New Schools in New York City and Singapore
Saved in:
| Title: | New Schools in New York City and Singapore |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Hatch, Thomas (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of Educational Change. May 2022 23(2):199-220. |
| Availability: | Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 22 |
| Publication Date: | 2022 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Descriptors: | Foreign Countries, Comparative Education, Educational Innovation, Educational Development, Models, Urban Schools, Governance, Capacity Building, Educational Practices, Educational Change, Educational Policy, Technology Uses in Education |
| Geographic Terms: | New York (New York), Singapore |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10833-021-09419-1 |
| ISSN: | 1573-1812 |
| Abstract: | This paper compares the evolution of two initiatives--one in Singapore and one in New York City--designed expressly to support the development and spread of new and innovative school models. These two initiatives--Future Schools in Singapore and the iZone in New York City--reflected the hope that new school models and associated innovations could be incubated and then replicated to help create system-wide conditions that would allow new approaches to schooling to emerge. Despite dramatically different system contexts--in terms of governance, politics and professional capacity--we show how both initiatives have to deal with basic institutional, political and societal conditions that sustain conventional educational practice. We focus particularly on how common factors like capacity demands, frequent changes in policies and emerging technologies create opportunities for the development of some new resources and practices even as they reinforce many aspects of the conventional "grammar of schooling." Although this analysis emphasizes common challenges for developing more "innovative" approaches to schooling, we highlight as well the often-unanticipated developments that contribute to smaller scale innovations and incremental change. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2022 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1333540 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHs8NaVZies7s2xF8nFW6kQAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPY9uYE11KToHuq22AIBEICBm9iKb6zYvkRjtNsjvAw17IvdwQG9sc-JH2pp-rG9ciLFcRvKpKcNPUwtkTzWp3d2eruPJ0bgj0nPV3hbBNeTTy55YMUR2U4M8udQt0XLe7gOBkZrrBYE3fYgQbaJfOQA5UhcsNalOxNvK0x2knX8m-NRAUFgix4ulm02I5M-FKzv8HcOPToONdKNHNj_ejngFHS_hWoGydCL0ttd Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0156496538;9m301may.22;2022Apr27.06:07;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0156496538-1">New schools in New York City and Singapore </title> <p>This paper compares the evolution of two initiatives—one in Singapore and one in New York City—designed expressly to support the development and spread of new and innovative school models. These two initiatives—Future Schools in Singapore and the iZone in New York City—reflected the hope that new school models and associated innovations could be incubated and then replicated to help create system-wide conditions that would allow new approaches to schooling to emerge. Despite dramatically different system contexts—in terms of governance, politics and professional capacity—we show how both initiatives have to deal with basic institutional, political and societal conditions that sustain conventional educational practice. We focus particularly on how common factors like capacity demands, frequent changes in policies and emerging technologies create opportunities for the development of some new resources and practices even as they reinforce many aspects of the conventional "grammar of schooling." Although this analysis emphasizes common challenges for developing more "innovative" approaches to schooling, we highlight as well the often-unanticipated developments that contribute to smaller scale innovations and incremental change.</p> <p>Keywords: Educational reform; Educational policy; School improvement; System change; Innovation; Educational technology</p> <hd id="AN0156496538-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Innovation can exist at the edges of every organization, whether in a particular department, set of students, or physical location. Focus on these areas where change is blossoming rather than despair about the immovable core and leverage external resources from the surrounding ecosystem of tools and organizations for support. (Hagel et. al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref1">10</reflink>], p. 27)</p> <p>After the turn of the 21st Century, efforts to create new and more innovative schools took off in both Singapore and New York City. Although the efforts to create Future Schools in Singapore and iZone schools in New York City are rooted in very different system contexts, they have followed a similar trajectory. In each case, initiatives to foster innovation began with funding dedicated to the development of new schools and policies that provided some flexibility and support to encourage those schools to develop innovative practices and structures. These initiatives reflected the hope that these new school models and their innovations incubated in a protected "niche" (or "marginal space") could be replicated and scaled and could help create the system-wide conditions that would allow new educational approaches to emerge. In both systems, some new schools with some unconventional practices were established, but, over time, the focus for fostering innovation shifted to developing and disseminating new resources, tools and practices across already existing schools.</p> <p>In this paper, we compare the evolution of the Future Schools initiative in Singapore and the iZone in New York City to explore common factors like capacity demands, frequent changes in policies and changing societal conditions that both create opportunities for the development of some new resources and practices even as they reinforce many aspects of the conventional grammar of schooling.</p> <hd id="AN0156496538-3">Theoretical framework</hd> <p>Tyack and Cuban ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref2">49</reflink>]) contend that many educational reform efforts that seek to transform learning opportunities end-up conforming to the "grammar of schooling" and contributing to incremental changes across schools or subsets of schools. That grammar is characterized by the "egg-crate" structure of schools that separates students into different grades and classrooms, where they learn discrete subjects from individual teachers who rely on teacher-directed forms of instruction with outcomes measured by grades and test scores. Although Tyack and Cuban's argument is sometimes interpreted as saying that the grammar of schooling has never changed, their work helps to explain what does change: why some reform initiatives do take hold and how those reforms themselves change over time (or as they put it how "schools change reforms"). For example, they illustrate how elementary schools changed with the wide scale adoption of kindergartens, but they note that adoption took place slowly—with 7 percent of five-year-olds enrolled in kindergarten in 1900, 38 percent in 1950 and 60 percent in 1970. Further, they argue that kindergartens were able to take hold because they could be "added-on" and adapted to the predominant structures and practices of conventional age-graded elementary school. At the same time, reformers initial claims that kindergarten would be an "antidote" to the traditional school dropped away (Tyack and Cuban [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref3">49</reflink>], p. 69).</p> <p>Cohen and Mehta ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref4">3</reflink>]) extend Tyack and Cuban's analysis by stressing some of the substantial changes that have been made in schooling in the US. To illustrate their position, they point to the creation and widespread adoption of "mass-enrolled" elementary education at the end of the 19th Century and of "mass-enrolled" secondary education at the beginning of the 20th Century. They also concede that these kinds of system-wide changes have not contributed to the development of what they call more "lively, challenging and intellectually-engaging" teaching and learning. Nonetheless, they argue that key aspects of schooling in the US allow for the development of alternative educational approaches in some specialized circumstances or "niches". As Cohen and Mehta put it, when reforms like the Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate program succeeded "it was because they found or created bounded educational and political territories in which they could thrive" (Cohen and Mehta [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref5">3</reflink>], p. 647). Although these "niche" reforms meet the needs of specialized populations and conditions, these alternatives can also be difficult to spread beyond their bounded territories, limiting their impact on conventional structures and practices system-wide. Several factors contribute to the prevalence of niche reforms on the one hand and the slow pace of systemwide changes in the US on the other (See Table 1): the decentralized organization of schooling; the limited infrastructure and support for teaching as a profession (Cohen et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref6">4</reflink>]); the "loose-coupling" between policies and instructional practices (Elmore [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>]); constant changes in the support of funders and other "policy elites" and in the policies and politics governing schools (Cohen and Mehta [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref8">3</reflink>]); and weak connections between institutions and organizations in education and those in other sectors of society.