Ethnography
1999

Historic Myths Rule Reform: A Critical Ethnography of Elementary Science Teaching

Julie A. Thomas
Texas Tech University

A paper presented at the 20^th Annual Ethnography in Education Research Forum at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. March, 1999. 

Except for a brief flirtation with inquiry or hands-on methodology in the 1960’s, elementary school science is taught pretty much as it always has been. Maybe the textbook is now in four colors, but the old read-recite-discuss way is as entrenched as ever (Mechling & Oliver, 1983a, p. 41).

While considerable research about the advantages of hands-on learning and inquiry teaching exists, science classrooms go on – largely impervious to empirical research results (Weiss, 1994). The textbook continues as "state of the art" methodology (Aldridge, 1991; Mechling &Oliver, 1983a; Raizen & Michelsohn, 1994; Shymansky & Kyle, 1992). Current reform-oriented efforts in teacher education programs fall short of making significant changes in teaching practice. A literature review indicates that elementary teachers have resisted reform and held to the traditional beliefs about learning as "absorbing" and teaching as "telling" (Kennedy, 1991). Moreover, most elementary teachers do not know the difference between reading science and doing hands-on science (Aldridge, 1991; Mechling and Oliver, 1983b; Shymansky, Yore, & Good, 1991). Thus, elementary school teachers may understand the need for hands-on science activities, but they continue to place a high priority on textbook content coverage. Teachers teach the way they believe students learn best -- constructing pedagogical knowledge that fits their own paradigm of the elementary classroom (Enochs & Riggs, 1990; Munby, 1984; Olson, 1992).

Research regarding teacher resistance in elementary science education offers considerations and recommendations for teacher education reform. The research has generated a list of "shoulds" for pre-service education programs in hopes of teaching new practice to new teachers. Nonetheless, research has not gone far in changing teaching practice (Egbert, 1985; Richardson, 1990). Cuban (1990) suggests that teaching is insulated from externally driven pressures toward fundamental change.

It is expected that this critical ethnography will bring further analysis to the elementary teacher tradition of entrenchment in text book (concept based) science when reform is directed toward hands-on (inquiry based) science. Science education reform seems to be a part of a change force that is complex, non-linear, and chaotic. This critical ethnography illuminates the experience of resistance to reform in elementary science teaching and raises meaningful concerns for preservice and inservice teacher education. The emergent myths present a critical review of the "lived experience" of elementary teachers engaged in reform. Their reflections open to scrutiny otherwise hidden agendas and assumptions that inhibit, repress, and constrain reform or change.

Participants

Purposefully selected research participants Jenny, Tom, Krista, and Susan teach grades three, four, and five in the same mid-western, suburban school and co-share district leadership in a statewide reform project. Identified as Lead Teachers in the Statewide Systemic Initiative (SSI), they have agreed to develop more powerful science and mathematics programs and to assume leadership roles for teaching others in their district about the new content and pedagogy advocated by national reform movements. They are involved in intensive inservice programs based on expert modeling of curriculum design, inquiry teaching, and authentic assessment methodologies. The focus of this study is the perception and meaning these teachers assign their routine experiences in science teaching and leadership roles. How do these teachers experience resistance to reform?

Theoretical Perspective

This research begins with a premise common to all critical ethnographies – that cultural life is in constant tension between control and resistance (Thomas, 1993). This orientation further suggests that cultural ways transfer or reproduce themselves from generation to generation – that individuals develop socially and, as a result, cultural ways are "copied" or reproduced and change is resisted (Carspecken & Apple, 1992). This critical ethnography considers resistance to reform (or reproduction) in science education. Following Carpsecken and Apple’s recommended stages of data collection and analysis, the data include demographic information; provisional analyses of collective observations and patterns of behavior; and "dialogical data" gathered in one-on-one and group discussions when participant teachers were asked to reflect on my observations and share in the re-presentation of their cultural experience. These dialogues served to "tease out" the historic myths that codify their school culture and define the tension in resistance to reform.

