|USFDC Home||| RSS|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c19949999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00019
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 2, no. 4 (February 10, 1994).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c February 10, 1994
Educational system and resistance to reform : the limits of policy / John F. Covaleskie.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 2issue 4series Year mods:caption 19941994Month February2Day 1010mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 1994-02-10
1 of 10 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 2 Number 4February 10, 1994ISSN 1068-2341A peer-reviewed scholarly electronic journal. Editor: Gene V Glass, Glass@ASU.EDU. College of Edu cation, Arizona State University,Tempe AZ 85287-2411 Copyright 1993, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES.Permission is hereby granted to copy any a rticle provided that EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES is credited and copies are not sold.The Educational System and Resistance to Reform: The Limits of PolicyJohn F. Covaleskie Northern Michigan University email@example.com Abstract: I suggest some reasons why education has proved so resistant to reform. That the educational system is a system is, in some respects more significant to this question than the fact that it deals with education; that it is a system m ilitates against certain sorts of reforms being successfully adopted. I will also argue that policy makers' efforts to reform education are made more difficult because of lack of clarity of purpos e. Though all agree that "excellence" is the goal to be pursued, there is little attention to the mea ning of excellence, nor how we would recognize it if we saw it. Often, "excellence" is used synony mously with "competitiveness." I explore the limits of policy, and suggest that these limits are inescapable. Recognition of these limits may allow us to attend to those policy areas where succ ess may be more likely. I will argue here two propositions regarding publi c policy: (1) as an instrument for attaining systemic educational excellence, it is a poor tool; (2) "educational excellence," while universally desired, is a vague and ambiguous conce pt, and to the extent that it has a commonly understood meaning, that meaning has little to do w ith real excellence. In short, I will argue that there are some things that educational policy can d o quite well, and some that it can do quite poorly, and that we should think carefully about wh ich category any proposed policy falls into (Note One) I do not offer solutions to the difficulties of pu rsuing excellence at the systemic level. It seems to be the case that the only way to eliminate these difficulties would be to cease treating the educational system as a system, which would the n create a new set of problems. The difficulties of systemic reform are embedded in the needs and nature of the system itself. This paper is nothing so sophisticated as a formal syste ms analysis. It is merely an attempt to make sense of some readily observable facts about the op eration of the educational system, as a system.
2 of 10 It sometimes seems that educational reform, the eff ort to eliminate defects systemically, is a perpetual quest of policy makers. There is always the sense that there was some golden age during which education was better than it is now in specific ways. This feeds a sense that things can be better -the way they were -if we only ma ke the right systemic adjustments. Systemic flaws, on this view, are the result of bad policies and incompetent and self-serving people. It is on this premise that the energy of many bright and dedicated people has gone into seeking those policies that will produce an excellent educational system. These efforts are not devoted to individual schools, but to schools in general, to t he system. The failure of decades of previous reform has not dissuaded policy makers from creatin g new tests, curricula, and other policy initiatives designed to guarantee systemic excellen ce. Recently there has been an increase of people who have abandoned the efforts at systemic reform, convinced that it was impossible. Their res ponse has been to abandon the idea of systemic excellence and commit to the notion that e ach person should make a commitment to the excellence of only a single school, allowing others to do the same (Chubb and Moe). Those in the lifeboats do not need to be concerned with the sink ing ship. This paper is an effort to explore some reasons we have been unable to achieve what we seek as excellence despite our efforts to do so, bu t offers no comfort for those who would abandon education as a public enterprise. There are things that systemic policy cannot accomplish. There are even noble and worthwhile thi ngs that systemic policy cannot accomplish. That is different from saying that public policy ca nnot accomplish anything. The thesis of this paper is that understanding the nature of the educational system qua system may help explain why it is so resistant to c hange, and why systemic excellence does not result from policies intended to foster it. The bas ic thesis is that mediocrity is systemic; excellence cannot be. On this view, policy operates at high levels of aggregation while excellence is the result of individual pursuit and achievement While policies intended to avoid systemic failure may indeed be successful, policies intended to produce systemic excellence rarely will be. This has to do with the nature of the system, but m ore fundamentally with the nature of excellence itself. It is commonplace to the point of banality to say that education seems remarkably resistant to reform. This is not