</p> <p>Table 1 Key characteristics of the education systems in the US and Singapore</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;US&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Singapore&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Decentralized system, vulnerable to politics&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;A more centralized system with government controlled by one party&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;"Loose-coupling" between policies and instructional practices&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;"Tight"-coupling between the Ministry of Education &amp; schools&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Weak system capacity, inadequate infrastructure &amp; limited support for teaching as a profession&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Higher system capacity in a country seen as valuing education &amp; treating teaching as a profession&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Weak connections between institutions and organizations in education and those in other sectors&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Deliberate, planful connections between education, the economy, technology, health and other sectors&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>In Singapore, conditions are vastly different: schools are part of a much smaller, centralized, "tightly-coupled" education system (OECD [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref9">38</reflink>]) under the control of a single Ministry of Education (MOE); in a political system controlled by one party; with a much more robust infrastructure to support all schools; in a country recognized as valuing education and treating teaching as a profession; in a system that makes deliberate connections between education, the economy, health and other sectors (Ng [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref10">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite these differences, however, it is not clear that these conditions provide a more supportive context for rapid, system-wide developments that challenge the conventional grammar of schooling or typical instructional practices. Schools and educators in both contexts depend on the established infrastructure of materials, resources, expertise and relationships that limit possibilities for pursuing entirely different educational approaches; they remain subject to the many political changes and the "churn" of policies that can undermine new initiatives; and they cannot escape from the broader institutional and societal conditions that make it difficult to plan for and sustain work over the long-term. Taken together, these challenges reinforce a focus on increasing efficiency of current practices rather than on the exploration and development of new ideas. While such "exploitation" of conventional practices can lead to incremental improvements, it can also leave the organization unprepared for the challenges of a turbulent environment and discourage organizations from taking the kinds of risks that can help them to adapt, expand or just sustain new initiatives (Leavitt et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref11">24</reflink>]; March [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref12">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this paper, we look at the role of these features in explaining how the Future Schools initiative in Singapore and the iZone efforts in NYC change and evolve over time. In the process, we explore how and why many aspects of the "grammar" of schooling persist in these two very different contexts even as some incremental improvements are made and some new practices emerge. Although this analysis highlights common challenges for developing more "innovative" approaches to schooling in each context, we highlight as well the new and often unanticipated, developments that contribute to both change and stability in schooling.</p> <hd id="AN0156496538-4">Background and methods</hd> <p>This theory-building study draws from a larger comparative examination of the evolving approaches to assessing schools and holding them accountable for their performance in Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, Singapore and the United States (with a focus on New York City). For this paper, we concentrate on Singapore and New York City because policymakers in both contexts devoted significant resources to creating new schools around the same time (2008), but many other aspects of these two systems are strikingly different. One system encompasses a city; the other serves a city-state. New York City is part of a "lower-performing" education system while Singapore is one of the highest-performing education systems in the world (as measured by international tests such as the Program for International Student Assessment [PISA] and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study [TIMMS]). New York City is part of a larger decentralized state and federal education system that experiences frequent changes in leaders and party leadership. Singapore has a centralized education system overseen by a government led by the same party since Singapore became self-governing in 1959.</p> <p>Historically, shortly after the turn of the 19th Century, New York City's education system, like other large urban systems in the United States coalesced into the kind of "one best system" (Tyack [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref13">48</reflink>]) and took on the familiar structures of the grammar of schooling that continue to characterize many students' school experiences. Nonetheless, in the last quarter of the 20th Century, New York City has also developed a notable tradition of creating alternative schools and more recently new "small" schools that depart from the conventional model (McDonald et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref14">27</reflink>]). After the turn of the 21st Century, changes in the governance of New York City schools have also taken place as then mayor Michael Bloomberg was granted control of the schools and subsequently shifted authority from district superintendents to principals and created new mechanisms for holding schools accountable for improving students' performance (O'Day et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref15">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Demonstrating the substantial changes that can be made in education systems, Singapore created a comprehensive public system of universal education out of a disparate set of English, Chinese, Tamil and Malay schools that previously served only respective portions of the population. In tight coordination with the development of Singapore's economic policy, that system evolved relatively rapidly (OECD [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref16">38</reflink>]). With expenditures on education averaging 23% of the total government budget between 1959 and 1967, new schools were created, free textbooks were distributed, new teachers were hired and universal lower-secondary education (the rough equivalent of middle school in the U.S.) was achieved by 1970. Nonetheless, Singapore's education system has also seen further, significant changes in design and emphasis (Goh et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref17">9</reflink>]): From 1959 to1978, in a "survival-driven" phase, policies sought to create a common, comprehensive education system as a key step in national economic survival. From 1978 to1997, in an "efficiency-driven" phase, policies focused on creating a more efficient system in which students could progress through three "streams" to allow students to progress at an accelerated, normal, or slower pace more suited to their abilities. From 1997 to 2011, in an "ability-driven" phase, policies aimed to increase the quality of education for all students by giving them greater flexibility and choice of educational programs that correspond with their abilities. By 2011, however, policies shifted again to emphasize supporting students' holistic development and twenty-first century competencies and ushered in a "student-centric, values-driven phase." (OECD [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref18">39</reflink>]). This continuing focus on 21st Century competencies seeks to "enable our young to capitalise on the rich opportunities of the new digital age, while keeping a strong Singapore heartbeat" (Singapore Ministry of Education [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref19">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>In order to track the development of the recent new schools initiatives in these different historical, political and educational contexts, we reviewed peer-reviewed literature and publicly available materials such as newspaper articles related to the new schools initiatives in New York City and Singapore and examined publicly available documents on the websites of the New York City Department of Education (DOE) and the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Singapore that described their policies and their new schools initiatives. We supplemented this review with 6–8 interviews with policymakers, educators and researchers in each context who were involved in or studied these initiatives. Interview subjects held a range of positions, but all had extensive experience with and knowledge of these initiatives and their development. The interviews were semi-structured, focusing on the interviewees background, their role in the new school related initiatives, the challenges they faced in carrying out that role and what they learned in the process. Analysis of documents and interviews centered on the goals of the initiatives, their resources and strategies, related regulations and expectations and outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0156496538-5">From new school replication to the dissemination of new resources and practices</hd> <p>At the turn of the 21st Century, the school systems in Singapore and New York City, in some ways, seemed to be headed in different directions. In Singapore, the MOE sought to find ways to loosen some bureaucratic constraints to provide more opportunities for educational innovation and to address growing concerns that Singapore's schools and students were too focused on academics. In New York City, when billionaire Michael Bloomberg became mayor and subsequently gained control over New York City's schools in 2002, he first sought to centralize some functions. Those efforts included mandating curriculum in elementary reading and mathematics and consolidating the City's 32 community school districts into ten instructional regions and six regional support centers (Hill [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref20">16</reflink>]). Soon, however, both Singapore's MOE and New York City's DOE placed big bets on starting new and unconventional schools as a key means of creating more innovative education systems. Those efforts reflected a theory of action developed in the movements to "restructure" schools and create "comprehensive" reform at the end of the 20th Century. That theory of action responded to the challenges of making improvements in one aspect of schooling at a time by suggesting that improving schools requires comprehensive changes in areas like curriculum, assessment, professional development and school organization and management all at once (Carnegie Forum on Education et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>]). To facilitate the development of those new schools, the MOE in Singapore and Bloomberg and Joel Klein, the Chancellor of the New York City DOE at the time, also sought to reduce bureaucratic demands and increase flexibility for school leaders to encourage them to develop alternatives to conventional educational practices. In the remainder of this section, we provide an overview of a key initiative related to new schools in each context—the Future Schools initiative in Singapore and the iZone in New York City (See Table 2)—and discuss some of the key factors that explain how those initiatives evolved.