Data Collection/Analysis

As an observer-participant during one spring semester, I audio-recorded personal histories of each informant as well as individual instructional reflections; collected combinations of field note records, photographs of weekly classroom observations, and documents (teacher lesson plans, personal journals, examples of student work, and student "learning logs"); and conducted semi-structured weekly group dialog sessions during the last month. Patterns, themes, and major ideas were chronicled regularly for the duration of the research time. Data, sorted into outlines similar to the memos and diagrams method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), identified three overarching categories to describe the teaching and leadership unique to these teachers. The tensions, or normative structures, became apparent in the dialogical process as four historic myths emerged in the participants’ re-presentation of their elementary school culture. Validity measures (Kirk & Miller, 1986) of triangulated data; member checks and dialogs; long term, repeated observations; and detailed descriptions of participant teachers’ experiences provide a framework for transferability to other people and places though no attempt is intended to generalize the reality of this teacher culture. Reliability measures (Merriam, 1988) include a detailed research plan, multiple methods of data collection, and an attestation of accuracy within the research process and product by an external auditor.

Emergent Historical Myths

I expected to find these teachers demonstrating reliance on text-based, concept instruction (teaching that resonated with the resistance to change that has dominated science education for years) thereby continuing the circuit of cultural reproduction. Alternatively, I found enthusiastic, empowered, skilled elementary teachers who demonstrate the expectations of the SSI on a daily basis. The ethnographic narrative tells the story of a district with a reputation for excellence in a period of rapid growth, a principal and superintendent who support and encourage professional development, and teachers who are "open to change." On the surface, it seemed I had identified a school culture exempt from cultural reproduction. However, in the critical analysis or re-presentation of their school culture, these teachers discovered subtle, historic myths that support the normative structures to intercept or resist change. The emergent historic myths, defined in the dialogical process of this critical ethnography, are the focus of this paper. These myths codify the way in which these participant teachers proceeded in science education reform and the constraints they faced. They also identify the way in which these teachers began district-wide, myths negotiation; their change brought confusion to the system.

1. Parents, school board members, administrators, and teachers are on the same team. Historically, the chain of command across these groups was commonly accepted. New "trust tensions" are based on "teacher empowerment" and the evolving perceptions of the power of one group over another. They involve various combinations of members of this elementary school culture group, a group that extends beyond the four participant teachers and heavily impacts their school environment and support for change.

Jenny suggests that there is an "erosion of trust between parents and teachers." When the classrooms changed from ability grouping to heterogeneous grouping, students were no longer in the "top math group" or the "top reading group" and parents raised valid concerns about how teachers were going to meet individual children's needs. Now student assessment is an issue. On the new report cards at the primary level, teachers mark "developmental indicators" to identify beginning level, intermediate level, or consistent levels of student performance. Parents still want to see grades. With a change in reporting came a change in teaching. Teachers are using more manipulatives and process teaching. Parents are accustomed to rote memory. Jenny is concerned about the parents,

They're not trying to be malicious, they just don't understand -- they have a real problem when I don't force blind memorization of math facts -- that I don't make kids sit in front of flash cards for fifteen minutes and drill flash cards and take contests.

Jenny suggests that parents and teachers alike are troubled by the amount of change at Sunnybluffs. But the teachers are more comfortable than the parents. As Jenny sees it, the teachers are involved in making the decisions for change, and the parents are having this change thrust on them.

There is also some tension between these teachers and the school board. Jenny described her awareness of the school board's level of understanding,

They're real traditional and don't really want to make a whole lot of waves. [They] want things to go smoothly within the district. I can understand that, but I don't know that the school board would be called real risk takers.

Susan responded with, "The most [they] have to go by is 'when they were in school.' They're not [teacher] educated. They probably haven't had education classes." And Jenny went on to express her concern for how little the board understands about education research and their fear that the district is "jumping on a band wagon."