to say that education does n ot change; it does. The claim is simply put: reforms that increase the efficiency with which sch ools do the same things they have always done are more likely to be implemented successfully than reforms that attempt to change what schools do. The purpose of this paper will be to attempt to gain some understanding of why this is so by examining the implication of the fact that educatio n takes place within a system. I am taking it as uncontroversial that schools are resistant to reform, at least those of a certain type. Those reforms most consistent with ef ficient management of the system are those most likely to be accepted quickly; those reforms t hat make education more individualized, and therefore more difficult to manage, are most likely to be systemically ineffective. Put simply, reforms that make education more efficient are more likely to be effective than those that make education more personalized. When I talk about resistance, I do not mean to sug gest that such reforms are actively opposed. They rarely are. Quite the contrary, they are often enthusiastically embraced by teachers and administrators alike. For this reason, the abil ity of the system to resist efforts to change it is an interesting phenomenon. As such reforms diffuse through the system they tend to become less reforms as they are modified to conform to the syst emic demands for efficiency. On the other hand, we should not allow recognition of this problem to cause us to give up on educational policy as a means to improve educati on. While policies intended to manage the details of educational practice have been conspicuo usly unsuccessful in changing the nature of our schools, the same cannot be said of efforts to change the conditions of schooling. Policy can be spectacularly successful in this area. Schools i n the South are more integrated (and were so in
3 of 10the North as well, before integration was abandoned as a public policy goal); poor children are fed; Head Start provides educational experiences in comfortable surroundings to many children lacking both at home; and children with special nee ds now have special attention. None of these successes guarantees that the quality of education is any closer to excellent, but each makes this outcome more likely by removing barriers to excelle nce. Using the description of the educational system de veloped by Green (1980), I will attempt to explore the logic of the system that helps us un derstand why pedagogical change seems to founder in predictable ways.The Nature of the Educational System Green suggested that to understand the problems on e encounters in reforming the educational system, one must attend to its general character as a system apart from its educational purposes. Among the things that mark it as a system he pointed to three "primary elements" that help define it as a system, having nothing to do wi th the educational purposes to which it is dedicated. He identified the three primary elements of the ed ucational system as (1) schools, (2) a medium of exchange between schools, and (3) sequenc e. That there are schools simply points to the fact that education takes place within individu al institutions. A "medium of exchange" is the system of credits and units that allows students to move from one school to another without having to begin over again or be randomly placed. T ranscripts indicate what work the student has done in a way that allows the receiving school to p lace the student. Finally, the existence of "sequence" means both that the system is graded, an d that the work done is sequenced by difficulty. These two sequences are related to each other. That is, the more difficult work is presumed to be done in the higher grades. It is important to remember that these have nothin g to do with the type or quality of education that goes on in the schools. This is a de scription of the educational SYSTEM, not the EDUCATIONAL system. In any system, a primary need i s for efficient management. No complex, multifaceted, multi-sited and scattered en terprise can persist without good management. As a system, then, the educational syst em requires efficient management more than it requires good education. The claim is not that t he system is inimical to good education; simply that, as a system, it is indifferent to the quality of education. Though it is also true that the operation of the system can make good education eit her more or less likely by placing more or fewer obstacles in the way of its attainment. What, then, can we identify as the elements of the system that result in such persistence of practices that are consciously defended be so few e ducators? I will suggest that it is not the existence of schools themselves, but their internal organization and the relationship between them that offers some clues to the puzzle. What I am suggesting is that to some degree and in some sense, the system is distinct from the people within it; the educational system so str uctures the environment of the individuals working in it that the consequences of actions with in the system are often, and in fundamental ways, affected by the logic of the system more than by their own conscious intentions and beliefs. The purpose of this paper, then, is to see the ways in which the structure of the educational system militates against reforms that would favor i mprovement of educational practice, but favors those that increase efficiency. In all of what follows, it will be well to remembe r that a premise of this analysis is that excellence is an individual accomplishment, not a s ystemic one. Systemic policies might just possibly be formulated that will allow excellence t o emerge and survive, but it cannot be mandated or ensured.