</p> <p>Table 2 Evolution of new schools initiatives in Singapore &amp; New York City</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;From Future Schools to eduLab in Singapore&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;From new iZone schools to new institutes &amp; challenges in New York City&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;Earlier "new schools" initiative&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;Earlier "new schools" initiatives&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;"Incubator schools" (2003)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;New Century High Schools (2002); Closing large high schools &amp; opening new small high schools (2002); Office of New Schools (2004)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;Future schools (2008)&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;iZone incubates new school models (2009)&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Create new "Future Schools" that leverage ICT and innovation to support 21&lt;sup&gt;st&lt;/sup&gt; Century skills and engaged learning&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Create/incubate development of new school models that use technology and personalized learning to support the development of 21st Century skills&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Create 15 different school models to serve as "peaks of excellence" of a new model of learning&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Create hundreds of schools based on dramatically new approaches to instruction&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5 Future schools created in 2008; 3 additional schools created by 2015 when funding ended&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Over 80 new schools by 2011&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;eduLab (2011)&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;iZone shifts to focus on institutes &amp; services (2012)&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Request for proposal process to a) support partnerships between teachers, researchers and technology specialists in developing new tools and practices b) achieve wide adoption of multiple "ground-up" ICT innovations across the system&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Development of resources and services to help teachers and edtech developers create more student-centered classrooms across all schools&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Multiple products shared across over 100 schools through the Academy of Singapore Teachers by 2016&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Creation of Blended Learning Institute, Gap App challenge; School of One school model becomes Teach to One Math, a personalized math curriculum&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Final call for eduLab proposals in 2017, after which funding ended&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;iZone programs continue but moved to IT division to support technology use across the system in 2014&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" /&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Office of New Schools transformed into Office of School Design and Charter Partnerships in 2015&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0156496538-6">From new schools to eduLab in Singapore</hd> <p>Since the launch of the "Thinking Schools, Learning Nation" campaign in 1997 and as centralization waned while Singapore entered the ability phase (Hung et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref22">17</reflink>]), Singapore has pursued a series of initiatives to promote more innovative instruction that: provides "(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref23">1</reflink>) more opportunities for constructing knowledge, higher-order thinking and innovation; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>) more meaningful use of information and communication technologies (ICT) for teaching and learning; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref25">3</reflink>) more time on interdisciplinary learning and a greater emphasis on knowledge application." (Deng et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref26">6</reflink>]). With this approach:schools in Singapore are now tasked to develop themselves into excellent schools. They are given more autonomy so that they can be flexible and responsive to the needs of their students. Moreover, the government now encourages diversity in the education system so as to create diverse pathways for different sorts of students. Principals are thus encouraged to think of themselves as the CEO of their schools. They are to lead their staff, manage the school systems and produce educational innovations (Ng et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref27">34</reflink>], p. 489).</p> <hd id="AN0156496538-7">Incubator schools and future schools</hd> <p>The Thinking Schools, Learning Nation approach included initiatives to provide teachers and schools with the autonomy to innovate. These included policies that reduced the amount of time devoted to content-coverage and created "white space" in the national curriculum and time in the schedule with the goal of encouraging educators to develop their own unique courses and learning opportunities. These "white space" initiatives, however, had to deal with the fact that individual teachers have limited time and access to the kinds of new tools, technologies and support that can help them to take advantage of any flexibility to develop new ideas and practices. To address concerns like these, in 2003, the Singapore MOE began an "incubator schools scheme" that supported seven schools in taking a "whole-school" approach to supporting the use of ICT and the development of innovative practices. Subsequently, in 2008, Singapore launched the Future Schools program with a focus "on innovative teaching approaches that leverage fully on ICT and novel school infrastructure designs to bring about more engaged learning for their students" (Hung et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref28">18</reflink>]). The goal was to create fifteen different school models by 2015 that could serve as "peaks of excellence in an ability-driven education paradigm" and that could "seed, scale and sustain innovative practices in schools" (Koh [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref29">22</reflink>], p. 186).</p> <p>The Future Schools Programme was jointly funded by the National Research Foundation (NRF), the Ministry of Education and the infocomm development authority (IDA). Between 2008 and 2012, $80 million was invested in the first five Future Schools. Two of those five began as entirely new schools – Beacon Primary School and the School of Science and Technology – while the others were existing schools, including several of the highest performing schools in Singapore – Hwa Chong Institution and Crescent Girls School.</p> <hd id="AN0156496538-8">eduLab and the development and sharing of innovative practice</hd> <p>Within four years, however, there were already signs of change. Even though original plans called for the creation of 15 different future schools, only three more Future Schools were established before the program ended in 2015. At that point, the Future Schools funding ended, with little mention of the original plans for replication of the Future Schools. Furthermore, as the investment in creating and replicating whole school models wound down and in conjunction with the shift from the "ability-focused" phase to the "student-centric, values centered" phase, Singapore invested heavily in new means of developing and sharing innovative teaching practices across all schools to support students' 21st Century competences. In particular, in 2011, just three years after the launch of the Future Schools initiative, MOE, in coordination with the National Institute of Education (NIE), launched eduLab. eduLab was established to develop "ground-up" "ICT innovations for learning that could be adopted or adapted by different teachers and schools across the system" (ICT Connection [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref30">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>As part of its work, eduLab participated in the development and sharing of tools and resources piloted in the Future Schools. From the beginning, however, eduLab sought to cast a wider net and encouraged teachers, researchers and MOE staff to work together to develop and share their ideas. To that end, eduLab created a request for proposals process that invited applicants to develop projects that "feature an ICT-based innovation which supports teaching and learning practices in the classroom and beyond with a view towards wide adoption in a sustainable manner as an end goal" (NIE [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref31">32</reflink>]). Through a call-for-proposals process, eduLab then funded a wide variety of these projects, published results and resources and shared them with schools across the system.</p> <p>In short, although the Future Schools continued to serve students, the efforts to build on and expand them systematically as centers for innovation ended. In contrast, by placing eduLab within the Academy of Singapore Teachers (also created in 2011), eduLab's projects took a central place among the efforts of Academy staff to support the diffusion of new tools and practices among many teachers by facilitating workshops and fostering subject and theme-based communities of practice. In 2016, the Acting Minister of Education (Schools) noted that by that time, 44 different projects produced through eduLab had been shared across 111 schools (Singapore MOE [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref32">43</reflink>]). A final call for eduLab proposals went out in 2017, before funding for eduLab ended as well.</p> <hd id="AN0156496538-9">From incubating new schools to supporting development and diffusion of new practices in New Y...</hd> <p>Mayor Bloomberg's systemic efforts to create and replicate new schools in New York City built explicitly on the small schools movement growing across the US and in New York City at the time (Hatch et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref33">13</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref34">1</reflink>] By the turn of the 20th Century, small schools like Central Park East in New York City were already recognized as pioneering new structures and practices and local organizations like New Visions for Public Schools were already involved in creating and supporting the development of small schools of all kinds (McDonald et. al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref35">27</reflink>]). In fact, right before Bloomberg took office in 2002, the New Century High Schools initiative began the process of developing 75 new small high schools throughout the City (New Visions [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref36">33</reflink>]). The New Century High Schools was a partnership created by some of the leading representatives of the local and national "policy elites" in the US at the time. The Gates Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation and the Open Society Institute funded the initiative and New Visions – one of the largest educational reform organizations in the City – carried it out with the support of the local teachers union, the union of school administrators and the New York City Department of Education.</p> <hd id="AN0156496538-10">Incubating new school models in New York City</hd> <p>It did not take long for Bloomberg and Klein to take advantage of the new small schools work going on in New York City. In fact, Bob Hughes (then President of New Visions and now a Director at the Gates Foundation) remembered an offhand, but specific invitation, when he first met Klein at the opening of one of New Century's small high schools in 2002:[I]t's a beautiful day and he sees what we're doing," recalls Hughes, who had taken the top job at New Visions in 2000, "and he turns to me and he says, 'Can you create 200 more of these?' I said, 'Sure,' because you always say 'Yes' to the new chancellor (quoted in Meyer [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref37">29</reflink>], para 15).