The superintendent shares similar concerns. He is not sure that his board understands, "that this is what an administrator is supposed to do and there will be some mistakes made along the way but that's a necessary process of changing what we've done." Dave, the superintendent, is also concerned about reluctance to change -- not just among the board members but within the community as well,

We still have people in our community that feel that you must have a text book. That you must have tests -- pencil and paper tests -- that it must be the teacher in front of the classroom and desks in rows and that is the only way the students learn. We have much to do in helping people to understand that that is not the only way that people learn (and in fact in many ways that's the most ineffective way of teaching and learning) and that teachers now have far more skills to bring about learning than they've ever had before.

Some tensions involve teachers and administrators. Krista thinks that sometimes "administrators make quick decisions and don't actually realize the impact of their decisions on teachers and students." In the superintendent's decision about student hats for Outdoor Education, Krista does not believe that Dave understood the problem of taking this large group of students and volunteers into the outdoors. In the superintendent's arrangement with the community sponsor, all students would get a cap of the same color with the sponsor logo on it. The program had been originally designed so that each group had a different colored hat.

The hats seem insignificant but they're not. They're extremely important with 50 or 60 kids in order to make sure that everybody's going in the right direction -- they're all going different directions -- you've got to have some kind of a management plan. The kids are all going to different stations, so it is important that you can just take a quick look and see that everybody's in the right [place]. It's a matter of safety!

It's just typical of administrators making decisions. It seems they don't always think through what repercussions these decisions have. If administrators would just take the time to communicate, take the time, a lot of problems would be eliminated.

Teresa, the Sunnybluffs principal, is understood to be interested in the leadership and professional growth of these teachers. She is supportive of the Mimifest, matches inservice opportunities with individual professional goals, and encourages innovative teaching methodologies. In the changing methodologies at Sunnybluffs, she has "pushed" some teachers" and "challenged some parents." The confusion is that sometimes she moves from the facilitator position to the authority position -- according to the willingness of others to grow. As Tom explained, that's just being an administrator, "Do you want to be comfortable or do you want to grow?" For others, Teresa's vacillation from one administrative role to another is confusing. They can't always anticipate her.

Challenges to the trust factor are implied in the membership behaviors of administrators and teachers when they gather in a combined group. Susan indicated that the administrators participated in a "spool-car" science activity on an district-wide elementary inservice day -- they comprised their own group. I found this "segregation choice" to be the experience at outdoor education; the administrators gathered together in one area for lunch while teachers joined the paraprofessionals and children in another group. I noticed similar group behavior at the dedication of the new Sunnybluffs playground when district administrators "joined" with students, teachers, and parents. Communication exchanges are friendly but teachers and administrators are clearly members of two different social groups.

In the teachers' minds Teresa, the elementary principal, is sometimes an exception. Certainly, there is a considerably different communication line with Teresa. She often eats lunch in the teachers' lounge and is in and out of their rooms more often than the superintendent and school board members. The teachers think of Teresa as something of an administrator-teacher mix. Their quick response to share the Outdoor Education problems with her are evidence of their trust in her. Her understanding of the related "elementary issues" of hat color and meal preparation shows her closeness with the elementary teacher experience and provides a clue regarding the building (or erosion) of trust.

In the Riverton experience, this "team" metaphor is being challenged. These team members are now headed toward different goals. New trust tensions are evident in the negotiation for a new normative structure, a new chain of command.

2. Elementary teachers are not thinkers and leaders. Elementary teachers are not considered to be content specialists. They are generalists who know a little bit about a lot of things. For many years, science textbook companies have determined the elementary science curriculum, classroom teachers have followed the textbook, and students have been prepared for the next grade level textbook. District science curriculum directors or chairpersons were high school science teachers, not elementary teachers.

