th at having a male co-leader would also
aelp the balance. At tim es I fe lt resentful of others less involved than I. There
were assurances made at the program's beginning th at were not m aintained.
The one th at im m ediately comes to mind is th at of college counseling. It was
told to me th at the guidance I would be able to attain would be superior in th at
t would be personal to my needs and interests and more thorough since there
were relatively few participants. Also, in looking a t the questionnaire before
me it reads, "To students who participated in the Optional Learning Program."
distinctly rem ember th at it was voted by the students to call our school
"Learning Unlimited."
The recom mendation of students by their schools followed by a
screening is, I think, a good way to select students for the program . In my
opinion, it would be advantageous to supply a description of the ideal or
desirable pupil on or near the recom m endation sheet so th a t the teachers are
__________________________________________________________________________2 3 0 .
aware of exactly what "type" of person the program is looking for. Just
because an individual is not succeeding in traditional schooling methods does
not mean he should become an im m ediate candidate for Learning Unlimited. I
felt strongly th at this was the case with a few individuals while I was a
participant and th at in term s of group productivity, they were deterrents. The
m aturity to handle the responsibility of such a program is entirely individual. It
might best be dealt with both concretely and conclusively during the screening
and interview .
Personally, I was able to become aw are of all around learning th at was
practically a t my fingertips and incorporate some of them into my life. I don't
think I'll ever skim over television docum entaries again (if a t all) without first
giving them a glance or pass off a historical dram atization as just dull films. In
the program I learned th at solid education can be enjoyable, not something to
pe forcibly endured, and th a t its availability is "Unlimited." I now know th at
I'm not as disciplined as I would like or th at I set my goals too high— one of the
two, maybe both, and th at I miss the contact of structured schooling. For my
personal learning needs I prefer interaction and somewhat more scholastic
direction. I like being my own teacher very much, but would also in the future
like this to be balanced. As a change from being led by the nose, I chose for
myself at the program's onset a m ajority of individualized classes. Next tim e I
would know b etter. I learned a lot about myself and yes, I'd do it all again.
251
APPENDIX D
MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 12 and 13, 1977 MEETING
HELD AT THE LOS ANGELES ARCHDIOCESAN BOARD OF EDUCATION
THE OPTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAM
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12 and 13, 1977
The m eeting for the Optional Learning Program was held on October
12 and 13 at the D epartm ent of Education. Twelve schools sent represen
tatives. A slide presentation which described the Program was presented;
followed by five students giving their opinions as to the benefits of the Program
E or them this year as seniors. A question and answer period followed which
clarified how the Program differs from other options within each school.
1. It is more comprehensive in its total scope—academ ically, spiritually,
and in its career orientation.
2. It is more individualized and flexible.
3. It capitalizes on the best offerings from all the educational resources
in the city.
The discussion period indicated why participation in the Program is
difficult for some schools.
1. Decrease in enrollments
2. Finances
3. Lack of communication with faculty members, parents, students, as to
the true nature of the Program
A clarification was made by Monsignor M ontrose which would
ininimize these problems for schools participating in the Program.
1. The Program is lim ited to 40 students from all our Catholic Schools.
The small number from each school does not affect the overall budget.
253
2. The Program is intended for students who do not fit into the regular
study schedule of the school.
3. Periodic publishing of m aterials about the Program could be done
through regular school bulletins and a t school m eetings.
A further point of clarification was made by Sister Mary Magdalene.
The Program was founded to be an efficient, uncomplicated service to the
schools. When a student expresses interest in the Program, he need only
contact Sister Mary Magdalene at Doheny Campus; any further communcation
with the Principal, teachers, or parents would be handled by the faculty a t the
Optional Learning Program. Informational m aterials about the Program are
available on request.
The m eeting ended with a consensus th at the Program is not only a
benefit and a privilege but a needed service for a certain number of students in
our Catholic Schools. Support for the Program was pledged by all those
present.
2 54
APPENDIX E
WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES
EVALUATION REPORT
2 5 5
The Western Association of Schools and Colleges Evaluation Report
Saint Mary's Academy, 1979
III. GENERAL ANALYSIS
H. Others: The Optional Learning Program
1. Progress Report -- does not apply
2. Describe significant changes in this program area other than those
stim ulated by Visiting Com m ittee recom m endations.
The Optional Learning Program is an experim ent in secondary edu
cation sponsored by the Los Angeles Province of the Sisters of St. Joseph of
Carondelet, approved and encouraged by Reverend Jerem iah Murphy, Arch
diocesan Superintendent of Schools, offered as a special program of learning to
all secondary schools in the Archdiocese.
Ten students from Saint Mary's Academy were among the first
students to participate in the Program along with students from St. Bernard's,