</p> <p>Building on the momentum and the model of the New Century initiative, Bloomberg and Klein, then launched the DOE's effort to close 16 large high schools and replace them with 150 new small high schools (Kemple [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref38">21</reflink>]). The DOE soon institutionalized new school creation by establishing an Office of New Schools in 2004. Launched as a public–private partnership supported in part by 100 million dollars from philanthropists, foundations and private companies, that office developed an application process and offered technical assistance to those who sought to open new schools and to those running new schools (Partnership for New York City [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref39">40</reflink>]). Over the next four years, this work on new schools in New York City took place in a context in which the NYC DOE made a series of significant policy changes (the "Children First" reforms), including creating an "empowerment" zone that gave schools and principal some autonomy in decision-making in return for accountability for making improvements in outcomes, primarily measured through test scores (O'Day et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref40">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Not entirely satisfied with the pace of change over that period, however, about the same time that Singapore established the Future Schools project, in 2009, the NYC DOE began work on the iZone. As the initial report on the iZone put it, "The iZone was born out of frustration among NYC Department of Education (DOE) reformers who, after eight years of reforms known as "Children First," were only able to accomplish what they view as significant but incremental improvement" (Lake et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref41">23</reflink>], p. 2). The iZone (short for innovation zone) was created to incubate and "produce hundreds of schools in NYC that are based on dramatically new approaches to instruction." The schools were to achieve "breakthrough results by harnessing technology, altering the use of staffing structures and time, adopting much more rigorous standards for student work and creating highly personalized environments" (Lake et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref42">23</reflink>], p. 1) This meant, as then-Deputy Chancellor of Talent, Labor and Innovation John White put it, "reimagining schooling by treating time, space and human capital as variables, instead of constants, in the educational equation" (Lake et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref43">23</reflink>], p. 1) – very much, a mission of overturning the conventional grammar of schooling.</p> <p>Key early initiatives included the development of School of One and the founding of iSchool. School of One was a math program for middle schoolers that used an algorithm to provide students with quizzes, games and worksheets matched to their learner profile and progress (Lake et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref44">23</reflink>]; Medina [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref45">28</reflink>]). iSchool was a new school designed explicitly to reimagine the possibilities for all aspects of twenty-first century learning and served as a reference point for a pilot of the development of iZone schools. Like iSchool, each iZone school was to have the freedom to define what personalized learning meant to them and to set their vision for the next three-five years. In 2009, iZone recruited school leaders who were passionate about personalized learning and who promised to transform their schools around their own visions of a student-centered education. In 2010–2011, it provided financial, technical and professional support to enable 81 pilot schools to experiment with a variety of personalized learning options from online credit recovery to project-based learning.</p> <hd id="AN0156496538-11">Institutes, challenges and networks for developing and sharing new practices</hd> <p>By the 2012–2013 school year, iZone was already shifting its focus away from developing comprehensive school models. Instead, iZone began a new series of programmatic initiatives designed to work directly with teachers and edtech developers to help them create more personalized and student-centered classrooms. These initiatives included the Gap App Challenge and other competitions to spur innovation in which teachers worked alongside developers to design products for their classrooms. iZone also developed the Blended Learning Institute, a two-year certificate program that provided professional development in instruction and classroom management unique to personalized learning. Although School of One originally planned to develop personalized learning models in several subjects, by 2012 it had spun out of iZone, into its own non-profit, New Classrooms. At that time, School of One was rechristened "Teach to One: Math," a program offered to schools in Washington D.C. and Chicago, as well as New York City.</p> <p>In 2014, when a new mayor, Bill de Blasio and Chancellor of the DOE, Carmen Fariña, took over, the iZone unit focusing on the development of new schools was officially dissolved and many of iZone's staff were transferred to the IT Division, "subsumed within one of the offices whose behavior it had sought to change," according to a former iZone leader. There was also significant scaling down of staff, from executive directors to implementation managers who work in the field providing direct support to schools. Several different programs continued, however, including Teach to One: Math, the Blended Learning Institute, some design challenges and "Affinity Groups," which offered a space for small groups of educators to gather around shared challenges. One former iZone leader observed that "[I]n essence, [we] returned to a narrower focus on classroom technology, a focus we had sought to go beyond." Beyond iZone, the shift away from new schools was also evident in the renaming of the Office of New Schools as the Office of School Design and Charter Partnerships (OSDCP) in 2015. Although still responsible for new school creation, the office no longer takes applications from these seeking to lead and create new schools and instead decides when to create new schools "based on community need." The launch of de Blasio and Fariña's own signature initiatives also reflected a shift away from the theory that closing failing schools and opening new ones could "turnaround" the system. Instead, the DOE under Fariña created initiatives to facilitate the sharing of "best practices" across schools and created a "Renewal Schools" program to support improvements in 94 of the lowest performing schools. In launching, those initiatives, the DOE declared that their new approach would rethink "how we support and improve struggling schools and how to ensure that all school leaders can learn from the good practices used by schools across our system" (NYC DOE [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref46">21</reflink>] p. 1).</p> <hd id="AN0156496538-12">The role of infrastructure, politics and technology in the shifting landscape of educational...</hd> <p>In the first decade of the 21st Century, both Singapore and New York City launched initiatives to create new schools to establish alternatives to the conventional grammar of schooling and serve as a foundation for transforming education; but by the second decade those initiatives had morphed into efforts that concentrated on developing and disseminating innovative practices that could be incorporated into conventional schools. On one level, this shift can be seen as a reflection of constantly changing hopes and expectations of policymakers and other education leaders. From this perspective, if policymakers could have just stayed the course a little longer perhaps more new schools and alternative models could have been created. On another level, however, the fact that these policies shifted can be seen as a predictable consequence of factors that support the exploitation of conventional practices over the widespread development of more radical alternatives. Despite the considerable differences between these two educational systems, three key factors help to create some common conditions that make it difficult to transform conventional structures of schooling more quickly. First, the extensive infrastructure that changing long-standing instructional practices and school structures requires often exceeds existing capabilities. That infrastructure includes funding and materials (or what can be termed "technical capital") as well as the personnel and expertise ("human capital") needed to use funding and materials effectively and the relationships and trust that facilitate the sharing of information, growth of collective expertise and development of common commitment ("social capital") central to deep and lasting change (Hatch et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref47">14</reflink>]; Cohen et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref48">4</reflink>]; Spillane et. al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref49">45</reflink>]). Second, the quickly changing interests of policy elites and the often rapid changes in policies and politics makes it difficult to sustain attention and investment in building that infrastructure; and, third, the turbulent and unpredictable changes in societal conditions make it difficult to anticipate what kinds of initiatives will be needed in the long-term.</p> <hd id="AN0156496538-13">The demands for a new infrastructure for "innovation"</hd> <p>The design of both the Future Schools and the iZone reflected a long-standing view that schools lack the capacity to make substantial changes to their structures and practices but that the capacity to make those changes can be mobilized if the right sources, resources and partners—the best teachers, the proven practices, the right intermediaries, the effective technologies—can be found (Hatch [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref50">11</reflink>]). In both cases, the MOE and DOE sought to build the capacity of new schools by enabling them to form relationships with industry partners presumed to provide access to the knowledge and resources needed to take advantage of the latest technologies that could help "disrupt" the conventional grammar of schooling. In turn, the partnerships were intended to give technology companies opportunities to explore and pilot new resources, tools and technologies that they might be able to commercialize for use by many schools.</p> <p>These partnerships contributed to the development of a number of new resources and practices that may well never have been created otherwise. Among the Future Schools, for example, Canberra Primary School, working with Singtel, established an immersive laboratory that provided computers whereby students could explore a variety of virtual learning environments. Educators at Nan Chau Primary School and a researcher at the National Institute of Education used equipment and support from Qualcomm and Microsoft to create mobile learning platforms that helped students learn Chinese idioms.