In Riverton, four Sunnybluffs teachers are challenging these traditional definitions and beliefs. Three of the teachers have had SSI summer institute experience -- an immersion in science content, new teaching materials, model teaching techniques, and current science education research. All four teachers have masters' degrees in elementary education, belong to professional organizations, attend regular meetings, and read professional journals. They are energetic, responsible professionals who have a keen interest in science. They know that textbook science does not enable inquiry and "scientific problem solving" so they have already begun to implement hands-on science curricula in their classrooms. Jenny co-chairs (and they all serve on) the science curriculum committee and are leading a district-wide science curriculum decision.

In the Riverton experience, these teachers have been supported in their "empowerment." The district is financing the leadership training, purchasing the new teaching materials, and installing the telephone lines and computers. It would seem they have been recognized as idea people, leaders. However, this myth about "valid ideas" and leadership still guides some administrative thinking -- and confuses Jenny, Krista, Susan, and Tom's thinking. Though the superintendent expresses confidence in the knowledge and vision of these SSI teachers and suggests "they don't have to wait for an administrator" to tell them what to do, this myth unintendedly guides his actions.

In the Outdoor Education "hat" incident, Superintendent Dave made arrangements with a community organization which potentially altered the teachers' plans for student management and the menu and preparation of the dinner meal -- their idea, their plan. Both teachers were upset that they had not been included in the plans for this community partnership. In Krista's words, "Outdoor Education was an idea of ours eight years ago. Now the administration is changing it." She continued,

Why didn't Dave ask us how to spend the money? Why didn't they ask how we wanted the money spent? It's control, isn't it. I guess I'm losing control and I don't like giving it up.

Neither teacher was surprised by this experience. Krista explained, "I don't think it's uncommon. I think it's very common that these types of decisions are made without conferring with the elementary teachers." These teachers were left out and little understood. Essentially, the superintendent was making "better" decisions.

These empowered teachers feel they are sometimes supported by administration and sometimes not. In this process, teachers and administrators are re-defining the meaning of support. Krista indicates she wants an administrator that will let her run her classroom the way she wants to run it "and meet my goals that I make for myself and my kids." Krista wonders if she should feel that way and the others are intrigued by her frankness; they too desire the same degree of autonomy. Jenny suggests that administrators are "redefining their roles" -- that until now none of them knew the definition of teacher empowerment. In the teacher experience, they are sometimes approved and sometimes denied -- and the tension is in the necessary approval of administrators as well as their lack of agreement.

Superintendent Dave understands that these teachers are seeking a new definition in the district. In his thinking, they will break beyond old barriers and find new ones. He knows that they will create a different work order for themselves -- and for their administrators. He talks about cutting "people free a little bit" and letting "them run into their own barriers and their own limits" in the new-found freedom. Importantly, he recognizes "it's going to be different for everybody." He says, "That's real hard for principals and administrators to step back."

Dave shares his lack of knowledge about how it will work. As he continues, "In all honesty, we as administrators have always known, we don't always know what the right thing is to do." It seems that these teachers are changing the order of things for the school administrators as well as for themselves. As Dave further reflects, "Now you've got these empowered people -- [their] lights are on -- and there [are] a lot of ideas boiling around."

It will be a challenge, and the function of administrators will change. In Dave's thinking, an administrator will become the "facilitator of teachers' ideas" rather than the "gatekeeper of ideas." He thinks the potential for this empowerment has always been present, that the SSI project has provided the necessary confidence for these teachers to think differently.

Organizing a Mimifest for the Riverton district fifth graders (and other students within a 100 mile radius) was the idea and special leadership project of Krista and Sue. According to Superintendent Dave,

Those things are there, have always been there, but they've never felt that they can walk through the door and be able to do that. Four or five years ago, if you had asked Krista or Susan, "You guys want to put on a Mimifest and involve about 300-400 students and then maybe 200 or 300 professionals and take a Sunday and a Monday to put this on and you basically organize it from inception to completion?" -- they'd have said, "No. We don't do that because we're elementary teachers." And now I think they see that, "Yeah. We can do that. Why not?"