4 of 10Management of the System What does efficient management mean in an educatio nal context? What, in other words, does it mean to have the efficient management of ed ucation as a policy objective? (Though it may be more accurate to say that something else is the policy objective, and management of education is seen to be a necessary means to that e nd.) This question should seem strange. One cannot manage another's education. Nevertheless, "m anagement" is the task that appears to lie behind many reform initiatives. Perhaps it is not s o strange after all; since education is, after all, what is supposed to go on in schools, efficient man agement of the system includes, or possibly even should be defined by, management of education. What then is it that is being managed, and what should this sort of management look like? First, education must be defined as something mana geable. Since education certainly has something to do with knowledge, the knowledge must be conceived of and constructed as manageable. This is little more than tautological, but it is an instructive tautology, for it lifts on e corner of the tent and allows a peek at the circus inside. Curriculum documents, scope and sequence charts, s pecific objectives, and lesson plans are examples of tools that manage instruction, and imply the operation of the principal of sequence referred to above. If the education system is to serve children over a long span of years, there must be something to follow introductory cour ses. Content can be sequenced in at least two ways: what might be called "natural" and "artificia l" sequencing. This is not the structural sequence of the system (grade levels), but of the s ubject matter content being managed within the system.The Workings of Sequence Natural sequencing is that sequencing required by the material itself. For example, we cannot give an independent reading assignment to ch ildren who have not learned to read, nor can we ask children who have learned neither counting n or number facts to solve addition problems. This is because learning some X's, or, alternately, learning to do some X's, requires that the learner already have mastered some prior Y's. On the other hand, artificial sequencing assigns o rder on some discretionary (though not unreasonable) criteria. For example, high schools c ommonly teach European History before American History. There is no compelling reason to do so; it is just the way things are done. In elementary schools, mathematical operations are usu ally taught in the sequence: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. It is so metimes argued that this is a sequence of increasing difficulty, though it is not obvious tha t addition and subtraction are necessarily sequenced, and, in fact, some texts use the sequenc e: addition, multiplication (repeated addition), subtraction, and division (repeated subtraction) as proper and natural. In any event, it is not impossible to conceive of teaching multiplication f irst -there is no logical necessity that children master addition and subtraction before lea rning multiplication. The sequences in these cases are not unreasonable, but they are discretion ary: they could be otherwise, which is not so when the sequencing is natural. Intersecting with this is structural sequencing: s chools are divided into grade levels, and the expectation is that a child in level L this yea r will go on to level L+1 next year, L+2 the following year, and so on until she or he has left the system, either by graduation from the highest level or withdrawal. Efficient management of all th is is a basic need of the system as a system. With a sequence of knowledge and skills for childr en to master and for teachers to teach, there exists a precondition for managing instructio n, often confused with managing learning. Teachers can be directed to teach specific material to children at level L. Some of this sequencing is natural, but probably more is artificial. Note a lso the means by which the material for level L is
5 of 10defined: what is taught at L is defined by the need s prerequisite to the content of L+1. The content for each L can be defined by reference to t he needs of the next L, all of which is driven, ultimately, by the definitions of what children are expected to have mastered by graduation -"outcomes" -which, in turn, are defined by the re quirements for entry into college and/or the work place. There are at least two ways to decide what ought t o be taught at L: (1) content at L can be specified by what is sequentially prior to, or simp lified versions of, material that will be taught at L+1, or (2) content at L can be specified by the de velopmental characteristics of children at L. If the child at L is no more than a simplified version of the child at L+1, these two methods of sequencing curriculum content coincide, and there i s no problem. However, Kohlberg (1984), Piaget (1929, 1952, 1965), Elkind (1987), and the g rowing body of Whole Language research suggest that this is not so, that children's develo pment is discontinuous and that children at L are other than smaller versions of their later selves. And if this view is right, there is a fundamental difference between "system centered" curriculum and "child centered" curriculum. How does this aspect of the system work? Children enter and begin to move through the scope and sequence of the curriculum. Each year the teachers evaluate the children to decide whether they know enough of the content of L to mov e on to L+1. If not, they repeat L. Note that what we teach is not controlled by what we know abo ut children at level L, but by what the child will need to know at L+1. This is a fundamental fea ture of the current system.System Integrity This describes something of the operation of seque nce within a school, but the import of an educational system is that no school exists in i solation. Because we have a system, individuals can move from one school to another, and can pick u p at the same level. Curriculums are standard enough so that a child at L in New York ca n move to California and still be in L. This is remarkable when one considers that schools in the U nited States are units within approximately 15,000 school districts, independent from each othe r with respect to governance. The only supervision over these districts is the usually rat her loose supervision done by each state. In short, there are 15,000 independent school district s supervised by 50 independent state governments doing essentially the same thing. There seems to exist something like a national cur riculum, which serves as a baseline for content at any L. Where did this come from? In orde r for education to be effectively managed, there must be a scope and sequence prescribed. Furt her, a corollary of this aspect of management is the need to assess -to make sure that what is supposed to be taught is being taught. Direct supervision would require too many supervisors, so assessment of teachers is done by testing children. This helps explain the existence of a nat ional curriculum despite the multiplicity and theoretical independence of school districts. What I am suggesting is that the national curriculum has been shaped by the testing programs that serve the management needs of the system. These tests are an alphabet soup of norm referenced "inst ruments": SAT (both the Scholastic Aptitude Test and the Stanford Achievement Test), ITBS (Iowa Test of Basic Skills), CAT (both the Cognitive Abilities Test and the California Achieve ment Test), and the ACT (American College Testing program) among many others. These have had a strong influence on the content of textbooks and the subject matter taught in schools (Smith 1991). The other force that has contributed to this natio nal curriculum is the textbook industry. Textbooks are often the basis of instruction, and s o the national textbook market is a force for standardization. Further, textbook publishers are o ften the publishers of the standardized achievement tests. Districts will often base their math and reading textbook selection decisions on the achievement tests given in the district. The feeling is that using a text and a test from the same publisher will give the students an edge.