</p> <p>iZone schools also benefitted by building on or "borrowing" capacity (Hatch et. al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref51">12</reflink>]; Elmore [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref52">7</reflink>]) from a wide range of companies and other partners. For example, iZone could never have been launched without considerable initial funding from federal grants (including i3 "investing in innovation" grants) and private foundations (including the Cisco Foundation and Ford Foundation); without the resources of a host of technology related companies (including Compass Learning, Pearson SuccessMakers and Time to Know); and without the expertise of a number of intermediaries already engaged in new school development in New York City (including New Tech Network, Reinventing Schools Coalition, Kunkappskolan and New Visions) (Phillips [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref53">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Even the considerable support of these partners, however, could not adequately address the capacity challenges that affected both initiatives. The Beacon Elementary School in Singapore, for example, developed a digital story-telling initiative that has become the signature pedagogy within the school (Lim et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref54">25</reflink>]; Melwani et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref55">30</reflink>]). At the same time, the school faced considerable hurdles in creating an interactive virtual environment, one of the three key features of the school's original design (along with a one-to-one computer-student program and the integration into teaching across subjects) (Tay et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref56">46</reflink>]). Even with considerable industry support, costs and logistical challenges meant that the interactive virtual environment never got off the ground.</p> <p>Meanwhile in New York City, even iZone's industrial partners suffered from capacity challenges that limited their ability to support the development and scaling of the technologies that were supposed to help transform teaching and learning in the schools. In fact, the industry partner contracted to create a technology platform that could support efforts to personalize instruction across iZone schools failed to deliver on time and iZone had to marshal further resources to complete the project on its own.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref57">2</reflink>]</p> <p>In order to deal with these capacity challenges, the educators involved in these initiatives in both Singapore and New York City constantly had to make adjustments to deal with the specific conditions in the schools. At the Beacon School in Singapore a number of adaptations had to be made in the one-to-one computer to student program in order to get it to scale across the school. Ultimately, the school adopted what it called a "two-tiered" model that reduced the costs to the school of providing and maintaining the personal devices. That two-tiered model involved shifting to providing 2 computing devices for each student in Primary 1 (first grade) while the school provided the devices for their Primary 2 and 3 students, at Primary 4, students were expected to buy their own. In turn, however, that solution depended on continuing support of a government programme that helped underwrite the one-to-one initiative by subsidizing payments both for the equipment and home internet access for families that did not have the means to pay.</p> <p>The extent of the need for new infrastructure to support the one-to-one initiative was even evident in "small" challenges like the challenge of figuring out how to store and transport the many computing devices Beacon's one-to-one plan relied on. In fact, the school went through four different iterations of the design of a mobile cart – from an initial model that held only six laptops to a version, designed with an industry partner, that holds up to twenty devices and has the capacity to charge and power them at the same time. The cart was such a success that it won an award from the Ministry of Education and became the default design for carts in all schools.</p> <p>In New York City, the new schools also constantly came across challenges where the infrastructure to support new forms of teaching and learning had not yet been established. Thus, as more and more iZone schools used their flexibility to pursue their own online and hybrid learning approaches, iZone staff began to recognize that many teachers and schools lacked the expertise and support they needed to go beyond their reliance on conventional teacher-centered instruction and to teach effectively in these new formats. In response, the iZone developed the Blended Learning Institute, which went on to serve teachers across the system and not just those within the iZone schools.</p> <p>On one level, the fact that the Future Schools like Beacon Primary and iZone were able to make these adjustments and develop resources and programs that benefitted their educators and became available to others across these systems demonstrates extraordinary success. At the same time, the number of challenges these initiatives encountered illustrates the depths of the capacity problems faced by "comprehensive" reform efforts. In particular, all of the efforts to infuse technology productively into students' educational experiences depended on both the Future Schools and the iZone schools ability to maintain a steady supply of teachers with the expertise and motivation to carry out their signature initiatives. For example, Beacon's digital storytelling initiative grew out of the knowledge and expertise of the Beacon teachers (and their edtech partners) who were part of the launch of the school. However, sustaining any initiative like that and spreading it to other schools depended on the development of a lasting infrastructure of materials, professional development experiences and coaching to provide the support that new teachers need to continue to refine that approach and carry it out effectively. In turn, the necessity of building the infrastructure for that digital storytelling initiative or the blended learning practices in the iZone schools diverted time, attention and resources away from the development of other aspects of the comprehensive models and stoked the shift to developing specific practices and programs and disseminating them across schools.</p> <hd id="AN0156496538-14">The constant churn of policies and politics</hd> <p>The developments of the Future Schools and the iZone were both dependent on and subject to, substantial changes in global conditions like the economic expansion of the early 2000′s and the subsequent economic collapse of 2008. In addition, despite the extensive differences in their political systems, the efforts to foster innovation through the creation of new schools in both Singapore and New York City took place within a cascade of constantly shifting set of policies. In Singapore, even with central control, one party in charge and a strategic, long-term approach, changes were being made simultaneously in many aspects of the Singaporean education system. In particular, providing Future Schools with the funding and flexibility to develop their own unique approaches went hand-in-hand with a series of changes that shifted Singapore from a highly centralized system to what Pak Tee Ng ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref58">36</reflink>]) has called a centralized-decentralized system: a system with a strong central strategy but that allows schools to pursue different tactics in carrying out that strategy in ways that meet the specific needs of their student population. Some of the other major policy changes in Singapore included creating more choice and flexibility in the educational pathways or "streams" that students were assigned to. With this change, students could take some subjects at a more advanced level rather than having to take all their subjects at the same level and students could choose to attend newly established high schools that specialized in sports, mathematics and science, science and technology, or the arts. MOE also developed a Master Plan of Awards recognizing achievements, best practices and sustained high performance in areas like character development and national education and established evaluation schemes for recognizing and rewarding individual performance of teachers, leaders and other staff. In 2009, Singapore also developed a new framework for 21<sups>st</sups> Century Competencies that emphasized the development of creative and critical thinking skills and unveiled a new vision for the teaching service. Shortly thereafter, the MOE also established the Academy of Singapore Teachers which drew on many sources for professional development for teachers and served as a hub for the professional development needs of all kinds of schools (and became home to eduLab) (Melwani et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref59">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>By 2012, a new set of initiatives were being introduced that reflected the growing emphasis on values and 21st Century skills in the curriculum and suggested a shift in focus from a few school models that demonstrated "peaks of excellence" to an approach of "every school a good school" (Ng [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref60">36</reflink>]). As described in a speech by the Minister of Education: "We have removed school banding by absolute academic results and stopped the naming of the top PSLE scorers. We are not shying away from excellence but are broadening our definitions of excellence. We will instead recognise Best Practices in the key attributes that contribute to a good school." Among other changes, MOE replaced the Master Plan of Awards that focused on individual achievements with an approach that placed more emphasis on "recognising best practices by schools in delivering a well-rounded education" (Keat [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref61">20</reflink>]; Ng [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref62">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>The effects of politics and changing policies on long-term sustainability of improvement initiatives was particularly apparent in New York City as well. iZone was created amidst a series of major policy changes at the local state and national levels. On the one hand, Bloomberg and Klein's initiatives, like iZone, would never have been created if Bloomberg had not been granted control of the City's school system early in his first term and if he wasn't allowed to run for an unprecedented third term (when iZone took off); and iZone depended for funding on the Investing in Innovation and Race to the Top programs, signature education policies of the Obama administration that themselves were launched in response to the economic meltdown of 2008. However, sustaining that support became more difficult as that funding ran out and as major new state and national priorities emerged. iZone leaders described it as particularly difficult to make the case for innovative student-centered school models against the rollout of the Common Core, which in New York State was accompanied by new teacher evaluation policies that held teachers accountable for their students' performance on high-stakes tests and reinforced conventional classroom practice.</p> <p>iZone's leaders also recognized early on the important role that they would have to play in trying to sustain and deepen the work. As one of the original architects of iZone explained "getting the early success and recognition and building momentum around a vision for personalization so other schools would want to take it on, was always challenging." The challenges entailed by the sheer size of the district made leadership all the more important, but, as in Singapore, devolving some authority to the school level was seen as crucial to developing innovative practices that would challenge the conventional grammar of schooling. Ironically, the shift in authority to the school level meant that the authority of central office administrators—like those who led iZone – had less influence in guiding, sustaining and spreading new practices. Sustaining iZone's work and vision became even more difficult as the end of Bloomberg's third term neared and the inevitable leadership transitions began. In fact, by the middle of the third term, without even knowing whether the next mayor would continue the emphasis on new schools, key iZone leaders began to leave. When Joel Klein resigned as Chancellor of the DOE in the middle of the 2010–2011 school year (the same year that iZone launched its initial 81 school pilot effort), the founding leaders of iZone left, convinced that the incoming Chancellor lacked the commitment necessary to carry out iZone's mission. Predictably, another wave of turnovers in iZone leadership came when the de Blasio administration took over and rolled back many of the signature reforms of the Bloomberg/Klein era.