Dave sees that these elementary teachers are no longer bound by "elementary teacher" thinking. It seems that the administration has a new set of problems as well. In his words, "The question now is, 'What's the next step?'"

3. Teacher time at workshops and inservices interferes with teaching. The traditional understanding of teacher time is "time in front of the class". Time for planning and professional development is limited to a specific number of contract days. These elementary teachers and their principal believe teacher learning manifests itself in improved student learning. The superintendent, school board, and parents agree -- but teachers are hired "to teach."

Either as a part of their masters' degree program, membership in a professional organization, or participation in SSI summer institutes, these teachers have come to believe that interaction with other teachers is an imperative component of their professional development -- a critical part of their teaching. According to Tom,

Associating with other teachers that have the same interest as me is probably the most beneficial thing that I can do -- to listen to other people's ideas and say, "Oh, that's neat. I'm going to do that." You know. Or, "That's pretty cool. I like that. How can I do that or where can I find that information?"

The superintendent and school board have expressed concern about the number of days Tom and Jenny have missed this school year. Jenny continues to believe that conference attendance is an opportunity for teacher learning and reflection -- teacher learning is a part of student learning, "It's not just nice it's critical! We've got to have interaction with other teachers."

The school board is concerned about the amount of "teaching time" teachers are spending out of the district. At a recent board meeting, Teresa, the Sunnybluffs principal, explained that one week of Tom's professional leave days included travel to Washington, DC. to accept a presidential award, and one board member responded, "That's fine. All those awards are just fine and great but we hired them to teach in the classroom -- not to run off to Washington, DC." Teresa considers award recognition to be a professional growth opportunity. She explained her response, "I did not apologize for it. I did not make excuses for it. I really believe professional growth brings me back stronger teachers than before I send them."

A parent, concerned about Jenny's "teaching" absences suggests she does not need to attend so many meetings and conferences. He says, "If it was good enough for me, it's good enough for my son." Jenny is concerned by the circular logic. It seems to Jenny that this parent is not even open to understanding her need to attend workshops and conferences -- to network, to continue to learn with other teachers, "Several individuals do not want to give us the time to grow as learners, to grow as teachers."

4. Teacher education institutions train elementary teachers. In this myth, teacher education institutions prepare teachers for the elementary classroom. Degree programs are tied to teacher certification -- and salary increments for hours of coursework beyond a bachelor's degree. Teachers are increasingly capable as they take more and more college courses, but they are essentially ready to teach upon graduation. A school board that questions the need for teachers to attend workshops and inservices ascribes to this myth. A parent who suggests "what was good enough for me is good enough for my son," believes that teachers are fully trained when they complete a teacher education degree. The superintendent, referring to the leadership of these teachers, suggests they don't need to wait for a "university guru" to tell them what to do.

These teachers do not believe in university gurus. In fact, they believe they have learned a great deal about teaching by teaching. Tom shared, "From my own personal point of view, I think I learned more in my first year of teaching than I did in four years of college -- on the job training." Jenny completed her master's degree in summer and evening courses while she was teaching. She added, "I learned more in my masters program than I ever did in my undergraduate program."

Jenny, Susan, Krista, and Tom also believe they learn a lot about teaching by hanging around with other teachers. Tom finds teacher educators are "out of touch." Tom attends inservice and conference presentations by classroom teachers.

Just the sitting down with somebody and saying, "Hey, how does that work? Show me." You know, and not having to worry about the background of it and the history and where-it-came-from and who-developed-it -- but it works and I want to use it and that's what's important. I know the research is important, but also seeing how it works in the classroom is important too.

Tom implies that teacher educators make a different presentation -- they talk about the history and the research. In Tom's experience, classroom teachers are the ones who know if the idea works or not. He wants to "network" with them. Tom wants ideas that work! Jenny, too, sugggests "the best resources teachers have are other teachers."