6 of 10 Consideration of these factors suggests that the d egree of curriculum standardization is due partly to the text and test publishers apparent ly external to the system. However, it would be a mistake to see this as some sort of conspiracy or disservice. Rather, such curricular consistency is in fact a necessary feature of any educational s ystem, for it is this consistency that allows students to transfer from one school to another, wh ich makes obvious that individual schools are indeed part of the same system. Thus one of the definitional features of the syste m also makes it so resistant to change. Note that an individual school could drastically ch ange the nature of the education it provides, but that would hamper transfer. As long as we use n ationally normed tests and nationally distributed texts to manage education, and as long as teachers are evaluated by the performance of their students on these tests, and as long as st udents are expected to be in grade L at X years of age, there will be a tendency for education to be b ased in scope and sequence charts rather than interaction between children and their teachers. On the other hand, without some force leading toward such standardization, the system would disso lve into individual units, disconnected from each other.Excellence or Competition: The Nature of Systemic G oals One consequence of the way the system runs is that being "competitive" seems to be mistaken for "excellence." It seems to be the case that we have failed to maintain the distinction between these two quite different things. Excellenc e has become synonymous with increased test scores, preferably higher than those of our rivals. This is precisely to miss the point; it is excellence, not dominance, for which educators and students should strive. Further, "excellence" has come to be seen as funct ional, not worth while in itself. Educational excellence is pursued not for the value we place on either excellence or education, but with the supposed competitive advantage we will have once we are excellent in education -which comes to mean "first on test scores." There i s no independent definition of what is meant by "educational excellence"; it is merely being "Nu mber One" on whatever measure we are using to keep score in the contest. It seems likely that to fail to distinguish between being excellent and being first will ensure that we are neither. While a society might indeed gain a competitive edge by having more well-trained mathematicians, that pr ovides no child with a reason to do well in math. Further, though elevated test scores may be a good indicator that excellence exists -even an inevitable result of attaining excellence -nob ody should mistake that for a definition of excellence. The fact that children with an excellen t education often do well on certain tests does not mean that if we teach all students how to do we ll on those same tests that this will constitute anything resembling educational excellence. To thin k otherwise is to reverse cause and effect quite precisely. What then should count as evidence of excellence? That is a difficult question to answer, but not because excellence is difficult to recogniz e when encountered. Indeed, it is probably easy to recognize excellence (Note Two) but difficult to establish in advance what separa tes the excellent from the merely competent. Given a stack of excellent student essays, one will likely be able to recognize that fact. However, when one trie s to specify what makes the essays excellent, one is struck by the fact that the merely competent essays have as much in common with the excellent ones as the excellent ones have with each other -except for their excellence! Certainly the excellent essays are better than the competent ones, but that is merely a tautology. "Excellence" is less what is now being called an "o utcome" as it is a quality of that outcome. It is something recognized in its instantiation, but not definable in advance. So an obstacle to school reform is imbedded in the nature of excellence: (1) the fact of excellence is easily confused with one of its outco mes -high test scores, and (2) it is easy to
7 of 10recognize excellence in education, but difficult -perhaps impossible -to define and quantify it. Nevertheless, a wellmanaged educational system ne eds to identify desirable outcomes and measure their attainment. This partly explains the "minimum competency" move ment: unlike excellence, competence is possible to define and measure. And i f failure to achieve minimum competence is the definition of systemic failure, then the system that achieves widespread competence, that is, a system in which very few students fail to perform b elow minimally acceptable levels, can be defined as a well-managed system. Further, this sou nds like a rational goal for a system to pursue. So systemic policy properly comes to be abo ut competence and minimums. It can never address excellence in any meaningful way, and the f irst concern, systemically, is to avoid failure. So while it may be the case that excellence cannot be standardized or defined in advance, it can still be recognized in its instantiation. If children are to aspire to excellence, not just compete, they need a variety of examples to emulate They must also develop a desire to excel, if they lack this desire. As policy, this is far too v ague to be useful in the pursuit of systemic excellence. But it may be the sort of sensibility t hat will allow excellence to be pursued locally, which may be the best that policy can do in this re gard. It might be argued this is just what current refor m efforts are trying to do. The point of creating academically demanding curriculums is to p rovide standards to which the student will aspire. This is why students are required to demons trate minimum competency at certain grades to be promoted; it is the motivation behind the inc reasingly academic nature of primary schools, including kindergarten. In