St. Joseph's and Bishop Montgomery High Schools. A fter two years of
experim entation from Septem ber, 1975, to Septem ber, 1977, with students
attending from four pilot schools, the Program is now open to senior students
from any Catholic high school in the Los Angeles area. This year five students
from St. Mary's Academy are participating in the Program.
The Program is designed for students with special academ ic needs
which range from the need for a wider variety of learning experiences than is
available in the traditional secondary school, to the need for increased
responsibility in planning one's own curriculum , to the need for on-the-spot job
study in conjunction with regular academ ic study.
256
The senior student is released from her home school for one or two
sem esters with the permission of her principal. She enters an orientation
program geared to helping her become a more independent learner, under the
guidance of a counselor sets up her own program of learning, and researches the
opportunities and educational centers within the city. She remains a member of
her own student body, retaining library and activity privileges. She receives her
academ ic credits, transcript, and diploma from her home school.
The city becomes a classroom for the student. A counselor m eets with
the student for one hour a week to evaluate her work and to guide her into
creative new ways of learning. Mount St. Mary's Doheny Campus, Building #1 is
the official center designated for seminar study groups and counseling sessions.
All students m eet there on Mondays from 9:00 to 3:30 to participate in a
Community Day.
The Program is built around the Community Day which includes the
core of the Religion P rogram -sm all group seminars on Scripture, Prayer,
Morality, Social Justice, M arriage, Death and Dying as well as Christian
Service. As part of a Personal Enrichment session, field trips are sponsored to
widen the students' cultural knowledge of the city and its vast resources,
speakers from different professions and areas of culture are invited to
challenge the students to new levels of awareness and m aturity. The rap
sessions, sharing sessions, experiential sessions also held on this day are geared
to stim ulating academ ic and career interests, development of mind, body and
spirit as well as the all-im portant building of community.
237
3. Explain how the changes listed above have affected the school
program .
The Optional Learning Program provides an enrichm ent oppor
tunity for a select number of senior students each year. Students who
wish to participate in the Program enrich the school with their wide
variety of educational experiences which they share with students at
their home school. Students in the Program give presentations to
classes at the home school and share on an informal basis with other
students at extra-curricular activities.
4. How are these changes being evaluated?
A. Each year the student in the Optional Learning Program receives
a questionnaire regarding the benefits of the Program for her
personally.
B. Principals and counselors are invited yearly to visit the Program
and interview students regarding their progress.
C. Annual evaluation meetings are held with Principals from partici
pating schools.
5. What are the apparent strengths of this program area?
A. It is more comprehensive in its total scope academ ically,
spiritually, and its career orientation— for the individual
student—than the regular school program.
B. It is more individualized, flexible, and mobile than a regular
school program.
C. It capitalizes on the best educational offerings and resource
personnel from academ ic and career resources in the city.
238
D. It provides greater opportunities for decision making and
accepting of responsibility to the student.
6. Where do improvements appear necessary?
A. By the home school
1. In the field of recruitm ent
2. In publication of m aterials about the Program
3. In communications to teachers, counselors, students, and
parents about the nature of the Program
B. By the faculty a t the Optional Learning Program
1. In the method of selection of students
2. In orientation of students to the responsibilities of the
Program
3. In continuing to refine educational opportunities of the
Program
7. Outline plans for improvement in this program area.
A. Reorganize public relations and recruitm ent aspects of the
Program in order to further utilize services offered by Mount St.
Mary's Public Relations D epartm ent.
B. O ffer orientation classes to interested students a t the home
school.
C. M eet with parents of interested students at general P.T.A.
m eetings.
D. Continue monthly evaluation of resources, m aterials, and
methods.
25. 9
APPENDIX F
THE OPTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAM FOLLOW-UP REPORT
260
Exact statistical measures were not used in this study since its purpose
was to present a comprehensive overview of the major "educating” aspects of
the Optional Learning Program. This final follow-up report, therefore, used
descriptive rather than statistical methods to assess the continuing influence of
this educational experience on students who participated in it. Through the
means of questionnaires, phone calls, return visits, and letters, over fifty
percent of the participants were contacted at least once, one to six years after
their participation in the Program . Through these contacts, an effort was made
to determ ine whether or not the educational experiences in the Optional
Learning Program had been positive, maturing experiences, and whether or not
these educational experiences continue to influence the young adult’s present
life situation.
In order to contact the participants, the following events were
scheduled. In June of 1979, students from the years 1975, 1976, and 1977 were
invited to attend an informal reunion party at the Doheny Campus. Twenty-
five participants attended this reunion. Seventeen of these participants