Susan, however, found practical applications in her master's program. In fact, "some of those professors were role models because they changed a lot of my ideas about how teaching should be and that it's OK to be right in there working with the kids." The key in her experience is role modeling -- her professor included teachers in hands-on learning experiences.

In a dialogical reflection, we discussed a recent editorial in The American Biology Teacher. Editor Randy Moore (1994) wrote, "Virtually all anyone needs to know to begin teaching can be learned in a summer and in an apprenticeship with a master teacher after earning an honest degree." The article prompted comments about teacher education programs. These teachers had many ideas about necessary changes in teacher education.

Tom continued with his skepticism, "I'm not sure anything has ever changed in the last 75-100 years in college." Jenny went on to say, "Colleges are probably the last to change whereas they probably should be the first to change. Colleges should be in the forefront and they're not." She commented about the value of a new biology course at the university designed for elementary education majors (and taught by classroom teachers) and mentioned how much she likes the changes in the elementary math and science methods classes at the university (more experience with manipulatives, master teacher modeling, and increased field work with elementary teachers and students).

Jenny likes the idea of a five year teacher education program -- a program that allows for more field experience in elementary classrooms. Susan suggested, "And at the college level they need to be working with students and without text books -- showing them some of these other materials so they don't get too used to having a textbook."

As a part of "researcher support," these Sunnybluffs teachers often asked about my methods students at the university. They are intrigued to think of me as both an elementary teacher and a college professor. Jenny, Susan, and I discussed a number of ideas to support the broad nature of teacher development. They like the idea of shadowing (in the early years) and fieldwork throughout the elementary teacher education program. We talked about the idea of tying continuing teacher education (beyond the bachelor's degree) to teacher certification. Perhaps this would hold teacher educators in colleges and universities more accountable for practical, realistic course designs. This could involve novice teachers in continuing attention to science education research, reflective teaching, action research, and support their "problem solving" in the early years of their professional career. In these discussions, I was aware that these Sunnybluffs teachers believe they have a stake in the future design of teacher education -- and a conduit in me. It is a part of their "vision for change."

Significance

This critical ethnography can help to explain the resistance to change that has predominated science education for more than 100 years. These historic myths bring specific reform-generated issues to light and remind us that cultural reproduction need not be static. As these participant teachers embrace change in science education, they bring change to their whole school culture. They remind us that change is exciting (though not always comfortable) and keep us hopeful that empowered teachers will continue to "push the limits" of school culture. These research results can help to 1) define the needs of students in elementary teacher training programs, 2) develop guidelines for an optimum elementary science methods courses, 3) guide the ongoing reform in teacher education institutions, and 4) further the understanding of continued teacher inservice training. The experiences of these participant teachers can begin meaningful discussions about improving the education of elementary science teachers: How can college professors, well meaning as they may be, design courses that will support new practice that encourages open-ended scientific problem solving rather than closed-ended memorization? How can reform initiatives become more holistic so as to support changing teacher practice with changing policy?

Conclusions

My first question asks, "What are the cultural experiences of these four classroom teachers involved in a national reform project?" The ethnographic story or cultural portrait of these four classrooms is a record of the daily events in these classrooms. I expected these teachers' experience to resonate with the no-change-history of science education reform literature. Instead, I found child-centered, inquiry based science happening on a daily basis. Yes, I found they had adopted reform methodologies. Yes, this science is very different from their own elementary school science experience and science methods instruction. Something or someone has impacted these teachers.

I wonder what these conclusions have to do with SSI? Has SSI changed these teachers? According to Tom, "Some of these things are things that we've been doing even before SSI." Susan agrees that Jenny, Tom, and Krista had already begun to change before they joined SSI.

The teachers that got involved in SSI were teachers that were interested in change anyway, that were already interested in science and math, that were already doing a lot of those things in the classroom or they wouldn't have been willing to make the commitment that they have to make to SSI. Teachers that are focused in other areas wouldn't have been as interested.