</p> <hd id="AN0156496538-15">The changes from platform-based to cloud-based technologies</hd> <p>Even with the considerable support of industry partners from the technology sectors, the efforts of new schools in Singapore and New York City to take advantage of new technologies were also undermined by the considerable and often unpredictable changes in the nature of the technologies themselves. Both the Future Schools and iZone initiatives were launched amidst a major technological shift from platform-based to cloud-based computing. When the infrastructure to support wireless and ubiquitous computing was developing in the late 1990′s and 2000′s, schools and systems were focused on getting equipment and building "platforms" to host their online activities. In that context, schools often faced multiple and competing bids from companies who could provide a "one-stop" solution with the expectation that the school, teachers and students would adapt their activities to the chosen platform, computer system (primarily Windows or Mac), or technology (e.g. interactive whiteboards). In that process, millions of dollars were spent on those computers, computer labs, other hardware and online platforms.</p> <p>Then the technological landscape changed in ways that rendered obsolete the whole school approaches that the Future Schools and iZone set out to create. Even as the whole school approaches were developing, students and teachers were starting to use a variety of different personal devices – laptops, desktops, iPads, kindles, mobile phones that many (though certainly not all) could bring from home. They could use those devices to access a wide range of applications developed by individuals as well as not-for-profit and commercial companies. In this context, schools faced an entirely different set of challenges and opportunities for creating comprehensive approaches to using technology to create alternatives to the structures and practices of conventional schooling. Instead of schools having to decide which set of machines to buy or which platform to adopt and building the capacity for all teachers to take advantage of that choice, teachers could choose. As a result, some teachers were using google classroom; some were using classdojo; some were cobbling together their own mix of tools and apps (and at least in the US thousands were starting to draw on lessons and materials offered by other educators from sites like Teachers Pay Teachers). In this context, schools were freed of some significant hardware and maintenance costs and teachers could get support in addressing specific problems of teaching and learning.</p> <p>This shift from platform and equipment-based ICT to more application-based technology integration also put districts and schools in a different relationship with technology companies. Where schools and districts were once consumers, listening to pitches from tech companies and having to decide which equipment or platform to pick now they had to figure out how to ensure that the many different applications and approaches that teachers might take were aligned to the school's goals and outcomes and were supporting coherent and productive educational experiences for their students. These developments in turn meant that schools needed considerable help in sorting through the growing number of apps, software applications and web-based offerings and encouraged both eduLab and iZone to take on the functions of brokers who could help connect and guide the collaborations of teachers and schools and technology companies.</p> <p>eduLab, for example, went on to serve as a key link between the expertise of teachers and the knowledge in schools and the expertise and resources in the educational technology community. In that role, eduLab helped to facilitate relationships between educators and not-for-profit as well as for-profit companies. These relationships gave teachers access to the latest technologies and allowed those companies access and opportunities to develop and adapt (and in some cases commercialize) products that met the needs of teachers and schools. In one illustration of that process, a chemistry teacher in Singapore noted a problem that many of his upper secondary school students faced: remembering the specific nomenclature used in their beginning chemistry course. In response, the teacher developed a card game in which he found that students learned the vocabulary most effectively when they were involved in discovering the rules that governed the use of the terms. Building on that discovery, the teacher and several colleagues were given funding to pursue an eduLab project that started in 2014. Working with staff from the Ministry and eduLab as part of the team, a comparative study was carried out that demonstrated the benefits of the game. Designs for an app were then developed that enhanced the game with visualizations and that allowed teachers to get data on student performance to inform their instruction. Finally, eduLab worked with local start-up developers to build the app, WriteFormula, which became commercially available (both on iTunes and through Google Play) (Thong et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref63">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>For its part, iZone evolved into an organization that, as it described itself in 2014, "worked with schools, the edtech marketplace and policy makers to design and scale promising learning models that prepare all students for college and careers" (CPRE [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref64">5</reflink>]). Examples of that work included the Short-Cycle Evaluation Challenge, a partnership between East Bronx Academy of the Future and ListenCurrent (a listening comprehension program featuring engaging, relevant content) that resulted in a product that better met the needs of the school's ELL learners and struggling readers.</p> <p>Rather than a whole-sale approach meant to transform teaching and learning across classrooms or schools, inventions like WriteFormula and ListenCurrent serve as "micro-innovations" that provide a specific solution to a common problem (Hatch et. al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref65">14</reflink>]). As a result, now schools in both systems can identify specific problems that address their students' needs and can ask tech companies to produce apps and applications in response. In this scenario, edtech providers have to figure out how to meet local demands and scale, rather than focus first on general issues they believe will scale most quickly – which educators and schools then had to figure out how to adapt to fit their own context.</p> <hd id="AN0156496538-16">Conclusion</hd> <p>The evolution of the Future Schools initiative and eduLab in Singapore and iZone in New York City illustrate the ways in which the structures and practices of school systems after the turn of the 21st Century both change and endure. Future Schools and iZone spawned new schools as well as mobile carts, a digital storytelling pedagogy, WriteFormula, the Blended Learning Institute, Teach to One: Math and a variety of other resources that have been and can continue to be shared across and beyond these education systems.</p> <p>What's more, organizations like eduLab and iZone themselves are playing a new role: helping teachers find the right technology partners; sorting out the qualifications of bidders; evaluating bids; facilitating the development process (with user tests and iterations of the proposed "solution"); negotiating contracts; and dealing with fundamental rights and responsibilities including issues of intellectual property. These kinds of developments may not lead to the rapid spread of alternatives to the structures and instructional practices of conventional schools; but they create opportunities for the development and sharing of educational and technological resources, expertise and practices that never existed before. In this case, the key contributions of the Future Schools and iZone go beyond the novelty of the particular tools and products they helped to spawn and include new means of bringing together the professional expertise and local knowledge that educators have with the technical expertise of those in the edtech community.</p> <p>Shifts in organizational focus also suggest that using the school as a unit to study educational change offers both possibility and limitations. Many of the innovations that persist and the developments of these initiatives in general point to specific resources and tools that are now available for wider use in many different schools, even though the new school models where they were incubated have not been widely replicated.</p> <p>These developments create opportunities for those with expertise in teaching and learning and those with the latest technological expertise and resources to work together to develop activities and structures for learning of specific issues and skills. Like WriteFormula, these new activities and structures may give unconventional approaches such as game-based learning a place in classrooms around the world. Yet, unbundled from comprehensive approaches designed to challenge the grammar of schooling, many of these new activities are likely to continue to be used in the context of conventional schedules, traditional subjects and the other structures and practices that support incremental rather than transformative changes in schooling.</p> <p>Under these conditions it should be no surprise that there is, as Tyack and Cuban put it, "progress and regress"—some steps forward, some steps back and many things that remain the same. The Future Schools have been part of developments in Singapore that include even higher performance on the PISA tests in 2013 than in in 2009, with improvements for "academically-weaker" students in particular. At the same time, Singapore has constantly added new initiatives to support a more holistic education and student-centered pedagogy. In New York City, iZone contributed to the development of over 700 new schools between 2002 and 2012 and over that period graduation rates have risen substantially from 57 percent for students who started high school in 2002 to 73 percent for those who started in 2010 (Mirakhur et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref66">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Nonetheless, in New York City, even after all of these developments, only 21% of students who entered high school in 2007 graduated with a credential indicating they were ready for college-level work (Zimmerman [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref67">50</reflink>]). Furthermore, as one review of the initiatives to produce new schools in New York City concluded: "while the reforms of the past decade appear to "have lifted all boats," the system is still characterized by wide disparities in student outcomes, based on race and socio-economic status" (Kemple [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref68">21</reflink>], p. 52).