The Truth About Restructuring

Conventional wisdom tells us that restructuring schools will improve teachers' practice.

We restructure school governance by creating site councils where teachers and principal make decisions together. We restructure the comprehensive high school into small high schools with longer school days and a college-prep curriculum. We restructure teaching and learning by equipping students with laptops. We restructure teacher staff development by establishing professional learning communities. And on and on.

Yet changing structures rarely alters classroom practice, and there is no evidence that the new structures lead to more student engagement or learning. (See my February Educational Leadership article, "Standards vs. Customization: Finding the Balance.")

So why do policymakers continue to shower schools with structural reforms?

Post submitted by Larry Cuban, professor emeritus of education at Stanford University and author of As Good As It Gets: What School Reform Brought to Austin. Read a longer post challenging reformers' conventional wisdom on restructuring and classroom practice at Larry Cuban's blog.