The Rise and Fall of New Schools in New York City and Singapore

• In Event: 63.061 - Changing the Grammar of Schooling? An Examination of Reform

Abstract

Purpose

In this paper, we strive to explain how reform initiatives themselves change and evolve over time and why some aspects of these initiatives are taken up while others fall by the wayside. To do so, we highlight common factors that explain key changes in policies related to producing and replicating new schools in New York City and Singapore -- two sites with notable contrasts in the politics and governance of schooling.

Theoretical Framework

Research focused primarily in the US has identified a variety of factors that help to explain why initiatives designed to produce radical changes end-up conforming to the “grammar of schooling” and contribute to “incremental” changes across schools or subsets of schools (Cohen & Methta, 2017; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). These factors include the political and decentralized nature of schooling in the US and “loose coupling” between policy and practice (Elmore, 2000); existing institutional and organizational structures that reinforce conventional practice; and weak infrastructure and lack of capacity for making improvements (Cohen, Spillane, & Peurach, in press).

Methods and Data Sources

To explore the extent to which these factors explain key changes in policies related to new schools, we developed historical overviews of new schools initiatives in New York City and Singapore. The overviews drew from examinations of relevant policy documents, literature reviews, and interviews for each site. 18 interviews were conducted based on nominations from researchers and practitioners who identified central actors in the new schools’ work. Interviewees reviewed the overviews for accuracy and corrections were made in response to their feedback.

Findings & Significance

This analysis shows that in New York City a major initiative to create innovative small schools (from roughly 2002-2012) gave way to the development of initiatives like the iZone (launched in 2009) and other school redesign initiatives now intended to spread innovative practices across conventional schools (Author, 2018; O’Day, Bitter, & Gomez, 2011; Whitehurst & Whitfield, 2013). Singapore also launched a major initiative to create new “Future Schools” as a model for others (Singapore Ministry of Education, 2007); but, by 2015 when funding ended, only eight Future Schools were established, and none of the Future Schools were ever replicated. However, in 2013, Singapore created eduLab, much like the iZone, to support the development and diffusion of tools and resources that can be adopted across the system.

Although some attribute the changes in policies in New York City to the political nature of schooling and the decentralized governance in New York City (Eide, 2017; Shapiro, 2017), this analysis highlights common contributing factors in both contexts, including capacity challenges and the institutional pressures that reinforce conventional instruction. At the same time, even as the large-scale efforts to produce new schools dissipate, this analysis show how broader changes in technology – from a focus on implementing organization-wide “platforms” to developing apps, resources and tools that meet instructional needs in specific “niches” – also create opportunities for “incremental” but meaningful opportunities for the development of new practices and products that are spreading across each system.

Authors

• Thomas C. Hatch, Teachers College, Columbia University

• Jordan Corson, Stockton University

• Sarah M Gerth van den Berg, Teachers College, Columbia University