short, the pursuit of ex cellence is the very reason for the sorts of policies I am criticizing. In this respect my point is that children should a spire to high standards of excellence, not high test scores. But that is just the goal that po licy has no way to effect. High test scores are a by-product -perhaps an inevitable one, but still only a by-product, and no goal. Tests are ways of keeping score; they are not standards of excelle nce, but they have the advantage of being clearly articulated as policy goals. The sad fact i s that there are too few classrooms in which an observer (or student) would be led to believe that excellence is the goal. Getting the work done is the clear agenda in most classrooms; minimally comp etent is acceptable. This is not to deny that there are teachers who do demand excellence, or that there are students who aspire to it. The point is that the pu rsuit of excellence is neither the policy goal nor the norm within the system. Further, I wish to sugg est that it cannot be, not in any meaningful way. Minimally competent is the standard to which t eachers hold students, and to which students are taught to aspire, if "aspire" is the correct wo rd. The alternative standard presented by the system is a competitive one. That is to say, those students who show academic promise and ability are not encouraged to excel; they are encou raged to compete. Again, the point is missed. A desire to be excellent is the desire to be the be st one can be, not the best in the class.Real Reform: The Exception? Anyone with even a passing familiarity with school s can disprove my thesis by pointing to the teachers who, despite the pressures to conform, create learning environments with their children at the center, who respond to the needs of the children in those classes, who pursue and insist on standards of genuine excellence, and who manage to placate, if not exactly conform to, the demands of the system they are within, if not e xactly part of. But it does not seem that such practices spread so that they become typical of the system as a whole. This is true even when the value of the reform is widely recognized. Most elem entary educators recognize that children learn best when they do, rather than when they are done to or told. The value of reading, rather than doing work book pages, the value of writing ra ther than doing grammar exercises, the value of doing hands-on science instead of reading out of text or listening to lectures -these are all
8 of 10acclaimed with near unanimity to be improved method s of teaching children. Generations of teachers have been taught this in classrooms, works hops, and inservice training courses, and they recognize the truth of it from their own experience s with children. Generations of teachers have made commitments to do this kind of teaching in the ir classrooms, and very few would deny that it is superior. All the above notwithstanding, the standard in our classes today is, as it was fifty years ago, chalk and talk. There are certainly exce ptions, but that is the point; such teachers and such practices have always been the exception, and remain so (Note Three) In other words, the system cannot completely negate the efforts of thos e exceptional individuals and groups who make their classrooms or schools places where the n eeds of the children take priority over those of the system, but those pockets of true reform rem ain just that -pockets. The demands of the system are more powerful than the needs of the chil dren more often than not. More than that, this is predictable from the fact it is a system; systemic policies, as pointed out above, deal in competence and minima, not excel lence. The best that policy makers may be able to do is be aware of the requirements of excel lence and make policies that make its attainment no more difficult than necessary. Perhaps the point of this essay is best expressed as a caution that the process of making educational policy ought to not exceed the proper d omains of what policy can do. While it is certainly the case that there are times when a pers on's reach should exceed his or her grasp, there is also a danger in articulating poorly conceived g oals as ends to be seriously sought. Before publicly announcing that a new policy initi ative will make schools excellent, perhaps we need to examine more closely the meaning of excellence, and the role of the public in its attainment in any school. Certainly public poli cy can address some obstacles to excellence, but that is not at all the same thing as promising that any new policy initiative will result in excellent schools.NotesNote One: I would like to express my deep appreciation to Tom Green for his inspiration and guidance in the thinking that led to this paper.Note Two: This seems a controversial claim, and it is one I will not take the time here to defend. However, the outline of the argument is this: When Michael Apple and William Bennett disagree about what an excellent education looks like, it is not the definition of excellence about which they are disagreeing, but the definition of educati on. We can, in short, recognize that someone is doing an excellent job of educating, even if the so rt of education is judged to be bad or wrong. Note Three: My thesis would be that, if there were a way to st udy the number of teachers and/or schools engaged in truly child-centered education f or the last fifty years, we would discover that the number, as a proportion of the whole, has been remarkably constant.ReferencesButler, A. (1987). Whole language: A framework for thinking Crystal Lake, IL: Rigby. Chubb, J.E. and T.E. Moe. 1990. Politics, markets, and American Schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Cambourne, B. (1986). "Rediscovering natural litera cy learning: Old wine in a new bottle." Paper presented at the English as a Second Language Confe rence, Singapore. Coleman, J. et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: GPO.
9 of 10 Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education: An Introduction to the Phi losophy of Education. New York: The Free Press.Elkind, D. (1987). Miseducation: Preschoolers at risk New York: Knopf. Green, T. F. (1980). Predicting the behavior of the educational system. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages San Francisco: Harper and Row. Manning, M., G. Manning, & C. Kamii. (1988, Novembe r). Early phonics instruction: Its effect on literacy development. Young Children 44, 4-8. Piaget, J. (1929). The child's conception of the world New York: Harcourt, Brace. Piaget, J. (1952). The child's conception of number New York: Norton. Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgement of the child. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Smith, M.L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher 20:5, 8-11.Copyright 1994 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesEPAA can be accessed either by visiting one of its seve ral archived forms or by subscribing to the LISTSERV known as EPAA at LISTSERV@asu.edu. (To sub scribe, send an email letter to LISTSERV@asu.edu whose sole contents are SUB EPAA y our-name.) As articles are published by the Archives they are sent immediately to the EPAA subscribers and simultaneously archived in three forms. Articles are archived on EPAA as individual files under the name of the author a nd the Volume and article number. For example, the article by Stephen Kemmis in Volume 1, Number 1 of the Archives can be retrieved by sending an e-mail letter to LISTSERV@a su.edu and making the single line in the letter rea d GET KEMMIS V1N1 F=MAIL. For a table of contents of the entire ARCHIVES, send the following e-mail message to LISTSERV@asu.edu: INDEX EPAA F=MAIL, tha t is, send an e-mail letter and make its single line read INDEX EPAA F=MAIL.The World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa To receive a publication guide for submitting artic les, see the EPAA World Wide Web site or send an e-mail letter to LISTSERV@asu.edu and include the single l ine GET EPAA PUBGUIDE F=MAIL. It will be sent to you by return e-mail. General questions about ap propriateness of topics or particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, Glass@asu.ed u or reach him at College of Education, Arizona Sta te University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2411. (602-965-2692)Editorial Board John CovaleskieSyracuse UniversityAndrew Coulson Alan Davis University of Colorado--DenverMark E. Fetlermfetler@ctc.ca.gov
10 of 10Thomas F. GreenSyracuse UniversityAlison I. Griffithagriffith@edu.yorku.ca Arlen Gullickson firstname.lastname@example.org Ernest R. Houseernie.email@example.com Aimee Howleyess016@marshall.wvnet.edu Craig B. Howley firstname.lastname@example.org William Hunterhunter@acs.ucalgary.ca Richard M. Jaeger email@example.com Benjamin Levinlevin@ccu.umanitoba.ca Thomas auhs-Pughthomas.firstname.lastname@example.org Dewayne Matthewsdm@wiche.edu Mary P. McKeowniadmpm@asuvm.inre.asu.edu Les McLeanlmclean@oise.on.ca Susan Bobbitt Nolensunolen@u.washington.edu Anne L. Pembertonapembert@pen.k12.va.us Hugh G. Petrieprohugh@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Richard C. Richardsonrichard.email@example.com Anthony G. Rud Jr.firstname.lastname@example.org Dennis Sayersdmsayers@ucdavis.edu Jay Scribnerjayscrib@tenet.edu Robert Stonehillrstonehi@inet.ed.gov Robert T. Stoutaorxs@asuvm.inre.asu.edu