Dave, the superintendent, believes that SSI has provided these district teachers with opportunities for concentrated inservice in math and science. He sees it as an "affirmation" experience and references "the fact that somebody cared enough about me as a teacher to give me intensive training, to give me days out of my classroom, to let me really immerse myself in a particular area or a concentrated area to become an expert."

Jenny credits her first SSI summer institute experience as "quantum leap of change" experience.

I always considered myself to be a good math and science teacher. I was starting to use different points of assessment, I enjoyed using experimentation, using manipulatives in math, and saw their value and their benefits -- however, my teaching was always very teacher directed. It was, "Here's the experiment that I'd like you to do and this is the way I'd like you to do it." Or, "These are the manipulatives in math that we're going to be using today and here's how I would like you to use them -- and this is the conclusion I'd like you to come up with." So, that first summer really opened my eyes to what kids are like -- what kids can accomplish when they're not so teacher directed.

That really helped me look at the way I taught at that time. I literally cried because I thought, "Oh, how many kids have I not brought to their full potential?" Just because you know everything was, "This is the way you will do it." But, you do the best you can with what you've got.

Krista explains that her association with SSI has helped her to more fully understand the use of manipulatives in mathematics,

I think SSI has helped me with using manipulatives and more hands-on activities in my classroom. It has helped me connect the real world and information processing. I have learned to help the students better communicate what they have learned.

All of the teachers mentioned that participation in SSI has provided them with a lot of new teaching equipment and Jenny added research base, modeling, and pedagogy issues to the list. She explains,

The issue is, the way[s] we taught, were ways we were interested in teaching. We're all interested in teaching using hands-on, using experimentation -- letting children discover their own learning. There's a research base behind this. This is "doable" and we're not off the way trying this. [This] is probably teacher empowerment issue. That's one of the things that I gained the most -- knowing that I am empowered to be able to really be in charge of my kid's learning -- [to] have them be in charge of their own learning.

Jenny credits the SSI project with empowering SSI Lead Teachers to go out and inservice other teachers. Krista and Tom are reluctant to credit the SSI so largely in their ability to make long term change. According to Susan, "I think we've always felt a certain amount of freedom in our classroom but I think the freedom we feel now extends beyond the classroom." Her awareness is linked to the Mimifest which she and Krista created. Susan continued, "I never tried it before so I don't know if the power was there or not. We weren't afraid of doing it, but the opportunity just never presented itself before."

In all, these four teachers are changed and changing. They bring to light a tacit understanding of teacher empowerment. When teachers find (or take) new power -- others in the system have less power. In the experience of these Sunnybluffs teachers, there are new power tensions among the superintendent, principal, school board members, and parents as a result of their empowerment. The redistribution of power was not an expected outcome of the district participation in SSI, but is clearly woven into the leadership mission of these teachers.

I was unable to answer one question. Did SSI find these teachers or did these teachers find SSI? Interestingly, their commitment to SSI follows a master's degree and an average of 17 years of teaching experience. Their desires for leadership, autonomy, and empowerment in science education are unique to the desires of their Sunnybluffs peers. This presents a new perspective regarding the education of teachers. What critical incidents determine the professional development of a teacher?

My second question asks, "How does this elementary school culture resist reform in science?" The ethnographic portrait brings to light the details of the normative system and the tensions in the negotiation of new norms. Four historic cultural myths -- determinations of school policies and traditions resistant to change -- are inherent in the normative system. Dialogical reflections allowed the discussion and analysis of these power tensions -- and the awareness of the complexity and confusion of science education reform.