</p> <p>In Singapore, with all the developments, instruction across the system is still widely recognized as conforming to the grammar of schooling:Notwithstanding multiple reform initiatives to encourage the TSLN's [Thinking Schools, Learning Nation] pedagogical vision, pedagogical practice in Singapore's classrooms has remained largely traditional, directed towards curriculum content delivery and examination performance. There is very little evidence of sustained teaching for higher order thinking, meaningful use of ICT, students' constructing knowledge and interdisciplinary learning (Deng et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref69">6</reflink>] p. 458).</p> <p>All of these developments suggest that it will be valuable to look for opportunities inside and outside school systems to develop and try out new ideas and practices and, where possible, carve out spaces where these can be deepened and sustained. Such an approach to the development of new instructional practices in different sectors and "niches" suggests a different theory of action, however, from the models of replication and scale-up reflected in many reform efforts. Instead of focusing on broad approaches to changing instruction across levels, subjects and contexts, concentrate on creating opportunities for more ambitious and engaged learning in particular situations where those instructional approaches might be most relevant and most likely to take hold. That means that the approach reflected in a "micro-innovation" like a game for learning the terms of chemistry might not be replicated in other subjects or even for other learning goals in chemistry; but developing different tools, materials and services might support more powerful teaching for other goals and different circumstances. In this scenario, scaling the same approaches and materials and transforming education from teacher-centered to student-centered learning is not the point. The challenge is to create more opportunities for students to engage in powerful learning experiences both inside and outside schools and to help students develop the capacity to connect those experiences in meaningful educational pathways.</p> <p>This is an approach that, as Michael Fullan puts it, focuses on helping educators, schools and their partners to "create the conditions for their own success" (Fullan [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref70">8</reflink>]), conditions that over the long-term, may support the development of educational possibilities that exceed the conventional boundaries of the "egg-crate" school and the grammar of schooling. Such an approach can be taken in both decentralized, politically turbulent systems like the US and in more centralized systems like Singapore. But both systems have to deal with basic institutional, political and societal conditions that reinforce conventional practice and make it difficult for alternative approaches to scale and transform the larger system in short periods of time.</p> <hd id="AN0156496538-17">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0156496538-18"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref21" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Carnegie forum on education and the economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. The report of the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. New York: Carnegie Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref24" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Chapman, B. (2014). City schools dumping $95 million computer system for tracking student data. NY Daily News. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/city-schools-dumping-95-million-computer-system-article-1.2012454">www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/city-schools-dumping-95-million-computer-system-article-1.2012454</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref4" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen D, Mehta J. Why reform sometimes succeeds: Understanding the conditions that produce reforms that last. American Educational Research Journal. 2017; 54; 4: 644-690. 10.3102/0002831217700078</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref6" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen D, Spillane J, Peurach D. The dilemmas of educational reform. Educational Researcher. 2018; 47; 3: 204-212. 10.3102/0013189X17743488</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref64" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> CPRE. (2020). External resources: iZone. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.crpe.org/external-resources/izone-nyc">www.crpe.org/external-resources/izone-nyc</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref26" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Deng Z, Gopinathan S. PISA and high-performing education systems: explaining Singapore's education success. Comparative Education. 2016; 52; 4: 449-472. 10.1080/03050068.2016.1219535</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Elmore R. Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Education Review. 1996; 66; 1: 1-26. 10.17763/haer.66.1.g73266758j348t33</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref70" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Fullan, M. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. New York: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref17" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Goh, C. B. &amp; Gopinathan. S. The development of education in Singapore since 1965. In S.K. Lee, C.B. Goh, B. Fredriksen &amp; J.P. Tan (Eds.), Toward a Better Future: Education and Training for Economic Development in Singapore since 1965 (pp. 12–38). Washington DC: The World Bank and the National Institute of Education (NIE) at Nanyang Technological University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hagel, J, Brown, J. S, Mathew, R, Wooll, M, &amp; Tsu, W. (2014). The lifetime learner: A journey through the future of postsecondary education. Deloitte University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hatch T. Innovation at the Core; R&amp;D. Phi Delta Kappan. 2013; 95; 3: 34-38. 10.1177/003172171309500308</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hatch, T, Ahn, M, Ferguson, D, &amp; Rumberger, A. (2019). The role of external support in improving K-3 reading outcomes in New York City. Urban Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hatch, T, Corson, J, van den Berg, S, &amp; Faughey, D. (2017). Improve and innovate? The possibilities and challenges for educational transformation in New York City. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hatch, T, Corson, J, &amp; van den Berg, S. G. (2021). The education we need for a future we can't predict. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hernandez, J. (2009). Web site lets parents track data on students. New York Times. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/education/29aris.html">www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/education/29aris.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill, P. (2011). Leadership and governance in New York City school reform. In J. O'day, C. Bitter, &amp; L. Gomez (Eds.), Education reform in New York City: Ambitious change in the nation's most complex school system (pp. 17–32). Cambridge MA: Harvard Education Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hung, D, Lee, S, &amp; Lim, K. Y. T. (2014). Adaptive in the Singapore education system: From great to excellent. In D. Hung, S. Lee, &amp; K. Y. T. Lim (Eds.), Adaptivity as a transformative disposition: For learning in the 21st century (pp. 247–266). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hung D, Toh Y, Jamaludin A, So H. Innovation becoming trajectories: Leveraging lateral and vertical moves for collaborative diffusion of twenty-first century learning practices. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. 2017; 37; 4: 582-600. 10.1080/02188791.2017.1388213</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> ICT Connection. (2017). eduLab. Retrieved from https://ictconnection.moe.edu.sg/professional-learning/edulab.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keat. (2013). Student-centric, values-driven education: A broad and deep foundation for a lifelong journey [Keynote Address]. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/keynote-address-by-mr-heng-swee-keat--minister-for-education--at-the-ministry-of-education-work-plan-seminar-2013--on-wednesday--25-september-2013-at-915am-at-ngee-ann-polytechnic-convention-centre">www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/keynote-address-by-mr-heng-swee-keat--minister-for-education--at-the-ministry-of-education-work-plan-seminar-2013--on-wednesday--25-september-2013-at-915am-at-ngee-ann-polytechnic-convention-centre</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kemple, J. (2015). High school closures in New York City: Impacts on students' academic outcomes, attendance and mobility. Research Alliance for New York City Schools. Retrieved from https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/media/users/sg158/PDFs/hs_closures/HighSchoolClosuresinNewYorkCity_ResearchAllianceforNYCSChools_pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koh, T, &amp; Lee, S. (2008). Information communication technology in education: Singapore's ICT masterplans 1997–2008. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lake R. &amp; Gross, B. (2011). New York City's iZone. (Working Paper #2011–1). Center on Reinventing Public Education. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/wp%5fcrpe%5fNYCiZone%5fJan11%5f0.pdf">www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/wp%5fcrpe%5fNYCiZone%5fJan11%5f0.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leavitt B, March J. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology. 1988; 14: 319-340. 10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001535</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lim, B. C, &amp; Tay, L. Y. (2013). A reflection of our journey into the future – Sustaining and transferring our practices. In L. Tay &amp; C. Lim (Eds.), Creating holistic technology-enhanced learning experiences (pp. 177–187). Sense Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> March J. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science. 1991; 2; 1: 71-87. 10.1287/orsc.2.1.71</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonald, J. P, &amp; cities and schools research group. (2014). American school reform: What works, what fails and why. University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Medina, J. (2009). Laptop? check. student playlist? check. Classroom of the future? Check. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/education/22school.html">www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/education/22school.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer, R. (2015). New York City's small schools revolution. Education Next. