Los puntos clave no están disponibles para este artículo en este momento.
The restructuring of schools has become a major focus for educational researchers and practitioners. The purpose and goals of school restructuring have been stated in various ways. The ingredients have included: changing decisionmaking process to allow greater participation from teachers and parents,embellishing curriculum with higher-order thinking skills; planning or developing new curriculum; increasing student participation in shared learning experiences and allowing students to take more responsibility for their own learning; holding schools accountable for getting results; providing new models for staff development that include teachers as coaches, mentors, and researchers; increasing collaboration between universities and public schools; providing support programs for beginning teachers; and increasing use of school-based management. The list is impressive, but what will be effect on nation's most troubled schools on inner-city schools? Whatever restructuring is taken to mean, according to John O'Neil (1990), the most visible 'proving ground' for school restructuring is in inner cities, where some experts warn that a complete overhaul is needed to stem tide of student dropouts and ill-prepared graduates (p. 4). O'Neil further suggests that successful inner-city schools should become model for restructuring. He describes programs and practices within these model schools that he believes provide insight and direction. On contrary, Etta Hollins (1990) suggests a reexamination of programs claiming unprecedented success for urban schools. Hollins identifies three categories of successful school programs each of which is based on implicit views of purpose of education, perceptions of learner, and nature of instruc-
Hollins et al. (Sun,) studied this question.