Critical ethnographic research is intended to be emancipatory. It is the goal of the researcher to search out unintended, unresolved tensions within the social culture that give rise to myths or normative systems of cultural reproduction and to involve the research participants in dialogical reflections. These reflections are expected to be new discussions among the participants and are meant to raise their consciousness level of their membership in the system. These reflective dialogs were not comfortable. As we discussed the construction of the final chapter, we were all surprised and also somewhat concerned about how others would respond to our conclusions; we were questioning authority. However, in recognizing the normative power structure inherent in the historic myths or assumptions of their culture, these teachers recognized their opportunity to resist cultural reproduction -- to question the historical distribution of power. And they realize their need to continue to negotiate beyond these historic myths or assumptions with parents, school board members, administrators, and other teachers -- to continue their own empowerment.

Recommendations

Long-term Change is Holistic, Uncomfortable. These four teachers embrace change in science education -- and they impact change on the whole school culture. Change is exciting, but it is not comfortable. Empowered teachers will continue to "push the limits" of school culture. Continued change necessarily involves ongoing discourse, negotiation of normative structures. Empowered teachers will require administrators and school board members to be "facilitators" rather than "gatekeepers." This uncharted territory will need trailblazers and creative thinkers.

Teacher Time. A new understanding of "teacher time" is important to education reform. Schools can not be transformed without giving teachers the time they need to retool themselves and reorganize their work (National Education Commission on Time and Learning, 1994). This research suggests teachers in reform need some "flex" time. School board members and administrators need to re-consider entrenched school schedules. Reading, planning, and collaboration with other teachers is key to developing "dreamers and doers" -- an "imperative" according to these teachers. Teachers need to be included in continuing administrative discussions of "teacher time." Riverton educators might brainstorm flexible options to rigid schedules such as permanent full-time substitutes or team teaching blocks.

Education Reform is a Community Responsibility. School board members, administrators, parents, and teachers are on the same team -- when it comes to the best interests of Riverton children. Finger-pointing and evasive actions interfere with reform. It is time to convene the system -- bring together anyone who has a stake in the system (Wheatley, 1992). Cross groups of teachers, parents, school board members, administrators, and community members need to participate in ongoing discussions of school concerns -- to continue to negotiate the normative structure -- to open communication and to build trust. These discussions may not be comfortable but they are necessary for the "team" to get together. Professional growth or education in reform cannot leave out the school board members and parents.

New Teacher Education Definition. Teacher education programs must involve future teachers in the problems and dilemmas of science education reform -- in the tensions experienced by the Sunnybluffs teachers. Improving teaching involves more than a few "new tricks" (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992). We need to reconstruct the university's relationship with the teaching profession; Master's degrees need to become more than a measure of teacher salary increases or a sorting mechanism for education doctorates (Sockett, 1994).

Reform in teacher education must begin simultaneously in elementary schools and colleges and universities of teacher education. Such a partnership or professional development school will require continual management of the constructive tension of "fit" and "split" operations -- a professional development school is not just a collection of people in a building (Fullan, 1993). It involves a willingness to ask questions about old habits and new trends and to suggest different ways of teaching old and new goals (Richardson, 1994). Elementary education students need to join in this exchange of questions -- experience the process of reform.

Teacher education needs to be concerned with responsibility to students and the responsibility of teachers to themselves (Sarason (1993). Teacher education programs need to go beyond the rationale for school change and the obligation to seek to act on it. Pre-service students need to get past the rhetoric and into the reform field.

School Reform Changing Governance. Sunnybluffs teachers are familiar with science education reform. They are surprised about the issues of governance power. Inservice and professional development prepared them with the "what" and the "why" -- they are figuring out the "how". Kyle (1994) suggests that this task is one of the more significant challenges facing teacher education programs today.

Classroom reform changing pedagogy, curriculum, and subject matter, necessitates addressing issues of governance (otherwise we should not expect change to make a difference) (p. 786).

Elementary teachers must be prepared for the issues of school change -- and skilled in "empowerment." Sunnybluffs teachers are learning to negotiate the normative structures of their school culture. Pre-service teachers need to become members of this reform model.

References