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.educationnext.org/new-york-citys-small-schools-revolution/">www.educationnext.org/new-york-citys-small-schools-revolution/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Melwani, M, Tay, L, &amp; Lim, C. (2018). Digital storytelling as a pedagogy to develop literacy and twenty-first century competencies in a Singapore primary school: Teachers as designers. In G. Oakley (Ed.), Mobile technologies in children's language and literacy (pp. 67–81). Emerald Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mirakhur, Z. &amp; Hill, K. (2018). Persisting students: Exploring the pathways and outcomes of students who don't graduate in four years, but remain enrolled in NYC high schools. The Research Alliance for New York City Schools. Retrieved from: https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/site/research_alliance/2018/05/30/how-have-the-odds-of-graduating-in-four-years-dropping-out-or-persisting-in-nyc-high-schools-changed-over-time/#_ftnref2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National institute of education, Singapore. (2017). eduLab funding programme [website]. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.nie.edu.sg/research/apply-for-grants/edulab-funding-programme">www.nie.edu.sg/research/apply-for-grants/edulab-funding-programme</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> New visions. (2007). Reforming high schools [report]. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.newvisions.org/page/-/Prelaunch%20files/PDFs/NV%20Publications/reforming%5fhigh%5fschools.pdf">www.newvisions.org/page/-/Prelaunch%20files/PDFs/NV%20Publications/reforming%5fhigh%5fschools.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng PT, Chan D. A comparative study of Singapore's school excellence model with Hong Kong's school-based management. International Journal of Educational Management. 2008; 22; 6: 488-505</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng PT. An examination of school leadership in Singapore through the lens of the Fourth Way. Educational Research for Policy &amp; Practice. 2012; 11: 27-34. 10.1007/s10671-011-9114-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng, P. T. (2017). Learning from Singapore: The power of paradoxes. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Day, J. A, Bitter, C. S, &amp; Gomez, L. M. (2011). Education reform in New York City: Ambitious change in the nation's most complex school system. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. (2011). Lessons from PISA for the United States, Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education, OECD Publishing. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.1787/9789264096660-en.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 high performers: Singapore. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-2015-singapore.pdf">www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA-2015-singapore.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Partnership for New York City. (2005). Progress report on New York City school reform. Partnership for New York City.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillips, A. (2010). More schools to experiment with online work, schedule changes. Chalkbeat. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2010/04/14/more-schools-to-experiment-with-online-work-schedule-changes/#.V05W4ZMrJ-V">www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2010/04/14/more-schools-to-experiment-with-online-work-schedule-changes/#.V05W4ZMrJ-V</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singapore Ministry of Education. (2018). 21st century competencies. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/education-system/21st-century-competencies">www.moe.gov.sg/education/education-system/21st-century-competencies</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singapore Ministry of Education. (2016). Speech by Mr Ng Chee Meng, Acting Minister For Education (Schools), At the 5th international conference on teaching and learning with technology on wednesday, 30 March. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/speech-by-mr-ng-chee-meng--acting-minister-for-education-schools--at-the-5th-international-conference-on-teaching-and-learning-with-technology-on-wednesday--30-march">www.moe.gov.sg/news/speeches/speech-by-mr-ng-chee-meng--acting-minister-for-education-schools--at-the-5th-international-conference-on-teaching-and-learning-with-technology-on-wednesday--30-march</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singapore National Library Board. (2018). Thinking schools, learning nation. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP%5f2018-06-04%5f154236.html">http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP%5f2018-06-04%5f154236.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spillane JP, Seelig JL, Blaushild NL, Cohen DK, Peurach DJ. Educational System Building in a Changing Educational Sector: Environment, Organization and the Technical Core. Educational Policy. 2019; 33; 6: 846-881. 10.1177/0895904819866269</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tay LY, Lim CP, Shanthi SJ, Siew K, L. Online software applications for learning: observations from an elementary school. Educational Media International. 2014; 51; 2: 146-161. 10.1080/09523987.2014.924663</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thong, C. H, Pei, X. C, &amp; Kang, Z. (2015). The Making of wRiteFormula: Issues and Considerations for a Chemistry Nomenclature app. Association for the Advancement of Computing. in Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tyack, D. B. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tyack, D, &amp; Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Harvard: Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman, A. (2019). NYC's graduation rate went up in 2018. But the gain may have little to do with student learning. Chalkbeat. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2019/02/06/nycs-graduation-rate-went-up-in-2018-but-the-gain-may-have-little-to-do-with-student-learning/">www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2019/02/06/nycs-graduation-rate-went-up-in-2018-but-the-gain-may-have-little-to-do-with-student-learning/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0156496538-19"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> Bloomberg also sought to encourage the development of charter schools by inviting operators of successful charter networks to launch schools in New York City. We have examined the development of the charter sector in New York City elsewhere (Hatch et. al.[13]). Given space limitations we do not discuss charter school development here.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Far from unique to the iZone, however, the capacity challenges were also evident in many aspects of Bloomberg and Klein's education initiatives. In fact, even major corporations like IBM found themselves unable to meet deadlines and fulfill agreements, undermining the development of a data-system (ARIS) envisioned as a critical ingredient in the DOE's strategy of granting schools autonomy in return for accountability.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Thomas Hatch; Jordan Corson and Sarah Gerth van den Berg</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref67"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1333540 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: New Schools in New York City and Singapore – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hatch%2C+Thomas%22">Hatch, Thomas</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6840-4106">0000-0001-6840-4106</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Corson%2C+Jordan%22">Corson, Jordan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22van+den+Berg%2C+Sarah+Gerth%22">van den Berg, Sarah Gerth</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Educational+Change%22"><i>Journal of Educational Change</i></searchLink>. May 2022 23(2):199-220. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 22 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2022 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Education%22">Comparative Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Innovation%22">Educational Innovation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Development%22">Educational Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Urban+Schools%22">Urban Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Governance%22">Governance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Capacity+Building%22">Capacity Building</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Practices%22">Educational Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22New+York+%28New+York%29%22">New York (New York)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Singapore%22">Singapore</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1007/s10833-021-09419-1 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1573-1812 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: This paper compares the evolution of two initiatives--one in Singapore and one in New York City--designed expressly to support the development and spread of new and innovative school models. These two initiatives--Future Schools in Singapore and the iZone in New York City--reflected the hope that new school models and associated innovations could be incubated and then replicated to help create system-wide conditions that would allow new approaches to schooling to emerge. Despite dramatically different system contexts--in terms of governance, politics and professional capacity--we show how both initiatives have to deal with basic institutional, political and societal conditions that sustain conventional educational practice. We focus particularly on how common factors like capacity demands, frequent changes in policies and emerging technologies create opportunities for the development of some new resources and practices even as they reinforce many aspects of the conventional "grammar of schooling." Although this analysis emphasizes common challenges for developing more "innovative" approaches to schooling, we highlight as well the often-unanticipated developments that contribute to smaller scale innovations and incremental change. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2022 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1333540 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1333540 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s10833-021-09419-1 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 22 StartPage: 199 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries Type: general – SubjectFull: Comparative Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Innovation Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Development Type: general – SubjectFull: Models Type: general – SubjectFull: Urban Schools Type: general – SubjectFull: Governance Type: general – SubjectFull: Capacity Building Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Practices Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Change Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Policy Type: general – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education Type: general – SubjectFull: New York (New York) Type: general – SubjectFull: Singapore Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: New Schools in New York City and Singapore Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Hatch, Thomas – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Corson, Jordan – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: van den Berg, Sarah Gerth IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 05 Type: published Y: 2022 Identifiers: – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1573-1812 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 23 – Type: issue Value: 2 Titles: – TitleFull: Journal of Educational Change Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