answered and returned a questionnaire given to them a t th at tim e. In July of
1981, a pilot questionnaire was sent to the 1980 graduates of the Program.
Tw enty-three of the thirty-one 1980 graduates responded to that questionnaire.
That questionnaire was then revised and in April, 1982, the questionnaire
included in this appendix was sent to the 186 participants. Forty-eight
questionnaires were returned by June, 1982. No follow-up reminders were sent
to the participants. Also, during the period 1976-1981, a to tal of 22 other
participants were contactd by phone, through spontaneous return visits, and
through personal letters which made a to tal of 102 contacts.
261
| 75 '76 77 78 79 '80 TOTALS
Total number of students 42 ' 34 24
1
25 ;
i
t
34 27 186
Total number of responses 25 17 12 12 i 25 11 102
1982 questionnaire 10 6 6 6 2+7* 11 48
1981 pilot questionnaire 23 23
1979 reunion questionnaire 8 5 2 2 17
1976-1981 phone calls, 7 7 4 4 22
letters, visits
Total number of non-responses 17 17 12 13 9 16 84
No response 12 15 10 10 9 16 72
Unable to contact 5 2 2 3 12
.
<
* Seven participants responded to the 1981 and 1982 questionnaire.
In these contacts, whether through questionnaires or through personal
dialogues, open-ended questions were used to elicit spontaneous responses which
would include feelings and intentions. No effo rt was made to elicit specific
responses toward particular objectives. The responses were read and assessed,
however, in relation to the goals of the Optional Learning Program. These goals
as described in this study are as follows: to provide opportunities to senior
students which would allow them to make a b etter transition to adulthood
through the following means: 1) direct exposure to as many aspects of a chosen
career as possible, 2) direct exposure to a college situation, 3) direct
experiences related to the development of interpersonal, affective skills, 4)
opportunities to develop basic skills in the essentials of the English language and
in the knowledge and skills of government processes needed by American
citizens, and 5) opportunities to develop a value system and/or life style which
would allow them to respond as Christians to life situations.
262
Although the tallying of responses resulted in long lists of specific,
personal responses similar to those elicited by the pre-/and post-attitude
questionnaires, it was possible to conclude th at of the 102 responses, 100
responses were positive; two were negative. Each of the above goals of the
Program were mentioned consistently in response to several of the questions.
Only one response from a student who was unwillingly made to attend the
Program was decidedly negative. One student who had attended the Program
during its first year for only one sem ester merely stated in the questionnaire
that she did not agree with the educational theory of the Program.
To the question, "Would you attend a program like the Optional
Learning Program now if it were a college level program?", from the US
participants who returned the final questionnaire, U2 responded affirm atively.
Samples of other responses received on the final questionnaire were as follows:
to the question, "What was the most im portant thing you learned in the
Program?", the responses were freedom with responsibility, decision-making
skills, self-discipline, self-m otivation, self-respect, self-confidence, initiative,
m aturity, determ ination, tim e m angement, how to set goals and work to
achieve them , how to cope with college pressures, and the im portance and value
pf learning. Additional responses to the questions on the final questionnaire are
available on request.
In conclusion, this informal descriptive follow-up report included the
results from contacts with 102 participants of the Optional Learning Program
during the years of 1975-1981. The majority of responses were narrative
responses which reflected an awareness of and/or a certain degree of
internalization of the goals and objectives of the Optional Learning Program.
263
THE OPTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAM
FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE
April, 1982
NAME
LAST (Maiden) (Married)
ADDRESS
FIRST
NUMBER CITY
3HONE ( )
STATE ZIP
PRESENT OCCUPATION
BUSINESS ADDRESS PHONE
DID YOU ATTEND COLLEGE OR ARE YOU ATTENDING COLLEGE
WHERE
YES NO
NAME OF COLLEGE PLACE
DEGREE RECEIVED
AA BA MA
SPOUSE
IN PROCESS 1 2 3 4
NAME
SPOUSE'S OCCUPATION
CHILDREN
NAME AGE NAME AGE NAME AGE
PROFESSIONAL ATTAINMENTS
DEGREE LICENCE ETC.
WHAT WAS YOUR CAREER CHOICE IN THE PROGRAM?__________________
DID YOU CONTINUE IN THIS CAREER AFTER YOU LEFT THE PROGRAM?
WHAT WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU LEARNED IN THE
PROGRAM?
WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU CAN LEARN IN ANY
SCHOOL?
N A WORD OR TWO, EXPLAIN WHAT YOU REMEMBER ABOUT THE
PROGRAM?
WHAT DID YOU LIKE BEST ABOUT THE PROGRAM?
264
WHAT DID YOU LIKE LEAST ABOUT THE PROGRAM?
WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE NOW ABOUT THE PROGRAM TO MAKE IT
MORE MEANINGFUL TO HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS?
DID THE PROGRAM BENEFIT YOU IN ANY WAY THAT THE REGULAR
SCHOOL COULD NOT DO? EXPLAIN.
WOULD YOU ATTEND A PROGRAM LIKE THE OPTIONAL LEARNING
PROGRAM NOW OR ADVISE SOMEONE ELSE TO ATTEND IT IF IT WERE A
COLLEGE LEVEL PROGRAM?
NAME THREE THINGS THAT YOU LEARNED IN THE PROGRAM THAT HAVE
CONTINUED TO INFLUENCE YOU NOW.

Asset Metadata

Creator Digneo, Mary Magdalene (author)

Core Title An optional learning program at the secondary level: A descriptive analysis

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, Secondary,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c26-498261

Unique identifier UC11245198

Identifier usctheses-c26-498261 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP24820.pdf

Dmrecord 498261

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Digneo, Mary Magdalene

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA