In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

127 TEN Conclusion: Policy, Practice, and a New Role for Language In examining how teachers talk about the “revolutionary” practice of exhibition, I have attempted to illuminate the conceptual complexity of the process of reform and the function of language in making sense of that complexity. Al’s, Brian’s, and Camille’s talk reflected the multiple agendas evident in public as well as private discourse about education. What has variously been labeled “competing schools of thought” (Kliebard, 1995), “incompatibilities” (Egan, 1997), and “muddlement ” (Page, 1999) of educational means and ends was dramatized in these teachers’ talk about teaching, generally, and exhibition, specifically. Indeed, the rhetoric of exhibition calls for teachers to play multiple roles, and it alludes to multiple , at times contradictory, purposes for schooling. Is exhibition an “exit event” (Sizer, 1984), a “platform” for design and reflection (McDonald, Smith, Turner, Finney, and Barton, 1993), a hallmark of a “coaching” pedagogy (Kordalewski, 2000), or a rite of passage (Mabry, 1995)? For Al, Brian, and Camille, it was all of these, and more. As they attempted to delineate and incorporate these competing Discourses, the conceptual challenges of reform became apparent. At issue in this book is the role of language in confronting these challenges. What can language “do” in the interest of reform? What are teachers doing when they talk about revolutions in their practice? And what does analysis of their talk reveal about their conceptions of practice and their understanding of reform? Throughout this book, the teachers’ talk responds to a simple, but endlessly perplexing question: What does teaching, especially reformed teaching, mean? Each time they ventured an answer to this question, they engaged with the meaning of reform. Each time they pronounced an answer, they engaged again; and as Al, Brian, and Camille demonstrated repeatedly, language use itself both revealed and shaped that engagement. In examining how teachers talk about revolutions in their practice, I have attempted to highlight the problems as well as the promise of situating reform in language use. A reform such as the principle of diploma by exhibition offers only the vaguest prescription for practice; and this is deliberate. Teachers are meant to interpret slogans such as “teacher as coach” and “less is more.” They are meant to reflect on what it might mean for schools to teach students “to use their minds well” or to require graduates to “earn their diploma.” One premise of this approach to school improvement is that teachers must be at the center of the enterprise. A second premise is that deliberating about the meaning of change will necessarily lead to change. In theory, this type of reform celebrates the power of language to provoke, to inspire, and to foster meaningful action. In practice, as this book demonstrates, language alone is an insufficient guide for changing practice. Words alone do not have agency. Yet, when language is used in intentional ways, I propose that it does have the power to help close the so-called gap between policy and practice. That gap has been attributed to teachers’ failure to grasp the “inner intent” (Sykes, 1990) of reform. But the cases of Al, Brian, and Camille suggest a more complicated relationship between intention and action. Their talk was much more than a manifestation of their thoughts about reform. Rather, language helped them think. Talk became what Spillane and Zeuli (1999) call an “enactment zone” of reform. In discussing how language works, Searle (1998) posits a reciprocal and developmental relationship between language and intentionality. He uses the example of early language acquisition in children. Starting with “simple, pre-linguistic intentions . . . the child learns a simple vocabulary that enables it to have richer intentionality , which in turn enables a richer vocabulary” (p. 153). I note a similar progression in the language use of Al, Brian, and Camille. When they talk about revolutions in their practice, they are revising and enriching their ideas about practice. Even when the words themselves suggest foggy concepts, such as ‘critical thinking’ or ‘coaching,’ the act of using those words constitutes a step toward making the words meaningful, toward constructing, as opposed to implementing, their “inner intent.” The reciprocal relationship between thinking and talking is evident in Al’s use of the metaphor of “backwards-building curriculum.” Starting with the kernel image of building, Al elaborated by forming the metaphor of curriculum as “building blocks” leading toward the final exhibition. The elaboration was both linguistic and intentional; that is, the image of cumulative building blocks enabled Al to...

Share